?

Log in

No account? Create an account
A note on Free Speech - LJ United -- Standing Up For LiveJournal's Future! [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LJ United -- Standing Up For LiveJournal's Future!

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

A note on Free Speech [May. 24th, 2008|03:50 am]
LJ United -- Standing Up For LiveJournal's Future!

ljunited

[magyarok_saman]
[Current Mood |aggravatedaggravated]

I posted something similar to this in my own journal, but I decided to write it differently, here, taking into consideration the relationship of LJ to Free Speech.

For a breakdown of the First Amendment, go here.

When Brad first started LiveJournal, he agreed to abide by the rules the government must abide by; e.g., not to restrict free speech except as already dictated by federal law (in other words, you can't incite a riot, or engage in hate speech, etc.). As we all know, upon selling LJ to SixApart, restrictions on free speech were increased, especially after Memorial Day 2007. After SUP acquired LJ, things got even worse.

This, however, never has applied, and was never meant to apply, to individual journals or communities.

Individual journals and communities have ALWAYS retained the right to restrict membership and/or comments. Think of your LJ as your "virtual living room"; you wouldn't let just anyone come waltzing through the door to orate, right? You would especially not allow the annoying neighbor kid down the street free access to, say, stand in your living room and scream colourful metaphors at you and your family.

Since when did support of free speech mean that folks no longer can set boundaries on what they will tolerate in their journals and communities?

It never did, and it never will. WE always retained the personal right to place limits on the materials in posts and/or comments.

Whatever you do, remember this, especially when some troll kiddie comes along screaming "censorship" because they're not allowed to post here (and believe me, there are many; without mentioning names, they're primarily the supporters of a couple notorious individuals).

I just wanted to make this clear before what is truly Free Speech is distorted any further.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: insomnia
2008-05-24 12:52 pm (UTC)
I don't mind candidates who agree with our goals saying as much, but when they simply do not and have no business posting here, or when they invite an army of supporters to interfere with our ability to operate as a community or be effective, that's where I draw the line.

Moderation when it does happen isn't intended for the purpose of censorship. It's designed to avoid trolling, flamewars, and the wasting of my time.

This community certainly isn't the place to discuss the relative merits -- or lack thereof -- of any candidate who doesn't even fundamentally agree with us, or who shows themselves incapable of interacting respectfully with others.

It's a place where those of us who care about our issues can try to do something about them... and things that interfere with that goal may be moderated.

The sad thing is that several of our critics accused me of "censorship" for failing to approve posts over my recent vacation! I can't be expected to moderate the community on their time schedule, and, indeed, moderating wouldn't even be necessary -- and wasn't even enabled -- prior to the attempted spamming of our community.

Edited at 2008-05-24 12:55 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: magyarok_saman
2008-05-24 11:15 pm (UTC)

Re: You'd have lost your wager...

AMEN and thank you!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: magyarok_saman
2008-05-24 11:11 pm (UTC)
Even free speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights has its restrictions. For instance, you are not allowed, by law, to engage in hate speech, or speech that clearly incites a riot.

Stop blurring the lines. You know good and well why certain parties were banned from this community. They abused their rights here in the manner of a large swarm of rats overrunning a granary; you are going to close up the holes where they got through, because they're ruining the grain.

insomnia wanted a civilized, mature forum in which to promote serious candidates and discuss what sorts of things LJ has promised over the years, just to turn around and take away. Your "friends" created their own community so they could continue to overrun things like a plague of rats. THAT is the essence of free speech: We (as in groups) both got to do what we wanted to do, just not in the same area on the ye olde hard drive.

I am not excusing anyone, contrary to your opinion. I'm just sick and tired of certain parties distorting the true meaning of the First Amendment for their own goals and purposes. As I said, you wouldn't let the annoying kid from down the block just barge into your living room to call you names, now would you? Why do you expect insomnia to allow that same kid to do that to the rest of us?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: magyarok_saman
2008-05-24 11:19 pm (UTC)
I, for one, have had enough with the allusion that sockpuppet accounts were used to skew the results.

For one, being a person who knows good and well how the LJ code works - there is no way that anyone could tinker with their account creation date - and accounts that voted HAD to be created before March 11, 2008. That blows your sockpuppet theory right out of the water.

Why can't you just accept that a large amount of voters support a different candidate than you do - and a different candidate than yourself? Crying sockpuppet is bordering on the childish.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: magyarok_saman
2008-05-24 11:50 pm (UTC)
As someone who runs an LJ clone service, I can assure you that those accounts are NOT sockpuppets. Roleplayers frequently have multiple accounts, each one representing a character.

You're taking that and stretching it to, again, suit your own purposes and argument. One could say that you're crediting said roleplayers with prescience - that they knew, years ago, that this election would occur, so they hurried up and created as many accounts as they could to artificially inflate totals. C'mon, show a bit of maturity, eh?

Did you push for membership on this community just so you could continue the borderline invective your "friend" and his "friends" were banned from doing?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: magyarok_saman
2008-05-25 12:52 am (UTC)
I'm just as sure your "friend" has friends with multiple accounts that used them for voting, and perhaps there are other candidates who have friends with the same advantage.

There is no way to prevent this, so whether it's fair or not is a moot point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: delusionalangel
2008-05-24 06:38 pm (UTC)
I don't know enough about the drama here to know what sparked this post, clearly something did, I've seen hints of drama related to the election so I can guess, but I've been too busy dealing with rl to watch so I'll just say...

In a general sense I agree. I'm an admin on a game site that has several hundred players, when their characters die they often don't think clearly but are allowed to set "last words" that appear on their character profile and in a "funeral parlor" for a day or so. For a period of time they were getting out of hand with anti-woman, anti-gay, basically the most vile harassing last words you can imagine that didn't belong in a game and usually had nothing to do with their character, his/her death/ etc which is what that was designed for. I finally wrote a post explaining we'd be lenient because we know when they die tempers flare, but I'd start editing them or banning repeat offenders...

And that before they could scream "free speech to me" it didn't apply. That it was a freedom given by the government (if you're lucky) and that on a private site we can choose what's appropriate. Offending some of our players who are gay, are women, etc isn't something we can stand for.

I assume that's not quite the same here, still same theory, mods can choose what appears in communities they manage. If people don't like it, why bother? There are other communities to join or create one, if this one doesn't suit your needs.

Edited at 2008-05-24 06:39 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: eruditeviking
2008-05-27 02:06 am (UTC)

FYI

Cambler is referring to the conversation held here. I don't think it helped to have Rhonan stick his nose in and attack the community again, as has been his want recently.

Insomnia, myself, and several others have tried to explain issues and our stances. While Cambler has been reasonably civil with most of his concerns and responses, his association with certain other individuals who have not made such attempts have made some of us more reluctant to take his own statements at face value. It's not entirely fair, but it's part of the reality that perception trumps intention. This has been the case ever since my post to sos_usa.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: elionwyr
2008-05-24 11:30 pm (UTC)
Thank you.

Free speech does not mean 'yes please abuse me'.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: aliasrob
2008-05-26 10:03 am (UTC)

A serious voice for the LJ useradvisory board



(Reply) (Thread)