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.
We are about to have a collision between the Board’s high minded goal to be a safe hate-free place, and the reality that the government overseeing about 80-90% of Dopers is becoming itself a fount of officially approved hate speech. And hate-driven action to back up that speech. Even more than they have been for the previous 50 years.
I do not envy TPTB trying to navigate this issue.
I will gently suggest for the OP that if they stop trying to be the self-appointed policeman about this, they’ll do better. Leave it for someone else to fall on that sword.
So, you said things that were interpreted as hate speech by the board, and were censured for it. You tried to get around that by linking to hate speech instead, and were censured for it. You tried to retaliate by reporting someone else who linked to hate speech, not as a loophole, but as an indication of how bad things are getting, and they weren’t censured for it. Now you’re trying to use this second lack of censure to prove that you shouldn’t have been censured.
And we should be worried about what the genuine rules lawyers will do?
It’s quite the coincidence, I’m sure, that the first example to challenge this non-existent bright line just happens to be anti-trans hate speech.
I can’t really put my finger on it but something tells me that the anti-trans is more significant then the hate speech . . . but I’m sure it’s just my imagination.
Dear Demon Tree, I haven’t been on SDMB long, but I’ve tried to read as many threads as possible. In doing so, I have also come across your threads and the reactions to them. As an outsider in a meta position, allow me to make the following comments:
As far as I know, there is freedom of speech in the US. However, the SDMB is a private forum and has the right to create its own rules. One of these rules restricts freedom of speech on a very sensitive topic, certain comments are prohibited. The subject is sensitive, I have no opinion on it myself as I have no information or experience in this area.
If you now find that your comments are repeatedly met with fierce resistance, that nobody understands or welcomes your position, perhaps it would be an option to express your opinion in another forum that is differently oriented and accepts your position.
You could discuss other, less controversial topics in the SDMB and save yourself a lot of frustration and rejection. The constant repetition of your position will not lead to acceptance. You will not be able to get the SDMB to agree with your opinion, the more persistent you try, the more you will meet with rejection.
These words are meant kindly, as I said, I am explicitly not taking a position.
Since we’re on the topic, I would like to add one other angle: Sometimes, in order to criticize hate speech, you need to quote or cite hate speech. Providing a link to hate speech should be permitted under such circumstances. The link serves as proof that the speech did in fact happen and was not misquoted, taken out of context or fabricated.
You can’t effectively oppose something if that thing itself cannot be mentioned or quoted.
The “good” news, such as it is, is that our criminal regime will soon be supplying other examples of official hate speech directed against other groups. Which will afford us all an opportunity to see who reacts how when that speech is quoted / cited in horror in one or another political news thread.
My bottom line:
One is certainly welcome to emphasize whichever pet issues one cares about. However around here, hobby horses tend to be shot … with prejudice.
This is a total fantasy! I was never censured for saying anything interpreted as hate speech. Since the rules on discussing trans people and issues were changed, I have followed them to the best of my ability, and I never had a problem with them before. I’ve never had a warning for hate speech, misgendering, or anything of the sort. I had one warning years ago for not following moderator instructions, and since I’ve been back I’ve had mod notes for going off topic, which I admit is a fault of mine. That’s it, that was the total extent of my previous record. How does that justify an immediate suspension for possibly breaking a non-rule that I couldn’t be expected to know about?
(The biggest irony is that I purposely stayed out of the thread on trans teens because I didn’t want to get drawn back into the topic, and if I had read it, I might have seen the discussion and been saved all this trouble.)
All I want is to see the rules expressed clearly, enforced consistently, and not suffer worse treatment than other posters because of prejudice or because people are spreading false claims about me.
We’ve never interacted before, so take this as unsolicited but unbiased advice:
…and STOP. POSTING. ABOUT. THIS. For you own good, and for the rest of us, as well.
Ah, yes, the old “The people complaining about bigotry are the real bigots! If we could just get away with bigotry without anyone complaining about it, things would be so much better.”
If you want to find ways to spread hate speech about transgender people and not face consequences for it, go to a more blatantly conservative board that better aligns with your views rather than continue to try to test the limits of what you can get away with here and act like a martyr when you inevitably face consequences.
Here’s my one warning (and it looks like you may have been lucky not to get one too):
I did get another one for saying something sarcastic that the mod thought was serious, but it was rescinded because enough other people could tell it was sarcasm.
I don’t know how to find the notes, maybe the mods have a way?
