New Rule - Promoting Terrorism

[Tiberius]

Please be advised the staff have implemented a new rule:

Promoting Terrorism

Posts supporting or promoting known terrorist groups currently in operation, whether religious or otherwise, will not be tolerated. What constitutes support or promotion of known terrorist groups is up to staff discretion. Please use your best judgment when reporting these types of posts.

Thanks!

AF Staff

[Fireball]

Is this a preemptive measure or did I miss something?

[ignoramus]

So no more threats towards the WLB

I think Min's gonna get bored quickly...

[AFTT47]

Yeah, I'd say that's a wise policy.

I am personally sympathetic to Greenpeace and PETA while recognizing that some of their activities may be considered by some to cross the line into terrorism.

This is a symptom of how polarized we have become.

We were previously concerned about war between nation-states with the power to throw nuclear devices at each other. Now we see that advanced technology may may make polarized individuals nearly as powerful - without the self-discipline and expert advisors heads of state usually have at their disposal.

[LadyForCamus]

Is this a preemptive measure or did I miss something?

Those were my thoughts exactly.

[Shell B]

Is this a preemptive measure or did I miss something?

Preemptive.

[Shell B]

So no more threats towards the WLB

I think Min's gonna get bored quickly...

I haven't seen any posts that are actually a threat, but I doubt these types of posts would pass the litmus tests for supporting terrorism/terrorist groups. We hope this won't lead to a slew of baseless reports, but I kind of think it might.

[Shell B]

Yeah, I'd say that's a wise policy.

I am personally sympathetic to Greenpeace and PETA while recognizing that some of their activities may be considered by some to cross the line into terrorism.

I think, and of course I don't speak on behalf of the staff, that most posts regarding these organizations are just fine. Context will play a major role in policing these types of posts, which don't even really happen here, so there likely won't be any reason for the vast majority of users to ever even think about the rule. It's just there so we have a precedent for purging that type of shit if it should arise.

[Pat Mustard]

Crap, and I was thinking of doing a regular thing on the GAA too.

[Angrboda]

I don't like the growing number of rules which seem to be devoted to restricting content, like this one. I recognize there are things and situations it is desirable to avoid, but sometimes the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit. I can't help but see such rules as discouraging people from expressing ideas and opinions, and ultimately having a chilling effect on people's feeling of freedom, if not the actual fact of such. I realize this is a private forum, so freedom of speech is a privilege rather than a right, but I've always been an ally of the presentiment that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not less. Yes, there may be dangers, but perhaps it's better to allow the occasional kerfluffle or situation occur and deal with it that way, rather than proactively making rules about content. If there are legal considerations in play here that I'm unaware of, that might be a factor. But even if there are, I think the liability, if such exists, would largely be ameliorated by the infrequent occurrence of whatever lurking danger this rule is meant to prevent, as well as the practical likelihood of actual legal consequences following any problematic episode.

I don't know all the reasons behind this rule, and the rule against discussion of pedophilia, but needless to say, I find them a discouraging development.