h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks, Eds, for the reminder. Most of us do our best to keep within the rules. Here's a pat on the back for doing a thankless task.

Even trying to keep to the rules, it's difficult to please the editors. Everyone's ethics are different. However, from what I've heard, in the case in hand things had gone too far. Sorry it had to come to this, though.

>>it's difficult to please the editors

Can you explain what you are talking about here, TC?

you may call editing censorship (well, to a degree anyway) and claim that house rules conflict with freedom of speech, so leniency is called for - but as far as i can see the editors here are very suitably lenient. well done

wolf biermann (folksinger and dissident in east germany before the wall came down) once suggested: what if we sentenced all those people to death who suggest the use of capital punishment?

this made me think: what if we took the freedom of speech away from people who are in favour of censorship?

the answer is of course that you can not defend democracy with undemocratic means. it would be like trying to wipe out cannibalism by eating all the cannibals

Retaliation? You can out-terrorise terrorists but you can't out-terrorise terrorism. As the man said, fighting for peace is like f*****g for virginity.

People get scratchy when they feel threatened. This is a nice non-threatening environment in general, and censorship is absolutely essential to keep it that way. can't imagine it working any other way.

For some is just impossible to be pleased. Let's face it, some people are just perpetual malcontents. As the Dutch phrase goes "if you haven't got something to complain about, you're dead.

oh dear

seems like i'm late for my own funeral then

Don't remind me. I've read my own death-certificate often enough to know it by heart.

...well...editing /is/ censorship...and, at least in the US, it doesn't tread on free speach as in free speach you can say anything so long as it doesn't tread on the rights of others...

Freedom of Speech is not the same thing as the freedom to say what you like. Freedom of Speech is the freedom to have a belief (political, social or religious) and be free to talk about it without fear of persecution, imprisonment or harassment. It's not the same as being able to say what you like wherever you like; America has some of the strongest libel and slander laws in the world, remember.

As we've often pointed out, we have responsibilities and house rules, and we expect everyone to remain within these parameters. We reserve the right to restrict, edit or remove anyone who refuses to do so, but their right to Freedom of Speech is still unaffacted - they're still free to pay for their own web service and carry on. We're under no obligation to do that for them

And folks lets remember we get a huge degree of latitude here to do and say what we want in a "free" environment. We should all be thankfull IMHO that h2g2 is reactivly moderated.

Thank you to the editors and to the mods!

here! Here!

Hear, hear from me too!

>>jimster wrote: America has some of the strongest libel and slander laws in the world, remember<<

i'm told that the american laws tolerate so-called hate speak that would be banned in other countries. is there any truth in that?

"Freedom of Speech is not the same thing as the freedom to say what you like. Freedom of Speech is the freedom to have a belief (political, social or religious) and be free to talk about it without fear of persecution, imprisonment or harassment. It's not the same as being able to say what you like wherever you like; American has some of the strongest libel and slander laws in the world, remember."

I'd just like to add my own here. Freedom of Speech is just one of four fundamental freedoms: Worship, Thought and (from) Fear are the others. Inasmuch as the BBC is obliged to support these, it's quite evident that recently the first of these freedoms was beginning to be exercised to the detriment of at least two of the others. At least, in when used as a justification by one individual for harassing others. The Eds acted proportionately and fairly in the way they did.

Jimster, that was one of the clearest, most succinct practical descriptions of Freedom of Speech I've ever seen.

Kudos, and thank you. I'll be filing it away for future reference.

Hear, hear! I've put a link to it on my Personal Space as a reminder.

i too could not agree more (as i have already stated in my posting 24). fact is i have already lived by jimsters word for years (i have been working in the news-business since the early 70's).


i would still like to read answers to my question (posting 35), though. i don't know enough about the differences between US and European laws on the matter of freedom of speech, but if what i have heard is true then the differences are significant. (which only goes to show, i guess, that it is not a simple task to set the borders for freedom of expression.

a kind of a parallel could be the differences between US and European laws regarding the right to carry firearms and to claim millions of dollars in compensation for petty damages. the US laws are not entirely illogical if you follow the argumentations for them (even if they can seem to be somewhat quirky to (some of us) europeans) and be sure that they were wellmeant at the time they were first written. i know i am.

but let's not continue down that road. let's save that for later. for now i would be glad if someone could tell me a little bit more about the borders of freedom of speech in the US. Thank you in advance

er, seeing as this may not be the best place to debate things why don't you post any answers on my space, thank you