For f… sake. You are dismissive of risk to a third party, but the best you can do on legality of the question I responded to is
I assume that you would never conduct you own practice in such a fashion.
And, as I’ve said, I agree with your sentiment, but the decision simply isn’t up to you, it’s up to the Reader.
Listen and listen good because this is the only comment I’m gonna make on the subject.
I closed the thread because I thought it was in the best interests of the board, and the Chicago Reader in whole, that that discussion not be continued here for the reasons stated in that thread—I’m not gonna rehash the fine points of that decision or get dragged into a discussion of the parameters of any future decision of this nature. I refuse to do that. If this isn’t sufficient to your way of thinking, that’s too damn bad. It was my call to make as the staff member on the spot, and whatever your opinion of it, I made it. It was a judgment call, only one of which I make several dozen times a day here. If my judgment is in error, again, that’s too damn bad. I’ve made bad decisions before (although I’m not saying now that this one was a bad decision—I deny that) and I’ll make many more. It’s the nature of subjective decision making that some are good, some are neutral, and some are bad. In all eventualities, one is obliged to accept the outcome of a subjective judgment once made. Both the decision maker and those individuals affected.
Yup, this is a non-answer. And that, too, is too damn bad.
Woooo! Stone him!!!
>> but the decision simply isn’t up to you, it’s up to the Reader.
Has anyone said it isn’t? NO. It is their decision to make and mine to criticise.
There is no proof that it’s illegal in Saudi Arabia to use a proxy and if we are to avoid anything which the Saudi authorities might find unpleasing, then we would have to ban any discussion about sex, about women’s rights and about many other things.
The Chicago Reader has zero chances of any liability in this issue. It is free to limit the discussion in any way it wants. But IMHO this instance shows more interest in appeasing oppressors for no good reason than in standing up for what we consider moral values and human rights. I think the decision is wrong on those grounds.
Oh, for fuck’s sake yourself. Are you seriously contesting the notion that it’s illegal for Cubans to emigrate to the US? That many Cubans risk their lives to make a dangerous trip to Florida precisely because it’s illegal?.
The incident I referred to was in the news some years ago. Maybe my Googling skills aren’t up to snuff, but I wasn’t able to come up with the magic search that led to an article. But even if you dismiss that incident, you still can’t possibly contest that the Castro regime uses government power to prevent emigration.
And yeah, I’m dismissive of the risk because as far as I can tell there is no risk. At least, there’s no more risk than already exists due to threads about various sexual practices and other racy topics or threads dedicated to viciously criticizing the leadership of autocratic regimes.
I doubt that proxies are illegal in Saudi Arabia, but booby viewing is (and that hardly constitutes a human rights issue).
I’m a little disappointed that you elected to use this tone, since I tried very hard to make my OP evenhanded and open-minded. I had hoped for a more productive discussion from you.**
Again, I am disappointed. I had hoped that on a board with a forum designated specifically in part for discussion of board moderation issues that the mods would actually take part in those discussions, particularly when the OP isn’t terribly hostile to the mod action in question. It is, of course, your prerogative to refrain from commenting in detail, but I think it would be better if you elected otherwise.**
Well, again, I hardly think anyone’s suggested that the Reader or the moderators should be disallowed from doing whatever they think proper; clearly, it’s the Reader’s game and if you don’t like the way it’s played you can pick up your marbles and go home.
But I’d like to think that this board would be open to exploring the issues presented. While it’s certainly your right to answer, basically, “my way or the highway,” I’d like to think that board administration would be open to more nuanced discussion.
Here’s one:
There’s a bunch of sites that come up when you search for Cuba refugees sank “July 13, 1994”.
I had not seen UncleBeer’s post when I posted my last one. While his tone may indicate some impatience I think I understand where he’s coming from and I would agree with that. I would agree that a referee has to make calls and some maybe mistaken but it is better to just keep playing the game than to spend too much time analyzing and discussing every decision. I agree that anyone making calls is going to make mistakes and it is better to just keep moving than to stop at every call to see if it was the right one.
Thanks Protesilaus – I guess using “sank” rather than “sunk” plus knowing the date makes a big difference. 
No. That’s why I said “I don’t know the legality of that particular situation”.
Ok. That’s your conclusion, as far as you can tell. My own, offhand conclusion isn’t different to yours.
Maybe so, but if that’s the case, why have an area designated for “complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”?
Recent story on internet censorship in Saudi:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2153312.stm
It doesn’t explicity say that proxies are “illegal” - but if the government blocks them, they’re hardly approved of.
And as cleosia points out - using a proxy to access forbidden material would definitely be illegal.
I believe cirumventing the proxy here in the UAE is illegal, but don’t know for sure.
Luckily Dubai’s wonderful tech & media free zone has no proxy and is totally uncensored! Woo hoo!!
You are correct. As far as it goes, so I’ll make one more response here.
I thought my reasons for closing that thread were fairly explicit.
It is obvious that you don’t agree. However, I’ve really nothing to add to that, so additional discussion isn’t likely to bear fruit. This is the reason I see no need for further participation.
Well, I agreed with you that it was the wrong call and all I am saying now is that, now that we’ve had our say, it’s probably better to just move on. I can’t see anything positive coming out of continuing to argue this. So, i am just agreeing with Coldfire in that it’s best to move on now. That’s all.
Of course, everyone should realise that when I say Coldfire, I mean UncleBeer. These darned moderators look alike to me. can anyone tell them apart?
You moderacist.
UncleBeer: Well, yeah, and I recognized all that in the OP. The point, of course, is that that rationale could be equally valid if used against posters North Korea looking for uncensored news, posters in China looking for ways to practice their religion freely or criticize the government, or posters in Cuba looking for information on how to get to Florida. I’m less bothered by the fact that Paul won’t be able to look at boobies and more bothered by the ramifications of your rationale.
sailor: Mebbe so. It’ll happen in any event – this thread, like all others will eventually peter out (that damned LOTR-by-other-authors thread being the only exception ).
Damn, that is funny.
Can you laugh about that in Saudi Arabia? I see you are in the UAE, what kind of restrictions do you have on your internet usage?
Dewey, while I agree with your legal analysis (no legal risk to the Reader) and sympathize with the goal of allowing the free flow of information to those subject to repressive regimes, that still leaves one problem. Even if the Saudis can’t effectively sue or prosecute the Reader for violations of Saudi law, they still can block the SDMB in their country. I believe the Reader wants to avoid that.