While Ax doesn't allow political discussion, I want to make an exception for this thread, because it applies to the way this forum operates.

I've been operating Ax for 13 years. During that time, the issue of freedom of speech has been brought up to me by a number of people who have criticized my moderation style. Usually, it's by people who have been suspended or given a moderation warning, but not always.

I want to ask you guys to weigh in on the issue.

In my opinion, freedom of speech is one of the most misunderstood freedoms provided in the U.S. and other countries. It is intended to place limits on the laws that the government can pass regarding a person's ability to communicate their thoughts or beliefs. It is a right that has limits. You can't say absolutely anything you want. There are other laws that still apply regarding libel, slander and threats of violence.

Freedom of speech absolutely does not apply to private enterprise, such as an internet forum. As a forum owner, I can place limits on speech in whatever manner I see fit. I could come up with arbitrary rules if I wanted, like you aren't allowed to use double negatives in your speech. Of course, if the rules become ridiculous, then you can choose not to use the forum.

I started Ax for one primary purpose: to provide a communication tool that helps further the collective MT/KB sports. The rules I've created for the Ax forum are meant to uphold that primary purpose. The biggest criticism that I've received about Ax moderation is that there isn't enough of it. Those complaints FAR outweigh any complaints regarding freedom of speech.

So which side do you lean toward? Do you feel a forum is more valuable to a community when it clamps down on insulting and off topic comments or when it loosens the rules on how people express themselves?

What do you think about Ax's rules limiting political/religious discussion?

I'm all for freedom of speech but I'm getting pretty bored with good threads being ruined because some numbskulls don't know how to engage in an intelligent debate. I think the rules of AX should be relaxed a little with regards to religious or political debate but without it being a free for all. Rich Cadden's thread about the meaning of life was becoming a fascinating discussion. But this was taken down because the debate became more about religion, God and the opposing ideologies of creation. This I thought was a shame because it was a fascinating argument to follow.
By all means clamp down on the bullying side of AX but please open it up more for a wider range of discussion topics.

great topic / post Brian and hey ho me and you back in the day had a Marathon Tennis (verbal match ) off AX and on it lol
Ive learned and changed 90+% of us do and Grow !


ref: the Political / Religion topic id say more freedom to comment with restraint of couse not dissimilar to AX topics now!
as the World Has a Choice and Voice to be Religious as it does NOT to be !
i think there should be some freedom / movement allowed in this field

cheers sandy Mc FORMER caps man holt :-0 :-p :-))))

Hi Brian, I agree that freedom of speech is misunderstood, and is often abused, as much as I would love the shackles binding religious/political discussions being removed I really don't think that ax is mature enough for it, as Yoda says there is an element which lacks the ability to debate intelligently,

If you look back i believe the no politics rule came in after the near riotous arguments on here after the gulf war begun, some of those debates got really nasty, and if you look at the meaning of life thread it also showed that good debate can quickly fall into a debacle, i was really enjoying that thread and was trying (and i think was succeeding) to refrain from attacking religion and stick to the scientific argument, however others failed to do the same and i'm assuming that's why it was pulled,

I know that I cant really stand on the moral high ground as at times i have been drawn into some pretty horrendous arguments on ax and I think i was the reason one thread was removed, (i still defend my comments however using the report post button would probably have been a better idea)

so with this in mind I would recommend keeping the status quo, however would look forward to the debate if it is changed

Stevie

Good posts so far. Keep em coming.

"agreed" :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :-p

esp: Allow it, And as Stevie presented the Report Button being a defo feature !

i think with any freedom there may be consequences. For example you cant walk up to a stranger in the street and call him a c*** because he will smack you about. And i agree with that. Liberal attitudes without fear of consequence leads to messed up socieities like the Netherlands with their Child Molester and Bestiality Political parties and the stench of pot on every street corner.However repressed socities like North Korea are a mess as well.

If you intentionally set out to insult someone i think you should bear the consequences. However i dont think it is rational to believe that insulting a religion is offensive becuse basically until you have proven that God exists i will consider him just an imaginary friend of yours. In respect of politics, if you put forward one view and i want to put forward and alternative view and you censor me then than is totalitarianism

hawkman "If you intentionally set out to insult someone i think you should bear the consequences", i think this is the problem that both myself and Yoda have mentioned, the debate on ax is not mature enough that when discussing politics or religion the discussion will quickly become "The tory's are all bastards and george bush is a cnut" instead of a reasoned approach and some attempt at a balanced argument, this is where i believe it is a waste of time lowering the bariers, ppl get pissed off when thier favourite myths are questioned, I peronally love the religious debate, but putting up a reasoned argument with the faithfull often ends in the gutter (usually gods gonna smite you mutha fuka lol)

Ok, I just removed two posts where people decided to make this thread about debating religion. You can't possibly think that I created this thread to discuss whether there is a god or not. This thread is about forum moderation.

Stick to the topic.

Just because your names Brian, you think youre the Messiah!

" He is the Messiah! And I should , know I've followed a few!"
"Praise Jehovah!"
"Right! Who threw that?"

Its a classic that you decided to censor a thread about free speech.

HAWKMAN - No, it's actually very approproate that I did that.

This thread has a specific topic and purpose. Your rant about god falls outside of that topic. I'm also an atheist, but I'm not going to rant about my beliefs on this thread, or even on this forum. It's not the place.

There is a difference between moderation and censorship. Censorship is about protectionism, trying to maintain ideas in the mind of the public, or hide something from public view that may be damaging. That is how governments use censorship.

On the contrary, I have a natural tendency to want to put everything on the table during a discussion or argument. You can clearly see that in my old arguments on Ax. But over the years, I've learned how dysfunctional it can be if reins are not used in a discussion.

Moderation is a much more low-level activity than censorship that enforces behavioral rules in order to maintain the stated purpose of a forum or thread. That distinction is very clear to me.

I'm certainly not trying to, nor am I in any position to, keep people from hearing comments about religion or politics. There are only a bazillion places on the internet where you can do that.

This, however, is a fight forum.

you cannot have free speech and censorship.i dont believe censorship can ever be impartial. Moderation is also a relative term. what is moderate for some may be liberal for others and too draconian for still more .I m not suggesting you open the floodgates ,and I coudlnt decided personally where one draws the line. Its a tough job.

am i allowed to discuss the following topic on here Brian? I just think that if it happened the other way round, there would be public enquiries and a load of police men losing their jobs and they would set up some kind of "community" outreach program.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022508/Seven-youths-labelled-pack-animals-given-total-74-years-prison-murder-schoolboy-16.html

most of em will be out in 3

No I'm Brian and so is my wife

Sure. Give it a shot and let's see how the conversation unfolds.

@ Hawkman

just checked that post its sickenong to see that 7 kids can chase down and kill 1 unarmed kid.

worst thing is these boys will go in jail and learn more crazy shit probably come out alot worse then they are now.

I dont agree with the comment ... I just think that if it happened the other way round, there would be public enquiries and a load of police men losing their jobs and they would set up some kind of "community" outreach program


Look at damalola he was killed by kids the same colour!!


Think about the steven lawrence case, shame there was no real justice then!! that was a blatant racial attack

This attack seems more based on gang culture,what ends they rep (what area they are from)

which is sad as fuck

yeh but lets not say that the only reason there is gang culture and murders is become some people feel deprived and excluded . it s easy to keep playing the victim, its all about choices.

@ hawkman

i agree there are choices. i hate people that play the victim card.

Some of these kids are unawre if the choices or have the sad reality of peer pressure and so called family dictating that they have to be in a gang (pack fo wolves to survive) cos as you showed with the link,one person is a vulnerable easy target!!!!

the problem i have is that when a group of black kids do this, some people assume that all balck kids are in gangs and have this dumb gangsta mentality which i turn causes employers to be caustios when employing these youths, hence the frase tarred with teh same brush. im not making excuses but if yoru are called something long enough some people start believeing it,

I had choices i took the long hard road of getting an honest job working my socks off earning minimum wage while a couple of my white and black freinds chose the signing on, selling drugs and robbing people, i was jealous when they had the freshest trainers newest armarni shirts until they got Arrested!!

no i think that most people realise that not all black kids are in gangs and commiting street crime and robbery, but if you do mention that SOME might be involved, straight away boom you're a racist.

Not all thai girls are hookers but some are.
Not all americans are stupid but some are.


if you were to start a thread complaining about the stupidity of SOME americans or teh whorishness of SOME thai girls, no one would give a hoot.

but if i started a thread saying im sick of the way SOME black kids are involved in gang warfare, i would be called a racist. Seems like you can criticise white people and black people if youre black , but if you're white, criticise anyone and youre a racist!

(im already treading nervously on this whole topic!!!)

your bang on there mate,a black mate and an indian mate were argueing at work calling each other what they could, the black guy said "fuck you brown boy!" the idian said "fuck you black boy!" the black lad said "if you were white i would have knocked you out!" why is it deemed more racist coming from a white man than from an indian, even amongst white people we are overly cautious on not to offend people, i personaly dont give a dam about race. who cares, everyone has more serious problems than that surely

I fear the 'solution' has become the 'problem'.

Years back when rascism was rife, people fought long and hard to outlaw this type of behaviour.

We now however, seem to have driven an even deeper divide between black and white, due in no small part to aggresive political correctness behaviours allowing the minority to have a bigger 'voice' than the majority !!

your guys are both bang on the money

Hawkman, I sort of get the point your making however in the example... "im sick of the way SOME black kids are involved in gang warfare" being "black" really isn't the defining factor, being but also the term "Black" in that example isnt used with negitive connotations, which in my experience is where the problems lay.

Hawkman, I sort of get the point your making however in the example... "im sick of the way SOME black kids are involved in gang warfare" being "black" really isn't the defining factor within that sentence, being but also the term "Black" in that example isnt used with negitive connotations, which in my experience is where the problems lay.

In general my view is, if some things arent dissguseed then understanding is far harder to gain HOWEVER, in my experience the reality is that many people with views which are seen to be offensive are closed minded.

It seems to me that there are a very large amount of people out there that don't challenge thier own opinions thus have no idea where they came from or why they exist and dont like to be questioned with any depth about them.

PaulinThailand, I'm no offical on this but I would respectfully suggest it has something to do with the fact both have or have been made to feel like an outsider (within a country where they were born & raised) due to thier colour thus given them a commonality..... also if that is almost word for word example the use of "brown" then black already points towards a level of juvenility. ;-)

Personally I dont get upset by comments made about race or religion (although I'm not really religious!) when they are made with a level of respect or at least are meant without disrespect.
Its the negitive sweeping statements that generally get peoples backs up..... eg blacks smoke weed, asians smell of curry, white people cant dance..........



Hold on I think that last one is true isnt it!??? lol lol lol

BTW, Brian, I think you've mostly got it bang on up todate. As i said in my ealier comment, I find some people will make a statement that when questioned on, become purely insulting which renders the debate empty of any positive outcome.

Re read the whole thread again (to check my points didnt come across in a way I didnt want)

Although I dont want to open the debate up....
Hawkman you post re your link "I just think that if it happened the other way round, there would be public enquiries and a load of police men losing their jobs and they would set up some kind of "community" outreach program". As The Phoenix already said, there is the example of Steven Lawreance (who killers escaped justice), there are plenty more.
I could go on about how similar crimes are mainly reported when it is "minority vs minority" (what the hell is a minority!!?) & maybe why that is (media manipulation) but the small point I'd like to make if I may is within your statement itself.

It is your belief that if this crime was reversed, them then out come would be as you suggested.... May i respectfully ask why you think that is?
It also comes across as if you have a problem with that?
and lastly, what signifinace does the colour of thier skin (both victim and perpetrators) make to crime committed?

Please dont take this as anything other than it is, open and honest questions looking at & one persons (who seem inteligent!?) perspective with my own thoughts thrown in.

Actually , it does make a difference in resepct of the skin colour of individuals when it comes to profiling/ forensics - its really the perception that one group of individuals can be statisically , by their skin colour, be more likely to be a perpetrator or victim of a certain selection of crimes and same can be catalogued, analysed , spliced, the data accumulated be fed into a machine and it will tell you certain facts. But if you are to mention that information within earshot or publish that information then you will be damned. The police/Home office are prevented from releasing this kind of report anymore. Yet Britain senior Black police officer came out a few years back and said the majority of londons street crimes are committed by Black youths. And that is a fact, he said it and people were shocked by this outrageous betrayal by an "Uncle Tom". yet had a white police office said it , in the same vain as David Starkey made his comments 2 or 3 weeks ago, there would be uproar!

a good example is the incredibly disparate correlation between rapes of white females by black and males versus rape of black females by white males.
The latter is rare and the former is disproportionately more occurrent than is allowed for by presence in the general population.

I woud say that anti social behaviour, however, in Britain's county towns,you know pub fights, assaults in kebab shops after closing time is committed by white people.

i went to a black club with my black girlfriend at the time as some jamaican and african lads i was the only white guy in there and they were trying to intimidate me for seeng a black girl(she was beautiful), my black mates said now you know what its like for us when we go out with you but its not like that at all, i had to leave. never thought of it like that crippler but to be fair in wolves and brum where i am everyone just gets on really, my mrs is from asccot and they are just a bunch of pretentious fuckers to every one, its all false posh they hate anyone other than their own fake friend, racsit brutaly, think your scum if you have no money, over value themselfs. my friend come down with me hes abiker massive lad covered in tatts all the ascot people were like "wow such a work of art i love your tattoo's, when he had gone they said never bring a thug like that down to our area again, worst of it is they have jobs such a a hairdress, house cleaner, child nanny but they look down on the north, think they are better

I would respectfully suggest it has something to do with the fact both have or have been made to feel like an outsider (within a country where they were born & raised

good point but they are catching up big time, wolves and brum have massive ethnic comunities, we all get on. i think if you treat someone as you would normally it works out dropping the "waa gwarn blad" and spudding can make a full of you self black people for sure have a good sence of humor so i just allways take the piss

lol lol, Paul for reference its "Wha Gwan Blud" ;-)
But the club thing is bang out of order, again its more about peoples own self image and jealousy. Good to see your eyes are open to the prejudice around us all...

Hawkman, I have to disagree. The colour of your skin is nothing to do with your behaiviour. If someone wants to sterotype or statistically analyse a group then it would be more efficient & correct to do so on the demographic there would be no reason to look at colour.

I have no idea how to or wish to comment on the statement about rape.

In the recent "disturbances" the perpetrators were from a range of backgrounds (& where many different colours)
In fact, thinking about yout example...... 3 guys where run over & killed, all the family called for was peace and the commuinty come together as one people.... Which sort of goes back to my small point about media manipulation and people challenging there own opinions.

Although I wasnt intending to get to much into a debate about skin colour and take this topic off course

Out of intrest to the debate and openess, I would like to ask an honest & open question to all who read this thread.
If someones colour is that of strong cup of tea and you where asked to discribe that person to a police man by colour what would your first responses be?......

Please forgive me if I have butted in on a thread going in a differnt direction as I have only skimmed through the posts.

I would just like to offer a view on the final part of Brians initial post:
"So which side do you lean toward? Do you feel a forum is more valuable to a community when it clamps down on insulting and off topic comments or when it loosens the rules on how people express themselves?"

I feel that compared to some forums the moderation on AX leads the way.
The term "Freedom of Speech" is never more abused and mis-represented than on forums.
So as not to drag on too much, I always felt that the fundemental benefit of Ax was that we could bring good people together to do good things for the sport. It was perhaps a little green of me.
In the old world, good people got together in a room (or similar) and thrashed things out to conclusion - each with a common goal.
Unfortunatley the forum offers this to each and every person no matter what their stance.
I say unfortunatley because often important points and discussions are destroyed by comments from those who have no intention of actually contributing, or have a personal gripe with the poster in question.

We have all been guilty of getting involved and defending ourselves when attacked - and ultimately achieving nothing apart from looking back and wondering why we returned comment or even bothered posting in the first place.
Certainly, those of us who hold a "position" are up for grabs all the time and this has resulted in most not posting anymore, thus reducing communication.

Certainly we should all have an opinion but almost nobody thinks before offering it on a forum.
Worse still I have seen incidents portrayed very differently from the actual truth by people who almost seem to believe their own inacuracies.

These types of things belong out of the public eye until it has been established that there is no way of resolving them. Instead they become public from the off, forcing people to retaliate and often take a totally different line to the one they may have taken (which may have resolved the issue).

If Forums are for people to get verbally brave just because they can or to sound off without really thinking (or worse still, caring)- in the name of Freedom of Speech, then they have no real value.

Ax moderates well and would moderate even better if more of us used the "report post" button when things get silly. No one should have to be abused in public just because it's some one else's opinion who always "says what they think".

Quick view on religion & politics. Most people commenting on such issues already have their stance and no one else's cyber view will do anything other than antagonise. Nothing positive can come of it so who needs it? If you really want to express a view like that - call, meet or email directly. We already wade through enough mess.

Best to all :)

''wolves and brum have massive ethnic comunities, we all get on''

not sure i agree with that paul.

race riots resulting in murders in lozells only 4 years ago and there are many places where people dont integrate. alum rock (all asian muslim) for example and kingstanding or chelmsley wood (90% white)

the inner city areas are more integrated but thats where the tensions are, between the blacks and asian muslims.

my take on brum anyway.

Crippler

q
The colour of your skin is nothing to do with your behaiviour. If someone wants to sterotype or statistically analyse a group then it would be more efficient & correct to do so on the demographic there would be no reason to look at colour.

uq

However it is somewhat indicative of ethnic origin and cultural mindsets related to a specific place of origin.

If we are able to conveniently forget how society likes to label people black or white (but at the same time damns us every time we try to simplify it- and it is an over simlification) and we look at nationalities; in the 1990s i lived in the Northern suburbs of Paris which are predominantly lower/working class, high unemployment, low social expectation areas, where I was most certainly in the minority , both ethincally and culturally.

if i broke down my neighbours- and that is what they were, my neighbours, not black people or arabs - they were martiniquais, guadeloupien, ivorien, congolais, senegalais, algerien etc etc - you get my drift- France's colonial history in respect of the african continent is far more diverse than the British experience. Now , there were certain untangible elements of behaviour amongst these different, non-caucasian elements,and their intercations with others which made them eventually distinguishable by origin/nationality- and it wasnt just me noticing it ; there are distinct tensions and dislikes between Guadaloupe and Martinique; someone from Cote D Ivoire and or Senegal will not have such an affinity with someon from the Congo; there was an element of suspicion towards all new Caledonians it seemed from all sectors. me ? I wasnt the blanc or the honkie, i was just l'anglais.

Now whether or not we like it, imaginary borders, designed and defined by the workings of man, have permitted or caused us to become segregated, identifiable, definable; in the same way these french "ethnics" have their internal grudges amongst themselves whether it be between one island and the next or an entire nation perched up against another (and there for example issues between Barbadians and Jamaicans and T'n'T's , am i correct, and many other blacks are suspicious of Nigerians, Somalians)because whether or not we like it , people of different backgrounds behave in different ways and it just so happens that certain traits can be identified in certain ethnic and cultural groups (although the artifically defined paramters preposteously set up by the Belgians with respect to teh Hutus and Tutsis was a tragic absurdity).

Nigerians? Internet fraud, illegal taxi driving,benefit fraud and illegal multiple weddings
Jamaicans? Street crime, robbery, gun crime , rape, drugs
Sicilians? Extortion, fraud, kidnapping, racketeering,
et al, ad infinitum

I am NOT saying that there are characteristics of all members of these groups, but that these groups could be found to be over-represented if we were to break it all down....

its nice to hear some straight talk for a change, if right or wrong at least you are being honest and showing an opinion, my czech friends dislike the romanians and polish, say they are theiving gypsies! my african mates say jamaicans give them a bad name for violence, one of my old jamaican mates wont let his sister date black men because he knows first handedly how they treat their women. my indian friend have a hatred for pakistani's which the pakistani's clearly dislike the indians too, these imaginary boarders are there for everyone to clearly see, the thai's are about the most openly racsist nation i have seen,id say mainly due to lack of education, thai people in general have very poor schooling, thai's will laugh out load if they see a black person n say sokabrok (means dirty). they are one of the strongest nations of asia and they constantly remind the weaker nations about this, cambodians and burmese are looked right down on. as a white person what are our characteristics? what do other people say are our traits? i would say a common negative traits for white people would be boring and selfish/greedy. what else?

BUT in with all that said our generation pretty much get along with all, the muslims are the only group that dont really mix in our area (they keep themselves to them selves) as pin head said but that is a religion thing more than a race thing, they dont party (like pretty much everyone else gets together meets and lets their hair down) and generally dont intergrate well, muslim area's are muslim ran and as im sure all of us have heard some muslims would like a set of laws that apply only to themselves.

When I said "sure, go ahead", I didn't mean to discuss that topic on this thread. There are two discussions going on in this thread now.

I guess I'll split the thread up tomorrow. Too tired at the moment.

Surely that's just a form of segregation Brian? ;-)

:-)

You joke now, but someone called me Hitler in an email after I removed their off-topic comments from this thread earlier.

...and they weren't joking.

I think that had more to do with your moustache....:)