February 25, 2013 at 9:50 am #91462
Adam, you know quite well that this thread was started, by Socialist Punk, for the express reason of getting to the crux of the matter as was stated in the threads title.As you are also quite well aware of, SP is not against "moderation" but against forms of "regulation" that are used in a censorial way and moreover, in a biased and partial way.If this had not happened, there would not be any problem but it did and there is! Colborn.February 25, 2013 at 9:55 am #91463
PS to suggest that the thread has veered off, is not supported by the posts To answer the question, implicit in your final paragraph above, would indeed, veer off the intended intention of this thread, as I suspect you know quite well! Colborn.February 25, 2013 at 10:00 am #91464AnonymousInactive
Adamthat the Internet Department is censoring opinion has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt and those members denying this only look foolish.To see the moderators take off their moderators hat to defend their own moderation is an embarassment to the history of a great party.If there is no censorship why has this post not appeared? Censored posts 24th Feb 2013 14.50pmWhy are my posts being censored. Are they off topic, abusive or what? 13.28pmSpintcom at the moment is using moderation. I am not in a moderation queue on this forum, I am being censored; my opinion is being removed. Admin may not like what I say but I am non abusive and on topic. 13.20pmThat's all very well but what about the removal of non abusive and on topic posts by the dozen. Is this censorship. Or are we going to avoid a discussion on that issue 11.47pmIs this not embarrassing for the party? Two moderators take off ther moderators hats to defend moderation. Reminds me of a Morecambe and Wise sketch I once watched. 11.35pmSocialistPunk wrote:Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites?Gnome wrote:It doesn't. TOGW wrote:It does. I have legitimate non abusive and on topic posts removed. Gnome wrote:This issue has been dealt with extensively on numerous threads over the past four months. It's all played out. Finished, finito, fertig, fini. TOGW wrote:It is not finished. I have legitimate non abusive and on topic posts removed. Gnome wrote:You could be helping us in the struggle TOGW wrote:He is. He has always been a grafter for the partyFebruary 25, 2013 at 11:25 am #91465ALBKeymaster
I don't know whether or not the initiator of the thread had an ulterior motive or not, but look at the title again and re-read the first post. It quotes the following definition of "censorship" (from wikipedia):Quote:Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.
At the end he nailed his colours to the mast and stated:Quote:My stance is that restriction of free speech and expression would have no place in a socialist society and therefore has no place on any socialist platform.
That' seems clear enough.Or is it? Does he really think that there should be no regulations against "child pornography" or to "prevent slander and libel" in a socialist society? Is he really against everything that the wikipedia definition defines as "censorship"? Not even Index on Censorship go that far. After quoting from an Article in the European Convention on Human rights, they say:Quote:These qualifications suggest that the universal right is not absolute, so can be balanced against other rights such as the right to privacy and in certain limited cases, can be restricted. Index recognises this balance, but believes that other fundamental human rights can only be realised if the right to freedom of expression is protected.
The point I'm making is that, on the wikipedia definition, there is "censorship" and "censorship" and that it is too facile to simply state that nothing whatsoever should ever be "censored". Having said this, I agree of course that the censorship of ideas should have no place in "the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society".February 25, 2013 at 11:35 am #91466
Your last paragraph Adam, is to the point of this thread. Throwing "child pornography" et al into this discussion is, as Vin has stated elsewhere, merely to introduce an Aunt Sally into the thread, as I suspect you know only to well. ColbornFebruary 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm #91467AnonymousInactive
Well, Alb, I take it you are not interested in my censored posts. Do you have an ulterior motive? Oh I almost forgot You can accuse a member of that but I can't. Censorship?February 25, 2013 at 12:10 pm #91468AnonymousInactive
As Alb says: Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. and I would emphasise the "inconvenient" and 'controlling body' which would apply to stalinist organisation and indeed most of the so-called 'left' TOGW Censored posts 24th Feb 2013 14.50pmWhy are my posts being censored. Are they off topic, abusive or what? 13.28pmSpintcom at the moment is using moderation. I am not in a moderation queue on this forum, I am being censored; my opinion is being removed. Admin may not like what I say but I am non abusive and on topic. 13.20pmThat's all very well but what about the removal of non abusive and on topic posts by the dozen. Is this censorship. Or are we going to avoid a discussion on that issue 11.47pmIs this not embarrassing for the party? Two moderators take off ther moderators hats to defend moderation. Reminds me of a Morecambe and Wise sketch I once watched. 11.35pmSocialistPunk wrote:Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites?Gnome wrote:It doesn't. TOGW wrote:It does. I have legitimate non abusive and on topic posts removed. Gnome wrote:This issue has been dealt with extensively on numerous threads over the past four months. It's all played out. Finished, finito, fertig, fini. TOGW wrote:It is not finished. I have legitimate non abusive and on topic posts removed. Gnome wrote:You could be helping us in the struggle TOGW wrote:He is. He has always been a grafter for the partyFebruary 26, 2013 at 1:23 am #91469SocialistPunkParticipant
AdamI am a very much disappointed and a little saddened by your two posts.It is a sorry day indeed when a socialist, whom I have been in contact with over the last few months, discussing the issues regarding the recent forum difficulties, offering constructive solutions etc, has seen fit to sink to the use of insinuation to try and derail this thread.Adam knows I set this thread up to discuss highly selective censorship methods that are being used on this forum, such as the deletion of posts and vetting of contributions as control and punishment. He knows I advocate a warning and suspension system, with conflict resolution at its core.Now he sees fit to insinuate that I advocate an “open season” on the promotion of all manner of vile and evil acts of abuse in the name of free speech.ALB wrote:“I don't know whether or not the initiator of the thread had an ulterior motive or not, but look at the title again and re-read the first post. It quotes the following definition of "censorship" (from wikipedia):”
And:ALB wrote:“That' seems clear enough.Or is it? Does he really think that there should be no regulations against "child pornography" or to "prevent slander and libel" in a socialist society? Is he really against everything that the wikipedia definition defines as "censorship"? Not even Index on Censorship go that far.”
During the past four months of our discussions I thought we had reached a certain level of trust, to be able to discuss party issues openly. We have never agreed on every issue, but that is to be expected. However I thought we had made some positive progress regarding the issue of forum moderation with Adam sounding out part of a suggestion of mine on SPintcom.So you can imagine how disappointed I was when I saw he had stooped to deliberate distortion in an attempt to score a few points.No other person who elected to discuss the issue of censorship chose such a pointless approach, as I expect they new all too well that I do not advocate such vile nonsense.Given the fact we have spent several months discussing forum issues, it has come as a shock to find Adam the one to attempt this tactic.Time for a little evidence that, if Adam had the decency to check out before posting, he would have found answered his questions on this very thread long before he saw fit to attempt his, “debating “tactic”".SocialistPunk wrote:#1I do not think it necessary to give specific examples, but they involve the editing, removal or even total disallowance of relevant posts and comments of forum members including SPGB party members under the vague rules of moderation.I wish only to discuss the merits and/or problems associated with the use of such practices within a socialist environment and to ascertain if such censorship would be continued within socialism, should it ever come about. #21I do not for one minute think or suggest the SPGB or WSM advocate full censorship or restriction of free and open debate etc.Censorship is not just an all or nothing method of control. It can be and is used in varying degrees and in different ways by various organisations.Now with regard to the examples I have seen. What we have is the deletion of posts that are from members of party sites who also happen to be SPGB members. They were/are not spammers, nor were/are they engaging in irrelevant and deliberate disruption of any site for the sake of it.A member of this forum had two posts deleted, the reason given that they were off topic. If off topic was a reason for deletion, then many members of this forum would regularly have posts deleted for that reason, as would I.To delete a post that is considered off topic, (and we may be looking at a little non deliberate off topic, if any) in this way is a form of censorship. It is used to control. The ultimate aim of censorship is control.Next, being put on moderation. If a forum member is deemed to be problematic, for whatever reason, they are put on moderation and their posts are vetted. Another form of censorship in use, again for the purpose of control.If these forms of censorship are being employed as a way to control the forums, at least be honest about it, as well as consistent.But socialists don't like the C word, so it is easier to pretend it is not censorship. Instead it is hidden within what is known as moderation.Such denial easily fits the description of doublespeak. #59I have never advocated non removal of spam or obviously legally problematic posts. The original point in highlighting censorship was the removal of relevant or off topic posts. If off topic posts were removed many a thread would be a lot barer. As for your scenario of deleting abusive posts, I see recent abusive posts still on this thread and I am aware of links to them being used on another party site, to draw attention to them. I would be interested in your response as I am sure others would. I did not set this thread up to have a go at the party. But to highlight problems of moderation, namely censorship and inconsistency, that seem to be inflaming the problem further. I was under the impression the best way to resolve an issue like this is to discuss it openly and seek to find a democratic solution. #62As for material of a dodgy sexual nature, that stuff is abuse and criminal behaviour, so does not apply to freedom of expression.
What I find somewhat confusing is why a respected party member of long standing, and of obvious intelligence, would choose to deliberately ignore the evidence that already was available on this thread and elsewhere on the forum.Thank goodness there are party members who hold the view that there is no place for censorship within the SPGB.February 26, 2013 at 2:16 am #91470
These are some of the most erudite and moreover incisive comments I have read of late. No one, even those of a particular bent, in regard to this discussion, can help but be swayed by this! Forget please, your preconceptions, if any and read SP's post on it's merits. Cogent, thoughtful and considered they most assuredly are. The perceptions of someone who is, A SOCIALIST! No apologies for the capitalisation, as it is most definitely worthy of the use. Please consider this post in toto, absorb it and respond in kind. This post could bring US ALL, back together, in the spirit of felicity, comradeship and fraternity, in the name of our stated goal, Socialism.We have a chance to do something, together, let us not waste it. Yours in a spirit of brotherhood and comradeship, Steve ColbornFebruary 26, 2013 at 8:22 am #91471ALBKeymaster
Thanks for confirming what I thought. That you started this thread, not in order to discuss, as appears on the surface, whether or not there would be any restrictions on free speech in a socialist society, but to discuss the moderation policy pursued by this and most other internet forums and its application in one case. In other words, it should not have been here, in the "General Discussion" section, but in the "Website/Technical" section where there is already an on-going thread on this. It is not me that has derailed the discussion here (I only discussed what was on the tin) but you who have derailed the General Discussion section. I'm quite prepared to continue the discussion of your point in the appropriate place — the Website/Technical section. But here is not the place.My apologies for not checking that you had already answered the question you posed in the title, at least in relation to future socialist society, by a “yes (in certain restricted circumstances)”. My only excuse is that this thread had been dormant for six weeks until you revived it the day before yesterday.February 26, 2013 at 9:37 am #91472AnonymousInactive
Socialist PunkI agree with cde Colborne this is an excellent post and it is people like you we need in the SPGB.Your comments have expressed the frustration I have felt over the last few months. The evidence is overwelming but all you receive back is double speak judging by Adam's responses and in particular his response this morning.He is not the only member to use double speak. He and others are trying to tell you that this reply from me is the equivalent of child porn and needs 'moderated'.This post will probably not appear and I have not yet worked out the motives behind this mess YFSFebruary 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm #91473SocialistPunkParticipant
AdamAgain you fail to do your homework before butting in. I hope this is not going to become a habit.If you carefully read the first half of the sentence below you can just about make out the title asking if censorship belongs among the struggle. In other words is there a place for censorship within party practices today?Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society?So, if posts are being removed from this site and other SPGB sites, and if people are being put in what is termed moderation queues to see if what they say is acceptable, to a moderator, before us normal folk get a chance to judge for ourselves, then that I am afraid is a form of censorship. It is being used among the struggle towards socialism as we speak, today. It is also creating unnecessary friction within the SPGB. Precisely the reason why it needs addressing openly by the party. Hence my setting up the discussion.It is clear for most people, until now, to see that the discussion has "Done exactly what it says on the tin". In fact I reignited the discussion by asking a question about party policy regarding the non censoring of the "right wing" on post #90, and how, if at all, it is comparable to the censorship being used on party sites. Two replies came from my question, one from Gnome #92 and one from DJP #91. Neither answer the potential contradiction referred to in my original question. And again if you had done your homework on this thread you would have seen Jonathan Chambers and myself briefly discuss our differences about censorship in a future socialist society from post #62 onwards.I ask who is being deliberately disingenuous here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.