Clarification of SDMB rule against calls to action

About This Message Board
41

Two separate issues here: “civil disobedience” and “call to action.” The first I’m willing to concede I held onto for too long, after people had pointed it out as advocating breaking the law–I got interested in explaining how I felt it was a peculiar subset of law-breaking, but it was never, despite its prominence in my posts, my central issue, which was discussing the wide variety of ways that people might most effectively resist accepting the Supreme Court’s ruling and find ways to give women access to abortion, such as making abortion pills available by mail from states where they were legal, or from off-shore, or by providing transportation to states with legal abortions. I probably should have clarified this point sooner, and opened a separate thread to discuss why I felt that the SD could allow theoretical discussions of civil disobedience

But the second point–of “call to action”-- was the one that What Exit? brought up in his moderation of my post. I maintain that there was nothing in that post that came close to suggesting that I was calling on people to act at all, legally or illegally. I was asking what measures Pro-choicers might be able to take that would be effective, towards the end of then figuring out which one would be the most effective. As far as I was concerned, we were a long way from talking through the alternatives before we narrowed them down to a few contenders (which was why I opened it in Great Debates). So how did my post get interpreted as advocating action? (Again, I understand why “civil disobedience” was problematic but I was told that I was calling readers of my post to action WHICH I WAS NOT, I was calling them to discussion and debate. The harshest reading of my first post would be that I was calling them to debate which actions others could take that would be effective. As far as I can tell, if I’d had the sense not to raise the example of “civil disobedience” at all, which was merely an illustration (and I thought, a harmless one), my initial post followed SD’s guidelines.

42

On further consideration, based on comments received plus internal discussion, the SDMB staff has decided to rescind the rule against calls to action, which was unenforceably broad. Political advocacy and other calls to action are permitted on this board, subject to the rules below, most of which are restatements of our current practice. To clarify the procedure, we’re not taking a vote, but if questions are raised for which we don’t have a good answer - which was the case with the first iteration of these rules - that tells us we need to give this some more thought:

No advocacy of harassment, violence or lawbreaking. Do not advocate or encourage harassment, violence or lawbreaking (including civil disobedience) as a form of protest or for any other reason. Harassment for the purposes of this rule includes but is not limited to intimidation, invasion of privacy, or other behavior we consider uncivil.

No fundraising appeals without prior approval. Do not post fundraising appeals for any purpose, including but not limited to charities, political campaigns, or other causes, without prior permission from staff. Be aware that our review of fundraising appeals is meant to weed out the obviously problematic; we don’t have the resources for thorough investigation. Proceed at your own risk. In approving fundraising appeals, we don’t plan to take sides for or against any individual, party or cause, provided said appeal or cause doesn’t violate our rules. If we find this creates more trouble than it’s worth, we may prohibit all political fundraising.

No spam. Notices or appeals posted by bots or individuals who appear to have registered solely to advertise a cause, event., etc., will be considered spam and removed, and the poster will be banned without notice.

Do not post private contact information. Do not post private contact information about yourself or others. Private contact information for purposes of this rule includes home address, home phone number or cell phone number, personal email address, or financial or security information of any kind. Private contact information does not include street addresses, phone numbers, email addresses or the like publicly posted by a business, public agency or official, or other entity to facilitate public contact.

Helping women get abortions. Discussion of what is and isn’t legal is permissible, as is general discussion of the options available to someone in a jurisdiction in which abortion is illegal. Legal and other professional advice should be cautiously expressed, even if you’re an expert; we do not want users making consequential decisions based solely on message board posts. Referrals to Planned Parenthood or other trustworthy resources are permissible; we will be the judge of trustworthiness.

43

Thank you and the rest of the team–at least at first reading, this looks like a really reasonable approach!

Edit: my one caveat is about civil disobedience. I understand why you have the policy in place, but consider that you would have forbidden, for example, advocacy of the Selma bus boycotts at the time. It may be possible to allow advocacy of nonviolent civil disobedience without crossing any lines, and I hope y’all will consider whether there’s a different place to draw the line.

44

Did the Bus Boycott violate any laws? I think that one would have passed review. A boycott isn’t what I think of when I think of civil disobedience.

45

Exactly. The bus boycotts weren’t breaking any laws, AFAIK. Those like Rosa Parks, who were engaging in non-violent civil disobedience protesting by refusing to give up bus seats to whites, were, in fact, breaking laws about segregated seating on public buses – laws which were later ruled to be unconstitutional, but they were laws, on the books and enforced, at that time.

46

To give a concrete example - I live in New Mexico, and I would certainly welcome a discussion in general terms of helping women from adjacent states who need abortions. Simply chaperoning someone by driving a car from A to B might end up being in a very murky area legally - with one state claiming that it violates their law, but no consensus on the matter.

47

Sure did.

48

That may have cost me my mod job then when I ignored such. But I suspect that would have been willfully ignored by all the mods. Also when the boycott would have been advocated, I would think no mod would think it was a law violation. Apparently Alabama had to get very creative to make it a violation.

I think where the law is very murky, we’ll lean towards liberties. For instance, once over half of the states legalized pot, the other states are largely ignored unless a thread is very specifically about violating a specific state law.

But very vague civil disobedience threads are probably not going to fly.

49

I would toss that up to the modloop but not close it.

If it seems legal and it seems like the other state is exceeding their authority, I won’t act on it at least. But again, I know less about the law than medicine and I don’t know a lot about medicine.

50

Careful now–it almost sounds like you’re advocating ignoring rules when it’s immoral to follow them!

There’s an idea I’ve written about before–the Victor’s Distinction–where folks approve of advocacy of justice when the fight’s over, but hesitate to approve of current, un-won fights for justice. I worry that the board will fall into that error, approving of past civil disobedience but not approving of current CD.

Take, then, Rosa Parks’s actions. Parks trained at the Highlander Folk School on how to conduct effective civil disobedience. If the board had been around in 1955 and Parks had posted advocacy for violating racial segregation laws, am I right that this rule would have required her to be sanctioned for her advocacy?

51

I believe so and I say that as someone who hero worships her.
I would bump it up to the modloop though, but yes, I think her post/thread would probably violate SDMB user agreement. But I don’t think calling for a peaceful boycott would.

52

If that’s the case, I encourage y’all to reflect on whether that’s the side of history you want the board to stand on.

53

See my prior answers, you’ll know where I stand. But I think we’re wandering off-topic.

54

I agree, the board’s rules would not have allowed her to organize or plan that action on this board. And if she had tried, the thread would have been shut down.

And you know what, that wouldn’t have mattered squat. This is a small message board, and anyone who is organizing a serious event has better tools to do so.

55

I don’t think we are. My point is that this specific aspect of the rule is questionable.

56

“We’re going to do the wrong thing, but we’re too insignificant to matter” is not the right approach, IMO. To the extent that a rule matters at all, it should be made the right way; and if it doesn’t matter, the rule shoudln’t be made.

57

OK, well I’m a volunteer, I don’t make the rules. I don’t work for the owners. I’m giving my view from 17 years or so on the board and less than 2 years as a mod. I’m under the impression, we need to avoid law suits and legal issues to stay in existence or there will be no board. But that is just my opinion, not the opinion of an employee or supervisor.

If you want to discuss the specifics of my views I guess we can wander to a different thread probably in IMHO.

I keep saying I would bump it up to the modloop.

58

I get that. My appeal is not to you, but to whoever makes the rules. Again, I think that there might be a different way to draw the line such that the board doesn’t open itself to lawsuits, and also such that it doesn’t stand against a modern-day Rosa Parks/Montgomery Bus Boycott. I’m asking that those that make the rules look for a better way to draw that line.

59

OK, how?
How do we allow discussions about breaking specific laws and still insulate the owners of SDMB?

Did I mention I know I don’t know the law?

I’m going to back out of here now.

60

To answer that, I guess we need to figure out whether there’s any actual liability involved. Is there any case law at all wherein a social media space is held liable for users’ advocacy of nonviolent civil disobedience?