We are not lawyers. Moderators are given no legal training whatsoever. And we have also been explicitly told that we are not permitted to represent the SDMB in any way. We cannot under any circumstances make any decision that involves legal issues for the SDMB. That is why if anyone threatens legal action, either against the SDMB, the staff, or any user, you are instantly banned and we forward everything up to the legal folks. We absolutely do not have the authority to handle any legal issues on our own.
So it really doesn’t matter if there is case law or not. We err as far away from the lines on legal issues as is possible.
Anything that would require us to have training on legal issues to handle it isn’t going to happen.
We cannot allow posts that encourage illegal acts, period. It doesn’t matter at all how we personally feel about those issues.
As I noted earlier in this thread (prior to Ed’s clarification today) – we operate entirely at the whim of Chicago Public Media (which now owns the Sun-Times, as well as WBEZ, the NPR radio station in Chicago).
It’s likely that few, if any, people, at the Sun-Times, or Chicago Public Media, actually pay any attention to what happens on this board, and the fact that we are (relatively) tiny, and have given them no reason to take a closer look, is probably a big part of the reason why we still operate – especially because, since the switchover to Discourse, and TubaDiva’s death, we certainly don’t make any money for ownership.
I kind of doubt that Chicago Public Media’s lawyers would care to get involved in a test case on the topic; what I think is more likely is that, if a lawsuit, or other legal action, ever got seriously started against the SDMB – even if it would likely fail – ownership would say, “you know what? This tiny message board is no longer worth the hassle,” and shut us down.
Who gets to decide if something is wrong or right? Although not many Americans want all abortion banned in all cases, few Americans want all abortions legal. So who is right? What is “the right thing” on a hotly debated issue?
It is nice to think most of us would have supported Parks, and today- I would hope so. But that happened in 1955, before many of us were born. If anyone was born in 1925 or so, there is no way to say with certainty how they would have reacted in 1955.
The SDMB makes no significant profit, iirc, so even a hint about a lawsuit or charges would shut us down.
Criminally? I am pretty sure- NO! After all 4Chan and such boards get away with users’ advocacy of criminal violence. Tucker Carson, the same- (see- The Buffalo shooter). But Fox has expensive lawyers.
Civilly? IANAL.
Say someone come on here and does a “call to action” and invade the grounds of the Capital- without violence= to stop the “illegal” January 6th hearings. Is that Okay? I certainly hope not, but someone suggesting a protest outside Thomas’s house? I would agree with protests in general, but a call to action advocating something illegal? I dunno.
Who picks what is right?
Sill, there are ads (although I do not see them), so must be some funds coming in?
And, some social media platforms (see Parler) have managed to, at least temporarily, lose their web hosting services, because the hosting services had decided that the bad PR from hosting them wasn’t worth the revenue.
I have absolutely nothing to do with the financial side of things, so take all of this with a grain of salt. I don’t know how much money we make from advertising. I do know that ad-blockers have removed a lot of that income. You’re not the only one who doesn’t see ads.
I also don’t know how much we pay the Discourse folks for hosting us. I tried to look it up, but the only thing I can tell you is that the number of page views we get puts us up above the standard pricing packages and gets us up into the expensive “contact us for a quote” category.
Between Google’s algorithm royally screwing us over, reduced ad revenue due to ad blockers, expensive hosting, and the decline of message boards in general, I think it’s safe to say that we’re lucky to still be here.
I would be extremely surprised if we made any significant income at all for our owners at this point.
I get this–someone above your pay grade is making the rules. Is the guidance from whoever is allowed to make the rules clear that civil disobedience advocacy must not be allowed on the boards?
Yup. And that’s largely because until one side wins in the court of public opinion, opinions are mixed. After all, segregation existed because someone thought it was right, and made laws on that basis. A lot of people backed the attempts to overthrow the “illegal” election of Biden, too. Some of what they did to attempt to “right that wrong” could be characterized as civil disobedience.
I am perfectly happy to decide what is right and moral for myself, and for my personal choices and actions. And i am personally pro choice, and give a lot of money to Planned Parenthood. But deciding what is moral, and which is the right side, on behalf of the SDMB is above my pay grade.
It seems to me that with the political advocacy and this part of the abortion paragraph restated, we are pretty much back to where we began.
As I said, I think the chance of the board getting criminally charged or sued is zero, I have no problem with the “no advocating lawbreaking.” I think that has been handled pretty well all this time.
From my point of view, a paraphrase of this policy seems to indicate that only ceremonial and ineffectual actions to action are allowed, and that anything that has the remotest chance of implementing change is strictly forbidden. That reminds me of my days in middle management, when the only tools in my manager’s toolbox were empty promises and hollow threats.
No call to action on these boards* is going to create concrete change. A handful of posters have changed or redefined their beliefs based on the conversations they’ve had here, but that has nothing to do with calls to action.
I love this place, but it’s equivalent to a dinner party with people whose company I mostly enjoy. Real change begins and ends in the real world, not in an echo chamber.
*excluding edge cases like our memorial fundraisers, which will indeed have quantifiable impact on one or more persons.
Would Jackmanii’s post (same one from #2 of this thread) violate this rule? The linked Chicago Tribune story practically prints Mr. Goodman’s home address (at the end of the article).
Linking to that Chicago Tribune story had nothing to do with any “call to action”. The Trib story was about a past rally by Chicago Reader employees, in the context of ownership efforts to prevent transition of the paper to nonprofit status out of resentment over “censorship” of an antivax column.
Since the Tribune article did not post an actual address and my post’s link to the article came two days after the rally under discussion, continuing to harp on it is nonsensical.