I haven't seen any other responses to this, so I guess that leaves it up to
me. Here goes.
Erik wrote:
>I am interested in discussing the language guideline(s) for Brin-L.
[snip]
>Most importantly, there is the issue of free speech. I think we
>should avoid even the hint of censorship on this list, even if it is
>an indirect censorship. Everyone here should feel free to express
>themselves in whatever manner they wish. I think that is the best thing
>about a forum such as Brin-L. If someone is horribly uncivil, then we
>can try to gently persuade them to be more civil. Or we can ignore
>them. Or if the offenses are dire enough, and there is a consensus, then
>banishment could be considered as a last resort. But let's not have any
>a priori censorship on Brin-L.
Saying that we can't or shouldn't use a specific word is *not* censorship.
"A priori censorship" is preventing an idea from being raised or discussed;
banning (or strongly restricting) profanity just gives guidelines for the
tone of the discussion of that idea, whatever the idea is.
Why do many of us want a profanity-free (or profanity-light) tone on the
list? There are many reasons, I'll just give you a couple that are
important to me.
1) The majority of the time, I read my email from brin-l at work. I work at
a big corporation that has a policy against profanity in email and
specifically includes personal web-based email accessed from work. The
policy also covers reading email that contains profanity not written by the
employee reading it. The reason for this is that we have business partners
in our offices all the time, and if someone happens to walk by my desk and
see the word "f**k" on my computer screen, they don't know or care whether I
typed it or someone else did. What they care is that this in not an
acceptable word to have on my computer screen where I work. If I know that
there is the possibility of profanity in an email or on a website, I'm not
supposed to read that email or go to that website. People where I work have
missed getting raises because of this policy, and in some cases have gotten
stronger reprimands up to and including being fired. If profanity becomes
more wide-spread on brin-l, I'm going to have to go back to being an
occasional lurker, because I usually just don't have time at home to read
brin-l emails on anything resembling a regular basis. Has anyone noticed
that I tend to post Sunday through Thursday, but usually not Friday or
Saturday (the past week or two being an exception)? Anyone want to guess my
days off?
2) Startide Rising came out in 1983, and my school library purchased a copy
of it almost immediately. If brin-l had been around back then, I would have
joined right away. I would have been in (doing quick math...) probably 8th
grade at the time, give or take a grade, so probably 13 years old (I was 17
when I graduated). If you had a 13 year old son or daughter, and they had
friends who said "f**k" in public on a regular basis without caring who
heard or read it, how would you react? I guarantee we have at least a few
lurkers on this list who are bright young teens who are interested in Dr.
Brin's books, and in science and nature and world affairs in general. When
my wife and I have adult friends over to our house as we do almost every
week, we cuss a lot. It would not be surprising if, in the middle of a
heated game of Total Annihilation, I called someone "You f**cking piece of
s**t" or something like that. But I make a point of not cussing *at all* if
I happen to be walking through a mall or even sitting at a sporting event,
and I can see that there are children within earshot. And not cussing under
those circumstances has never prevented me from getting my point across.
Not once. (In fact, it has led to the creation of some very colorful
metaphors, but that's for a different discussion :-)
Which brings me back to my original point. Restricting cuss words does not
restrict the free flow of ideas (in fact, *not* restricting cuss words
restricts the free flow of ideas -- more on that later in this email), nor
does a cussing restriction restrict the ability of someone to be vehement
about those ideas. It merely keeps the tone civil and usually more or less
polite.
>Ideally, I would like to remove specific mention of profanity or
>`bad words' in the guidelines, and replace it with a suggestion
>(admonishment?) that people should strive to write to each other
>in a civil manner. But not a threat ("if you aren't civil, you're
>gone"). More of a reminder of "I am a member of a civilization".
But is cussing civil?
<tangent mode>I think we *do* need to add the admonishment that people
should strive to be civil on-list, whether or not specific mention of
profanity remains.</tangent mode>
Erik, you seem to want to allow cussing on-list because you want all
viewpoints to be allowed. Cussing isn't necessary to achieve that, and
allowing cussing actually *reduces* the number of viewpoints available to
list members. If a 13-year-old's dad monitors his/her internet usage and
tells him/her s/he can't stay on the list because of the cussing, that
removes that opinion (or potential opinion if a lurker) from our list. If a
brilliant 73-year-old gentleman like my father who has a lot to contribute
to this list but who finds cussing offensive sees cussing on this list, he
will leave the list and remove his opinion and experience from our
discussion (now that my dad finally has a computer with an internet
connection, I *am* going to try to get him on this list). The same holds
true of any person of any age who finds cussing offensive. They and their
ideas are going to find the nearest exit.
As I said earlier, restricting cussing does not restrict free speech. It
does not exclude viewpoints, it merely encourages that those viewpoints be
made in a polite manner. *Allowing* cussing *does* exclude veiwpoints from
anyone who finds cussing offensive and leaves the list because of it, and
allowing cussing *does* exclude those who only have internet access (or have
their primary internet access) from work.
In other words, to be *more* inclusive, we should restrict (continue to
restrict?) use of profanity on this list.
>I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>to say it.
>--C.S. Tallentyre [or Voltaire or whoever]
>***
I agree with the spirit of this quote, and with the letter of it depending
on how you interpret that letter. I too will defend to the death the right
of anyone to express any idea or opinion, but I will suggest that expressing
that opinion *politely and civilly* (is "civilly" a word?) reaches a lot
more people that expressing it impolitely and in a manner that is not civil.
And since our civilization, for whatever reason, deems that certain words
are not appropriate for public use, I as a member of that civilization, that
community, will not use those words in a public forum.
<tangent mode>Why *does* our society say that certain words are
inappropriate for public use (s**t), while synonyms for those words
(excrement, doo-doo) are ok? And why are there some words in the middle,
words like crap that use to be considered as bad as s**t, but are more
acceptable today although still not considered as acceptable as doo-doo?
Any theories?</tangent mode>
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
