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

*finally catching up*

Your comments about sites are more valid than others you have made. However, your site doesn't claim to be a channel. It isn't a medium through which I can convey anything. A SPECIFIC magazine isn't a medium. A TV channel isn't a "channel" as such, since it is closed. What IS a channel, or was, is h2g2. It still claims to be one. It isn't a completely open channel though, and we disagree on how closed it has become. You should bear in mind, that if the BBC got to the excessive nannying stage that it might do (this isn't the slippery slope argument, but more following a trend I have seen in the increasingly conservative media under fire from "concerned parents"), then WE won't be able to say anything about our relationships because they aren't considered "right for a family site". We would much prefer to decide for ourselves as a community what is right.

a lot of people keep bringing up the "family site" arguement. but here's my view:

h2g2 was never a "family site". this isn't disney we're talking about. the HHGTTG was not a children's book, and if a child had read it, he or she would have missed quite a bit of the humor. also, with h2g2, they would miss a LOT of the point (ie. the whole purpose of the site as well as the tie-in to the HHGTTG). i don't remember ever having spoken to a researcher who was under the age of 15.

the bbc site isn't really a family site, so why would bbc/h2g2 be?

I would much prefer to be able to do anything I pleased anywhere I wanted. But if I do, I suffer the consequences. If you want to talk about your relationships, then do it tastefully here, or go somewhere else and do it distastefully. You still have a choice.

If a store stops selling dirty magazines, do you boycott that store, or just go and get them somewhere else?

cloughie, if all you bought at that store was dirty magazines, then you boycott either way.

Joe, the reason that they aren't restricting your free speech on this site is that you never *had* free speech on the site. The point being repeatedly made by other people (not, to your credit, by yourself) is either that we havve a basic human right, or that ECHR or the US constitution ensure our right to free speech. My point is simply that these things don't come into it. Your right to free speech has nothing to do with free speech on this site, as you put it, and to be prevented from having free speech here, doesn't impact on your free speech 'right'.

NYC,

Further proof that Smiley Ben is a troll, or at least sliding towards flaming:

"Erm, I know you can read, because you've replied well to most of my points..."

To preserve one's credibility, it becomes necessary to refute others without sinking to their level. Sometimes they just don't deserve any further reply. If you feel yourself getting close to flaming, be conscious of it. Not because I'm worried about anybody's feelings here, but because I found out the hard way how much it damages one's credibility to play these games.

To paraphrase something I heard attributed to Russian politician Alexander (?) Lebed: "Never argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to his level, and he has more experience there."

cloughie,

"Well you don't have to put in the www or the .com, .org, or .net part, people COULD type that part themselves."

Some members of the Zaphodistas have been testing these limits in every way imaginable, believe me. If moderators understand that you are trying to communicate an URL in a message post by hinting at it, then they remove that part or the whole post. We've even seen problems when people post their email addresses in nicknames, which is not outlawed by the House Rules, but leads to confusion if you request people to visit the domain name of your email address.

H2g2 is a v***e-added user-c*****d encyclop**dia and bull***n b***d.

What I was refering to was my sexuality and the fact that a lot of "concerned parents" don't like their children to read about people who aren't straight. No mention of dirty stuff, just something not "nice" for "right thinking parents".

sea,

"...look at what the moderation is doing just in this forum. you and NYC are fighting over it. and yes, there were fights on h2g2 before, but honestly! h2g2 is being separated into three groups: the staff, the zaphodistas (or- more clearly- those who want change), and those who are simply grateful for h2g2's existance. i've NEVER seen h2g2 divided like this."

Good point, but either side can accuse the other of causing this situation. (And I haven't read the rest of this thread, so the accusations have probably already been made.)

That is, Zaphodistas would say the new BBC policies created division among a formerly unified community. BBC loyalists would say Zaphodistas have created division because we're afraid of change and can't be satisfied. Arguing either side will get us nowhere.

Free speech isn't black and white, it is shades of grey. We never had complete free speech, but we had more of it and we want it back. You act like it can only exist in two extremes which define everything.

Diedzoeb,

I always thought it was more funny when phrased as: "Never argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience."

But you're right. Then again, I run the Ranters' Network (whose URL you can deduce) and I've never taken that advice to heart no matter the incredible number of trolls it seems to attract...

Joe aka Arnia,

The passive part of this sentence is the tricky and scary part:

"Since humans aren't rational *refrains from making further comment*, they need to be protected when it is dangerous to their lives to do otherwise."

"They need to be protected" means that *someone* needs to protect them. What person or government can we trust to rise above human emotion and judge what the rest of us need to know? Allowing people to incite violence through speeches or writings is dangerous, but allowing the government to decide when whole topics are off-limits is dangerous in another way. I believe there's a middle ground where both of these problems can be avoided, by limiting speech based on the imminent danger it causes, not based on the motivation for the speech.

I still say that certain speeches or writings may directly incite groups to violence, and it's right to punish those people. But I also think there's a wide range of discussion on topics of racism, sexism and other potentially "dangerous" speech that might be currently censored even though they do not directly incite violence. Allowing people to talk about those things might help them work through the problems, whereas censoring them is just more fascist tactics used to prevent the spread of fascism.

"It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."
-Noam Chomsky

They aren't being censored. One document is. You can discuss the document, you can discuss its contents, you just can't directly experience it. This is an exceptional circumstance and not typical.

Again, it isn't black and white but shades of grey.

I actually tend to believe all forms of speech in terms of someone trying to express their views should be allowed. Those who are close-minded enough to advocate racism or sexism and disallowed to voice those views will simply get angrier for being censored but not smarter for learning why they're wrong. Let all views get expressed in an open exchange, and the intelligent will rise as self-evident and the ignorant and stupid will be universally condemned. This calls for self-determination in the forum, and not blocks created by an outside entity. If one is told racism is a taboo subject one will never learn why it's wrong.

Alternatively, if one is told BDSM, torture, religion, or anything at all is a taboo subject one is denied knowledge with which to make their own decision. This also calls for self-determination in the forum as the community or the individual must set their own views of morality, not a third-party entity. There is no universal morality, nor is there a gain from censoring everything to appease the most morally uptight person in the community or even to appease a non-member of the community. This is why no corporation, no government, no authority whatsoever should ever legislate on morality. Knowledge is key, and to censor is to limit free speech, and limiting free speech ultimately limits knowledge.

Europeans are still very close in time and geography to that hellish incident motivated by racism, so I can understand why many of them feel it is acceptable to limit free speech if it prevents another Holocaust. But it seems like allowing one kind of fascism to prevent another kind of fascism. Oh well.

"And we have always been able to come here for free. We may be the community, but we are the guests, here, not the owners."

One of many analogies we keep hearing to describe the relationship between h2g2 and its researchers. But h2g2 is not a house or a pub or a place of business or a commune or a democracy or a dictatorship. There is no easy model to explain the relationship we now have with BBC. But just to confuse matters, I wrote about a couple other analogies which I think apply to our situation. Squatters and sodbusters and the Zaphodista Army as a virtual union. Please read about WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A539057

Free speech or not free speech? Well, after having read all the debating above, I'm not sure...

But let me try to put another angle on this - one of the angles that worry me. It's a point of which the BBC moderation is a part - but it creeps into a lot of public debate at the moment.

A lot of people will agree that it's reasonable to filter out pornographic material from sites which are commonly accessible.

Now, it might be reasonable to put some filtering on to protect against sites hailing Stalin (who might be described as responsible for a suppressive society controlled by violence), right-extremistic groups like White Aryan Brotherhood or the Ku Klux Klan. I for sure do not sympathise with these - so why not?

Then there are the kind of pages that are created just to taint the image of well-known people. I'm sure that there are a few sites out there saying very bad things about the UK prime minister (or the oppostion counterpart for that matter). Such sites are often very near to slander. Why shouldn't we block that kind of stuff?

And, obviously, at least in times where elections are near (some might say that all the time might be better), all kind of political propaganda and one-sided argumentation should be outlawed as well.

Etc.

Etc.

Or not.

When all these sensible filters are in place, I'm afraid that we end up - not tomorrow, not the next week, but someday - with a place with no content. Just nice blurbs.

And further: Who can possibly decide what's good or bad for "us"? Which committee can you put together that anywhere near accurately can judge peoples sensitivity thresholds and information needs?

In both cases, I believe that community self-control is the only right answer. And that's what we had here, I believe.

I also believe that we were lucky that the BBC took us under their wings.

What I dream of is a combination of those two things.

And that's why I'm still a Zaphodista.

Cloughie,

This site IS NOT free! As I said, the BBC is partially funded by the public of the United Kingdom. I've been paying my licence fee for the last 10+ years. Millions still do. Therefore, given that a lot of Researchers will be paying licence fees, and an awful lot of people who don't use this site as well, then this site is not free but partially funded by the public.

As opposed to before when it was funded by minimal advertising, internal financing wotsits, the proposed sales of quality articles, etc.

In the defence of the BBC (I feel a dizzy attack coming on) they produce a lot of quality television that - potentially - would make some form of fee worth paying (heck, in the US they pay for cable access, so it's not like the UK is unusual - not sure where you are though!) - just not the amount they're asking these days! I'm a staunch Doctor Who fan (along with Blake 7, the League of Gentlemen, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Bagpuss, Randall & Hopkirk, Blackadder, Dad's Army, etc.) which means I know that the BBC can do some good stuff. It isn't, as you call it, 'crap'.

However, the main point I'm trying to make, to reiterate, is:

H2G2 is NOT free to the Researchers... there is a hidden cost by association with the BBC licence fee.

Oh yes... the whole argument about payment for public service TV...

When is a tax not a tax? - when it's a licence fee. (Another reason why I don't have or watch TV).

Apprentice - you have just made one of my points for me, which is that the BBC have managed to brand themselves as good guys, promoting freedom, balance, liberality and equality... ("The emperor has no clothes, the emperor has no clothes").

My guess is that H2G2 is funded by BBC Enterprises, which is a commercial operation, and not by the licence fee. If any Italics are listening it would be good to have the definitive answer - or the location of the definitive answer - on this one please.

a cynic called Ben