After reporting a post for linking to anti-trans hate speech (aka a US government communication, but it really was that bad) in the Pit, @Miller told me that since the poster was not endorsing said hate speech, no mod action was required.
AIUI, the rules against hate speech apply even in the Pit, so this should not be a factor.
I read the board rules quite recently, and nowhere does it say “linking to hate speech is banned, unless you clearly say that you don’t agree with said hate speech”. If the rules can be interpreted to ban linking to hate speech, this would apply regardless of endorsement. Punishing posters for breaking rules which are not included in the TOS, and in fact were decided ex post facto, is IMHO wrong and unfair.
Does the board actually want a rule that it’s just fine to link to hate speech, as long as the poster adds a disclaimer that they don’t endorse it? That seems to me like something easily abused by genuine rules lawyers. And posters who may find it upsetting will see it regardless, as will any posters who could potentially be persuaded by it. Also, given that some official US government communications now qualify as hate speech, this rule constitutes viewpoint discrimination, something mods have always said in the past is not practiced. It’s not against the rules to post links to White House press releases, it’s just against the rules to say you agree with them. (For the record, I strongly disagree with the linked press release.)
I don’t think this is a good rule, but:
If it is going to be followed going forward, it should be added to the list of rules in the TOS so other posters don’t break it unknowingly.
I’m sure the mods, and probably other posters too, are tired of me banging on about this, but I really do feel that I was treated unfairly by being suspended, not for linking to hate speech, but for not specifically saying I don’t agree with it; a rule I couldn’t reasonably have been expected to know since it wasn’t in the TOS or even agreed on at the time, and on which I had never received any communication from the mods. In general the SDMB mods do seem to be fair, and give notes and warnings so that posters know they are breaking the rules, and clearly made a choice to continue to do so. That didn’t happen in this case, for any of the things @What_Exit cited in my suspension, which is why I believe it was unfair. Unlike @Saint_Cad , who was assured he isn’t on a super-secret list of Problem Posters, the mods have mentioned that there is a list of posters who have been suspended in the past and are therefore subject to more serious sanctions. I feel like I have that hanging over me as a result of this event, and I would like to be taken off the list, please.
So, to put it simply, you want the ability to post links to and quote hate speech without fear that that will effecting your posting privileges because of your posting history (and I mean your entire history not just the posts that led to your suspension(s)).
That sum it up?