| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2015 06:05:36 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Aliaa:
Originally posted by tanguera:
The utopian concept of absolute freedom for everyone, everywhere, is a lovely myth, but an impossible construct as it involves humans, whose cultural, intellectual, and emotional motivation are usually at odds. Currently, some people's idea of freedom is to destroy or remove other people's.
When applied to an organization or community such as this, "freedom" to express must be "managed" for the "greater good", unless we want to witness the destruction of the group. And we had a perfect opportunity to witness the experiment of unbridled, uncensored expression in the forums as recently as a couple if years ago. The result, very predictably, was a massive membership attrition.
The concept of freedom does not, and cannot, exist without context. "Freedom" without context is "chaos". |
I totally agree! Generally speaking, too much of anything leads to negative results. |
That kind of chaos is bad exactly how? Because people don't agree on a viewpoint? Or it might cause controversy? Really? |
If you're asking specifically about this site, then when everything is a rant it's all about the rant, and not enough about photography. Most folks are here mostly for one of two main reasons: photography and the community. A vigorous exchange of ideas is not the same as ranting. Ranting ON DPC serves neither interest. |
So, people can't rant about photography? I think you can easily find any number of forum threads that are exactly that.
What you mean is that ranting, about photography or anything else, doesn't serve YOUR interest and is therefore useless since it's not, as you so knowingly put, why most folks are here. And if it doesn't serve the interests of most folks, it should be censored.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2015 06:10:53 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
What it boils down to is this: With certain rights comes certain responsibilities.
Personally, I think some people make lousy, cruel, useless, destructive uses of freedom of speech and have no consequences.
Others make completely reasonable, intelligent, useful uses of such freedom with dire consequences.
Unfortunately, until we have perfect people, any rights we give/receive will be somehow misunderstood and misused by some portion of society. |
Do you think they should suffer consequences for exercising their rights? Like maybe if someone says something mean, they should be stoned or tortured and killed. There are still places like that in this world. Right now, in Saudi Arabia, Raif Badawi is facing 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for "insulting islam" in his blog. Maybe we should have something like that for people who say mean things that insult others.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2015 06:33:34 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Aliaa:
Originally posted by tanguera:
The utopian concept of absolute freedom for everyone, everywhere, is a lovely myth, but an impossible construct as it involves humans, whose cultural, intellectual, and emotional motivation are usually at odds. Currently, some people's idea of freedom is to destroy or remove other people's.
When applied to an organization or community such as this, "freedom" to express must be "managed" for the "greater good", unless we want to witness the destruction of the group. And we had a perfect opportunity to witness the experiment of unbridled, uncensored expression in the forums as recently as a couple if years ago. The result, very predictably, was a massive membership attrition.
The concept of freedom does not, and cannot, exist without context. "Freedom" without context is "chaos". |
I totally agree! Generally speaking, too much of anything leads to negative results. |
That kind of chaos is bad exactly how? Because people don't agree on a viewpoint? Or it might cause controversy? Really? |
If you're asking specifically about this site, then when everything is a rant it's all about the rant, and not enough about photography. Most folks are here mostly for one of two main reasons: photography and the community. A vigorous exchange of ideas is not the same as ranting. Ranting ON DPC serves neither interest. |
So, people can't rant about photography? I think you can easily find any number of forum threads that are exactly that.
What you mean is that ranting, about photography or anything else, doesn't serve YOUR interest and is therefore useless since it's not, as you so knowingly put, why most folks are here. And if it doesn't serve the interests of most folks, it should be censored. |
Oh puhleez! No, not MY interests, not MY site. You must think I'm terribly important around here... I have been entrusted with keeping a site up and running (among other things), and there is a certain line at which an opinion crosses the line between passion and just plain rant. I, and the rest of SC, walk a fuzzy line between trying to allow "freedom of expression" and civil discourse. It is not a science.
In fact, people get very passionate about a lot of things on DPC, not just photography. As a whole, we encourage that. What we don't allow is finger-pointing, calling each other names, etc. When we get to that point, it means we've run out of arguments for our pov and must resort to personal attacks.
However, we even have an entire section called RANT, if that's your style, and AFAIK, we don't really monitor that at all. People who like to engage in that type of exchange know what to expect if they visit a rant thread. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 06:54:49 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by vawendy:
What it boils down to is this: With certain rights comes certain responsibilities.
Personally, I think some people make lousy, cruel, useless, destructive uses of freedom of speech and have no consequences.
Others make completely reasonable, intelligent, useful uses of such freedom with dire consequences.
Unfortunately, until we have perfect people, any rights we give/receive will be somehow misunderstood and misused by some portion of society. |
Do you think they should suffer consequences for exercising their rights? Like maybe if someone says something mean, they should be stoned or tortured and killed. There are still places like that in this world. Right now, in Saudi Arabia, Raif Badawi is facing 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for "insulting islam" in his blog. Maybe we should have something like that for people who say mean things that insult others. |
Boy! Would I ever be fucked.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2015 06:55:22 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by vawendy:
What it boils down to is this: With certain rights comes certain responsibilities.
Personally, I think some people make lousy, cruel, useless, destructive uses of freedom of speech and have no consequences.
Others make completely reasonable, intelligent, useful uses of such freedom with dire consequences.
Unfortunately, until we have perfect people, any rights we give/receive will be somehow misunderstood and misused by some portion of society. |
Do you think they should suffer consequences for exercising their rights? Like maybe if someone says something mean, they should be stoned or tortured and killed. There are still places like that in this world. Right now, in Saudi Arabia, Raif Badawi is facing 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for "insulting islam" in his blog. Maybe we should have something like that for people who say mean things that insult others. |
Hmmm -- didn't I say that were dire consequences for some people? I think I did make that point.
And yes, I think there should be consequences for people's actions. Not everything should be fair game. There are reasons that there are laws and you can sue for slander and libel. Speech CAN hurt people. Maybe it's within your right to say whatever mean things you want to someone and get away with it. But if you're going to ruin their reputations, their livelihoods, their ability to make a living because you simply feel like lying that day, there should be consequences for that. if you feel like lying in court to have someone that you dislike put in prison or on death row, doesn't seem like the best use of freedom of speech. If you feel like producing child pornography, doesn't sound like an acceptable use of free speech.
I'm sorry if you truly believe that people should be able to say anything anywhere they want. Because you shouldn't be able to endanger other people with your freedom of speech.
Yes, there are countries where freedom of speech does not exist. But where it does, There should be limits.
There are reasons to the exceptions. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 06:58:40 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
However, we even have an entire section called RANT, if that's your style, and AFAIK, we don't really monitor that at all. People who like to engage in that type of exchange know what to expect if they visit a rant thread. |
Lest there be any misunderstanding about this. /Rant is NOT a free-for-all. The TOS rules and general forum rules still apply, it's just that the SC will often turn a blind eye to less serious offenses.
In fact, even the PM system is subject to a limited subset of rules. I know this because I was lectured on this very subject after calling another member by the c-name in a PM, which she promptly reported to SC. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the forum rules apply (albeit with looser constraints and less oversight) to all site communications. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 07:32:29 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by tanguera:
However, we even have an entire section called RANT, if that's your style, and AFAIK, we don't really monitor that at all. People who like to engage in that type of exchange know what to expect if they visit a rant thread. |
Lest there be any misunderstanding about this. /Rant is NOT a free-for-all. The TOS rules and general forum rules still apply, it's just that the SC will often turn a blind eye to less serious offenses.
In fact, even the PM system is subject to a limited subset of rules. I know this because I was lectured on this very subject after calling another member by the c-name in a PM, which she promptly reported to SC. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the forum rules apply (albeit with looser constraints and less oversight) to all site communications. |
I'm speaking solely about the ranting as it is often used on DPC. Out there in the world, it may be different. Calling someone the c-word on DPC, even in a PM, would still be subject to TOS if it was reported. To be clear, we don't interfere unless someone asks us to, and even then, we use our judgment to determine if the reported words were cause for action. People can use whatever tone they want with each other in PMs, as long as they are both ok with it. But the minute one objects and reports it to SC, we have to look into it, and occasionally, do something about it.
As Wendy said: consequences!! |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 08:00:08 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
That's very different than freedom of expression.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
That kind of chaos is bad exactly how? Because people don't agree on a viewpoint? Or it might cause controversy? Really? |
If you were running a restaurant, should people have the freedom to walk in and spit into everyone's bowl of soup? I think you'd lose customers rather quickly with that type of policy. |
|
I think for DPC to allow you to freely insult or attack the other members is just like a restaurant allowing strangers to spit in the diners' soup. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 08:34:59 PM · #84 |
| Cory, I'm surprised at you! If you had grown up in my house (that is, the house of my parents) then the consequences of calling someone the c-name would have been quite a few lashes. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:09:07 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Cory:
In fact, even the PM system is subject to a limited subset of rules. I know this because I was lectured on this very subject after calling another member by the c-name in a PM, which she promptly reported to SC. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the forum rules apply (albeit with looser constraints and less oversight) to all site communications. |
How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a communist??? |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:10:10 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Aliaa:
 GeneralE speaking too much of anything leads to negative results. |
that is a personal attack and should be censored. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:19:01 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Cory, I'm surprised at you! If you had grown up in my house (that is, the house of my parents) then the consequences of calling someone the c-name would have been quite a few lashes. |
Well, perhaps, but my mother was/is a conniving meth addict., so I'm pretty sure your house operated differently than the environment in which I was raised. And, for what it's worth, I stood by what I said to that member at the time when asked about it by SC... Clearly we've gotten beyond it, but the term wasn't entirely undeserved at the moment, and my sailor's mouth shouldn't really be any sort of a surprise at this point. :-D
Message edited by author 2015-01-12 23:20:10. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:20:35 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
In fact, even the PM system is subject to a limited subset of rules. I know this because I was lectured on this very subject after calling another member by the c-name in a PM, which she promptly reported to SC. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the forum rules apply (albeit with looser constraints and less oversight) to all site communications. |
How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a communist??? |
I refuse to answer. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:23:10 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
In fact, even the PM system is subject to a limited subset of rules. I know this because I was lectured on this very subject after calling another member by the c-name in a PM, which she promptly reported to SC. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the forum rules apply (albeit with looser constraints and less oversight) to all site communications. |
How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a communist??? |
heheh.. Nice one Don. :D
And for the record, if I really wanted to insult you, I'd use another c-word... (cough, conservative, cough...) |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:31:29 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by vawendy:
What it boils down to is this: With certain rights comes certain responsibilities.
Personally, I think some people make lousy, cruel, useless, destructive uses of freedom of speech and have no consequences.
Others make completely reasonable, intelligent, useful uses of such freedom with dire consequences.
Unfortunately, until we have perfect people, any rights we give/receive will be somehow misunderstood and misused by some portion of society. |
Do you think they should suffer consequences for exercising their rights? Like maybe if someone says something mean, they should be stoned or tortured and killed. There are still places like that in this world. Right now, in Saudi Arabia, Raif Badawi is facing 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for "insulting islam" in his blog. Maybe we should have something like that for people who say mean things that insult others. |
Hmmm -- didn't I say that were dire consequences for some people? I think I did make that point.
And yes, I think there should be consequences for people's actions. Not everything should be fair game. There are reasons that there are laws and you can sue for slander and libel. Speech CAN hurt people. Maybe it's within your right to say whatever mean things you want to someone and get away with it. But if you're going to ruin their reputations, their livelihoods, their ability to make a living because you simply feel like lying that day, there should be consequences for that. if you feel like lying in court to have someone that you dislike put in prison or on death row, doesn't seem like the best use of freedom of speech. If you feel like producing child pornography, doesn't sound like an acceptable use of free speech.
I'm sorry if you truly believe that people should be able to say anything anywhere they want. Because you shouldn't be able to endanger other people with your freedom of speech.
Yes, there are countries where freedom of speech does not exist. But where it does, There should be limits.
There are reasons to the exceptions. |
Well then since you're on your high horse, who should, by your judgement, NOT have free speech?
The KKK? Westboro Baptist Church? Larry Flynt? Someone you disagree with? How about me? |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:33:59 PM · #91 |
| I just think it's ridiculous and hypocritical to have a freedom of expression challenge that lacks freedom of expression because someone might get offended by a photograph. |
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:36:45 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
That's very different than freedom of expression.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
That kind of chaos is bad exactly how? Because people don't agree on a viewpoint? Or it might cause controversy? Really? |
If you were running a restaurant, should people have the freedom to walk in and spit into everyone's bowl of soup? I think you'd lose customers rather quickly with that type of policy. |
|
I think for DPC to allow you to freely insult or attack the other members is just like a restaurant allowing strangers to spit in the diners' soup. |
Not at all. One is words that have no potential to cause physical harm. The other is a biological assault, arguably the destruction of the soup along with exposing the victim to the true physical risk of disease or infection.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:50:12 PM · #93 |
This is all very interesting! :D
I hope you all choose to display your "freedom of expression" in your entry.
It'll be a fabulous gallery to peruse!
|
|
|
|
01/12/2015 11:52:39 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Well then since you're on your high horse, who should, by your judgement, NOT have free speech?
The KKK? Westboro Baptist Church? Larry Flynt? Someone you disagree with? How about me? |
If I'm on a high horse, you put me there.
And I have yet to censor you.
All the others are not on DPC. |
|
|
|
01/13/2015 12:10:00 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Well then since you're on your high horse, who should, by your judgement, NOT have free speech?
The KKK? Westboro Baptist Church? Larry Flynt? Someone you disagree with? How about me? |
If I'm on a high horse, you put me there.
And I have yet to censor you.
All the others are not on DPC. |
She wasn't talking about DPC specifically.
In any case, would you want a photo that glorified the KKK, the Nazis or the WBC removed from DPC? |
|
|
|
01/13/2015 12:12:46 AM · #96 |
Believing in free speech is hard. You have to be prepared to hear things you don't like.
But freedom of expression is not a defence for libel or slander, nor for perjury, nor for child pornography. It's not a defence for expressly inciting unlawful killing, nor for expressly inciting riots, burning and looting property, and other unlawful acts. It's not a defence for expressly inciting acts of terrorism. It's not even a defence for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, though that hoary old example merely trivialises the issue, and confuses rather than clarifies.
But 'mean' speech is not the same as those examples. If you wish to outlaw mean, unfair and offensive speech then your position is, "You can't say that because I don't like it". You don't have a right to not be offended.
Saying "I believe in free speech but with civilised limitations" actually means "I do not believe in free speech". No way around that: that's what it means.
Most of us, probably all of us, actually believe in free speech with civilised limitations, at least in some contexts. So we are not Charlie after all. |
|
|
|
01/13/2015 01:02:10 AM · #97 |
The bottom line, and this will be the last I post on this, to exercise our "freedom", we must also be prepared to accept the consequences. That applies everywhere, including DPC. The TOS here are very clear about what is considered "unacceptable" on DPC. Certain behaviors can get you suspended or expelled. Certain images can get DQd. Everyone has the freedom to say, do, enter anything we want.
As long as we are equally willing to accept the consequences of doing so. |
|
|
|
01/13/2015 02:24:03 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
The bottom line, and this will be the last I post on this, to exercise our "freedom", we must also be prepared to accept the consequences. That applies everywhere, including DPC. The TOS here are very clear about what is considered "unacceptable" on DPC. Certain behaviors can get you suspended or expelled. Certain images can get DQd. Everyone has the freedom to say, do, enter anything we want.
As long as we are equally willing to accept the consequences of doing so. |
That's an excellent bottom line and makes sense of a lot of the world, from your DPC examples to  Jomari being potentially lashed by her parents as a child for swearing to this gentleman being, probably more harshly, lashed for a differnt type of swearing.. It's all good as long as we know the consequences of our actions. Now, the challenge is how to convey this 'Put Up or Shut Up' element in one 'Freedom of Expression' photograph. |
|
|
|
01/13/2015 03:54:03 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Now, the challenge is how to convey this 'Put Up or Shut Up' element in one 'Freedom of Expression' photograph. |
or more photographs combined in one as is run under expert editing rules
Message edited by author 2015-01-13 03:54:45. |
|
|
|
01/13/2015 06:44:16 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
The bottom line, and this will be the last I post on this, to exercise our "freedom", we must also be prepared to accept the consequences. That applies everywhere, including DPC. The TOS here are very clear about what is considered "unacceptable" on DPC. Certain behaviors can get you suspended or expelled. Certain images can get DQd. Everyone has the freedom to say, do, enter anything we want.
As long as we are equally willing to accept the consequences of doing so. |
So, you have total freedom of expression as long as you color between the lines. |
|
