Prior restraint and breaking the law

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Saint_Cad

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose the rule were “Posting what is in our opinion incorrect information in a GQ thread is a violation of the registration agreement.” You post, “In physics mass and energy are equivalent.” I’m am mod and not an expert in physics so in my opinion you are wrong. You are now in violation of the registration agreement.

Suppose the rule was “posting on this message board is a violation of the registration agreement,” and then I posted in thi-

Oh crap.

[Czarcasm]

@Morgenstern

Would you be happier if the board paid to send all the mods to law school?

More to the point: You think there is a problem.
What is your solution, Saint Cad?

[Pantastic]

@Saint_Cad

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose the rule were “Posting what is in our opinion incorrect information in a GQ thread is a violation of the registration agreement.” You post, “In physics mass and energy are equivalent.” I’m am mod and not an expert in physics so in my opinion you are wrong. You are now in violation of the registration agreement.

So if there was a dumb rule added to the board, in this hypothetical situation it’s possible that someone would make a post, then an imaginary mod would make a dumb decision, and post a note in the thread telling the user not to post? How can anyone manage to sleep at night knowing that such injustices could possibly exist in theory? Getting a short note from a moderator asking you to modify your posting is just so gut-wrenchingly awful that the fear of it should paralyze you completely.

[Bone]

@Saint_Cad

IMHO the problem is that the system is set up where people who self-admittedly are not experts on the law have to decide if something described is illegal AND holds the poster responsible if the mod is wrong because in their opinion (but remember they’re not experts) they had a feeling it was illegal. So I can post about a topic that is perfectly legal yet someone who doesn’t know the law but has an opinion on it can decide that it is illegal.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose the rule were “Posting what is in our opinion incorrect information in a GQ thread is a violation of the registration agreement.” You post, “In physics mass and energy are equivalent.” I’m am mod and not an expert in physics so in my opinion you are wrong. You are now in violation of the registration agreement.

There are other potential remedies to this challenge. In some cases, posters will reach out privately to the moderation team and ask if their OP or a thread they want to start would conform with the rules of the board. All requests are taken seriously and discussed amongst the staff.

The thing is, moderation often requires judgment and there’s no getting around that. If the staff come to a conclusion that differs from someone else’s, I’m sure we’d be open to hearing counter arguments. Running afoul of the registration agreement in this fashion is understandable at times and at those times is where moderation is used to offer guidance.

[Colibri]

@Saint_Cad

IMHO the problem is that the system is set up where people who self-admittedly are not experts on the law have to decide if something described is illegal AND holds the poster responsible if the mod is wrong because in their opinion (but remember they’re not experts) they had a feeling it was illegal. So I can post about a topic that is perfectly legal yet someone who doesn’t know the law but has an opinion on it can decide that it is illegal.

So what? If the mods make an actual error about the law, that can be corrected. As I said, I can’t recall ever having issued even a warning for this, much less banning someone over it. This discussion might be relevant if there were an actual problem rather than a hypothetical one at hand. (As I mentioned before, I would have mod-noted the post in question just on the grounds that it would have been in violation of the airlines terms of carriage and not a criminal offense.)

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose the rule were “Posting what is in our opinion incorrect information in a GQ thread is a violation of the registration agreement.” You post, “In physics mass and energy are equivalent.” I’m am mod and not an expert in physics so in my opinion you are wrong. You are now in violation of the registration agreement.

Frankly, I would love to add that to the registration agreement.

[Saint_Cad]

@Colibri

So what? If the mods make an actual error about the law, that can be corrected.

Jesus Christ people don’t read into my post more than I wrote.

The question was

@Colibri

So you are saying you accepted the registration agreement when you didn’t believe you could possibly fulfill its terms?

My point is that the rule as written means that if I write a post about a legal activity but if the mods are wrong because

@engineer_comp_geek

Moderators aren’t lawyers. We are given no legal training whatsoever.

My first thought when reading the post in question was that it violates the anti-terrorism laws enacted after 9/11. I assume Colibri came to the same conclusion. But does it actually violate the law? I have no idea. I’m an engineer, not a lawyer.

and in their opinion the activity is illegal then I violated the rules.

So to answer Colibri’s question I cannot fulfill the terms if that involves knowing a priori what laws the non-experts are familiar with since the standard is not “Don’t post about illegal stuff” but rather “Don’t post about what we think is illegal stuff.”

[Czarcasm]

And your solution is…?

[Johnny_Bravo]

I think this is the solution. So long as we’re only posting in this thread, we can’t start any new ones and risk having them closed.

[Pantastic]

@Saint_Cad

So to answer Colibri’s question I cannot fulfill the terms if that involves knowing a priori what laws the non-experts are familiar with since the standard is not “Don’t post about illegal stuff” but rather “Don’t post about what we think is illegal stuff.”

Guess that means you can’t post here anymore. Sorry to see you go!

[Colibri]

@Saint_Cad

So to answer Colibri’s question I cannot fulfill the terms if that involves knowing a priori what laws the non-experts are familiar with since the standard is not “Don’t post about illegal stuff” but rather “Don’t post about what we think is illegal stuff.”

Again, so what? As has been said, if you believe in good faith that you can’t comply with the registration agreement then the most obvious way to solve the problem is for you to stop posting. We’re not going to drop the rule about posting about illegal activity, nor are we going to only employ lawyers as moderators. So your “problem” is insoluble.

You’re complaining about a problem that isn’t a real world (or even a message board world) problem.

[Irishman]

@Saint_Cad

IMHO the problem is that the system is set up where people who self-admittedly are not experts on the law have to decide if something described is illegal AND holds the poster responsible if the mod is wrong…

Amazing, the moderator job requires using moderator judgment. And, as has been pointed out, you have the ability to protest if you think a moderator is in error - unlike on many message boards. If you see a mod make a wrong call on someone else, start an ATMB thread on their behalf and demonstrate that the “illegal” act is in fact legal. And that there isn’t some other rules violation that gives the same result (e.g. being a jerk).

The other solution is to not have message boards.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Irishman

Amazing, the moderator job requires using moderator judgment. And, as has been pointed out, you have the ability to protest if you think a moderator is in error - unlike on many message boards. If you see a mod make a wrong call on someone else, start an ATMB thread on their behalf and demonstrate that the “illegal” act is in fact legal. And that there isn’t some other rules violation that gives the same result (e.g. being a jerk).

And the system does work. I used my own thread as an example because it sprang easily to mind, but there are dozens of such warning retractions based on the consensus of users in ATMB threads.

[Ravenman]

@Saint_Cad

IMHO the problem is that the system is set up where people who self-admittedly are not experts on the law have to decide if something described is illegal AND holds the poster responsible if the mod is wrong because in their opinion (but remember they’re not experts) they had a feeling it was illegal. So I can post about a topic that is perfectly legal yet someone who doesn’t know the law but has an opinion on it can decide that it is illegal.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose the rule were “Posting what is in our opinion incorrect information in a GQ thread is a violation of the registration agreement.” You post, “In physics mass and energy are equivalent.” I’m am mod and not an expert in physics so in my opinion you are wrong. You are now in violation of the registration agreement.

I think the rule in question is sort of being misrepresented as an unfair way to get mods to punish posters who were posting things in a good-faith effort to comply with the rule.

If you post the mass/energy post in good faith, and a moderator gets all snitty about it, it seems like the sort of thing that can be talked out.

But as far as legal issues go, yes, it is strange to prohibit things that “could” be “thought” to be illegal by moderators. But the point isn’t to judge legality or illegality, it is to keep the teeming masses far from the line of what is legal or illegal. Posters really have no need to approach that line; they should be steering well clear of it, and that I think is the real intent of the rule.