I actually quite like Gabby (Pol, Hope, RP ... even Andrew is on the list of suspects) - but then I liked the jokes in Kierkegaard. I was going to actually moderate Gabby's posts, but I'm a bit under-the-weather and by the time I look, Molly has vaporised the lot.
It is hard to know why internet behaviour is so bad, but a lot of it does rather suggest vast pent-up hostility that emerges when there is no risk of a good slap. On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 5:24:09 PM UTC+1, frantheman wrote: > > Firstly a disclaimer: I am not a Gabby-bot. > > As with so many issues, this one is much deeper and more complex than it > seems at first sight. A few points. > > As frequently happens in the English-speaking web-world, many of the > cultural parameters implicitly (and usually unquestioningly) accepted for > discussion are dominated by the US-American experience and world-view. > (This observation is - from my point of view - just that; an observation, > with no intention to apply any kind of (moral or other) value). In the US, > freedom of speech is one of those issues dealt with in the First Amendment > to the Constitution, the so-called "Bill of Rights" (1791). As such, it is > often automatically accorded a kind of mystical, quasi-religious status. > There's nothing unusual about that: every culture and society needs a > living unifying mythology, the foundations of a shared narrative, in order > to function. (When such a unifying mythology isn't present, or breaks down, > a society will tear itself apart. Northern Ireland in the last four decades > of the past century is a good example: two irreconcilable tribal > mythological narratives colliding.) But just because particular values have > a constituting mythological significance for a particular group doesn't > give them an automatically sacred or inviolable character - particularly > for people who don't share that particular constitutive group narrative > (i.e. non-Americans). > > The idea of universal "rights" has been around for a long time, but it > achieved a central position in the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment - > while (in my view) it represented a major positive vector for human > progress - had a number of weaknesses, the most fundamental, perhaps, being > its emphasis on the primacy of reason in human affairs, underestimating the > power of other aspects which go to build up human nature, and human > societies (emotion, aggression, fear, greed, etc.). > > The Enlightenment idea of "universal rights" defined itself, at least > partly, as a reaction to the older (traditionally Catholic) view of a > (divinely ordained) natural order. The idea of natural order gives rise > then to a philosophy of "natural law" which regulates that order. If there > are natural laws, which can be discovered by humans, then these laws are > true and every other view which contradicts them is false. The logical > endpoint of such a position is that of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, often > expressed in the aphorism: Error has no rights. Society should be organised > according to natural law, any intellectual positions which advocate views > which are in contradiction to natural law, if put into practice, will have > negative consequences, since this is not the way things were "meant to be." > Thus, erroneous positions are damaging - both for individuals and society - > consequently, individuals and societies must be protected from them. > Of course, this position is based on the conviction that the fundamental > grounds of existence are ontologically certain, and that humans, either > through reason, or revelation, or a combination of both, can recognise the > laws implied in "being", and their concrete unfolding consequences in > reality. It's not a question of finding the *best* way to do things, > rather finding the (only) *right* way to do things. > > The idea of inalienable fundamental "rights" is one of the basic building > blocks of the (western) modern view of human nature and society, reaching > its apogee perhaps in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949). > Among these basic rights is the right to freedom/liberty and its > consequence, the right to freedom of speech/expression. But the idea of > "rights" is complex and contains many problems. Are rights absolute? If so, > how do you deal with conflicts of rights? If not, how can you establish > hierarchies of rights? You're faced with a plethora of individual > decisions, which can only be decided within their own specific contexts. > And then, who decides? > > Coming down to the particular situation here, one point should be > completely clear. Minds Eye, as a subset of Google Groups, as a subset of > all the shit available on the web, is *not *a constituent part of the USA > (hard though it may be for some US Americans to conceive of such a notion). > As a result, the rules governing this group are not subject to the US > Constitution. Therefore, there is no automatic right to freedom of speech > here. The "rules" which govern the group are laid down in the guidelines > and these include the idea of moderation and the specific powers which > moderators have. You may not like the rules, but you're not forced in any > way to be part of the group. This is the basic difference between the kind > of pocket universe an on-line discussion group forms and the physical > societies in which we all live. In the "real" world, my right to freedom of > expression is important to me, because I can't stop the planet and get off > to join some alternative earth which I like better. Here - despite howls of > protest by people like Gabby about the blue in the Eye, or being placed on > moderation, or others being banned - if you don't like the way things are > organised, you can just piss off somewhere else. An awful lot of what goes > on at this level reminds me frankly of nothing so much as the antics of > Statler and Waldorf in their balcony at the Muppet Show. > > And, of course, even within the web context, there is a conflict of rights > between the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be gratuitously > insulted or flamed. If people were to behave rationally (in an > Enlightenment sense) then this would not be a problem. But the web - even > Minds Eye - is a microcosm of human society in general. Unfortunately, > people will continue to troll, flame, insult and injure. And as long as > that is the case, moderators are necessary - necessary evils like cops, > dentists, speed-limits and revenue collectors. I've nothing but admiration > for Neil and Molly for taking the nasty task on, particularly as I regard > neither of them as being remotely megalomaniac. > > In his parting post Andrew stated, "Freedom, in order for it to have > meaning has to be unconditional." I find this view hard to understand. > Freedom is not an on-off switch. Absolute freedom (does it even exist?) and > total servitude are two ends of a sliding scale, and we nearly always find > ourselves somewhere between the two. > > Am Samstag, 28. März 2015 14:57:02 UTC+1 schrieb Molly: >> >> Here is part of what Wikipedia (usually my last choice for citation) has >> to say about the protection of free speech under the US constitution: >> >> Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people >> may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. >> There are exceptions to these general protections >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions>, >> including the Miller test <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test> for >> obscenity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law>, >> child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action>, and regulation >> of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other >> limitations on free speech >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech> balance rights to free >> speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works ( >> copyright <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>), protection from >> imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on >> fighting >> words <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words>), or the use of >> untruths to harm others (slander <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander>). >> Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have >> symbolic significance. >> >> Now, debate on where things said fall into the loose structure is >> certainly an option. Can someone tell me I should be ashamed of myself. I >> guess so, although it is certainly uncomfortable for me to see that in >> writing, all caps, and know it is repeated in RSS blogs across the >> internet. Is it slanderous? Calling someone a paranoid schizophrenic in >> public may be slanderous but worse is done every day all across the globe, >> unfortunately. Law is in place to be argued in court, and who wants to do >> that except lawyers and those that have lost much because their rights were >> violated. >> >> But I think in groups there is a social contract that shapes the >> perimeters of civility, one that all members contribute and define by the >> coming and going of the group. Internet groups are complicated because of >> the anonymity of identity and lack of accountability possible. What members >> are left with is the choice to leave the group, as demonstrated here with >> our dwindling numbers. >> >> I don't have an answer but believe in free speech and the group. And I >> must say I am enjoying the fact that every thread does not disintegrate >> into the same old flame war. >> > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
