No it isn’t. So would you advocate supporting Laws enforcing apartheid in SouthAfrica, laws sentencing Jews in Nazi Germany, laws oppressing dissidents in communist dictatorships? We have moral principles which are underlying all of what America, and indeed, western culture, stands for. These include respect for human life and certain freedoms. If we are going to admit these are relative values and just as good and moral as the contrary, then we have nothing to talk about. If having sex with children is legal or tolerated in a certain country, does that make it good? Should we respect those countries that tolerate or mandate female genital mutilation? Is the Chicago Reader so neutral in questions of morality that it has no opinion on these issues and only cares about legality? In my book that is not enough. And you know I am not talking about laws we just happen to disagree with but about laws which are repugnant to any person who feels basic values of Western civilization.
sailor, you seem to me to be demanding that the Reader step in to a role which is more rightly the role of your own government.
UncleBeer wrote:
Believe me, sir, I feel your pain.
Far from hundreds of examples, the examples given are pretty much twofold: dissidents looking for information, and refugees seeking to emigrate. But forget about specific cases. I’d be happy with an acknowledgement that there are some dire situations where a thread about how to break the law of a repressive regime would be permissible (or even encouraged).
But why? What rationale is there for a U.S.-based message board to obey the laws of a foreign jurisdiction? Why should we respect tyrannical laws, which the laws of Saudi Arabia most surely are?
What about blasphhemy laws? Are you going to shut down threads in which Middle East-based posters express doubts about the literal truth of the Qu’ran and the legitimacy of the Prophet? Those are crimes, too, in their jurisdictions.
I am sorry but I do not think morality is to be left to the government. I believe we all have a certain responsibility. i would not like people who said to me"I have no opinion on the 9/11 attacks, maybe they had their reasons, I will live my life and not care to decide if that was right or wrong". I’m sorry, civilization is a building which requires the cooperation of all of us to keep it standing and to improve it. Those who say “I will use the fruits of this for my advantage but I will not cooperate in the upkeep”, are really being selfish and freeloading.
I know a number of people who have immigrated from China to the US and I have told them this a few times. It is not enough for you to do no evil. You have to understand the basis of the culture and participate. Otherwise, once enough people take that position, the scene is ripe for the collapse of the building.
As someone said very eloquently: The only necessary thing for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Doing nothing is not doing enough.
And I am talking in genral terms and not specifically about the OP.
Desmos: well, I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that the Reader has the right to do whatever it will. No one’s challenging that.
And I do think, at some basic level, there are things that those of us fortunate enough to live in the Western world consider wholly immoral, and rightly so. And I don’t have any problem asserting that those things are just and right, and I refuse to say that the repressive regime’s system is just an “alternative viewpoint” on those issues. The sorts of things that drive people to get into leaky rafts for a dangerous 90-mile trip over rough seas are not, in my view, permissible and civilized society has an obligation to stop them whenever possible. And “civilized society” is more than just the government.
Lib: I’m terribly sorry you have such difficulty handling the intersection of your philosophy with the real world.
No disagreement there, in general terms. But when it gets to the point where you think it’s your own personal responsibility to upset laws, you can’t reasonably ask an unwilling third party (the Reader) to spread your message. I happen to agree with your message. I’m not trying to disagree with it. But I can imagine other messages that you and I might not agree with, and the Reader doesn’t want to spread those either.
Why not ask for the thread to be closed, then? Or start a new GD thread about why oppressive regimes need to be stamped out?
Because the point at issue is not what the Reader CAN do; it is what the Reader SHOULD do.
Sorry, I can’t do that. We must reserve the right to make any future judgment deemed advisable in circumstances which cannot now be forseen. You have as much guidance as I give on the general subject, which in reality is nearly exactly the same level of guidance I have received from the owners of the board. You’ll just have to use your best common sense when choosing questionable topics for discussion. Just as the staff must its common sense when determining whether questionable topics are permitted to remain open.
Gobear, if you re-read my previous post, I believe you’ll find the anwswer which you seek. Or lemme quote it here. The rationale is:
Ya know, I’m really done with this now. I’ve been reduced to repeating significant portions of previous statements. And not just repeating them a single time, but some of them more than once. I can’t help it if you don’t agree or like them, but that is the reality; it’s not up for debate. This is obviously getting us nowhere. Use your common sense; the staff will use theirs. Nobody is gonna get in trouble for doing anything like what we’re discussing if we believe it has been done conscientiously and in good faith.
You’re all on your own now and you’ve raised some good points that might just be good topics for GD. Not what the Reader should, or should not do specifically, but there’s a good general case arguments that may be made.
These are not values which I support, they are values the USA is fighting for, they are values essential to the entire western world and they part of the UN declaration of Human Rights.
The Chicago Reader can decide it does not care didley about these values and it is within its rights. But I am within my rights to say people who take that attitude are selfish cowards and freeloaders who want others to stand up for the liberties we enjoy. If you have no guts to say you find certain things wrong when there is no cost involved, then you are pretty low IMHO. That is the worst image of a corporation: they care about profits and themselves and they care about nothing else. I am sorry, but that is not acceptable to me. Corporations, like people, should stand up for what is right. And if they don’t, then they will rightly be given a bad name.
Remember: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
yeah, yeah. That’s what you said yesterday.
Just kidding.
I said it before too: While we can talk in general terms, I believe it serves no useful purpose to make a federal case out of a referee call. It is better to move on and let the game continue. It’s not like someone’s life depends on thisn issue.
I fail utterly to see how the rather broad line I posted would interfere with any reservation of the Reader’s rights to make those judgments on a case-by-case basis.
And the rationale:
Just doesn’t bear scrutiny. Again I ask: WHAT RISKS? It is one thing to say the Reader, as a matter of preference, does not wish threads encouraging lawbreaking in other countries to remain open; it is quite another to say that the Reader does not so wish because of some (nonexistent) risk that a foriegn government could somehow mystically hold the Reader liable for content it finds objectionable. The former just asks us to accept the Reader’s opinion as to appropriate content; the latter asks us to accept a factually incorrect proposition as thought it were true.
Bullshit. Again, allow me to repeat myself. Too damn bad.
Dewey, while I agreed with your OP and I have posted some fairly eloquent arguments in your support (if I may be allowed to toot my own horn for once) but I believe we have all made our points and it is time to move on. Threads reach a point where they inevitably deteriorate, and this thread is past that point.
Oh it’s you again? I thought you said you were leaving. Ok, so. . . you want another beer? Or will you have some pie with the rest of us? 
Mmmmm, beer. Although after this one, I think I might need something a bit stronger—like a tumbler of scotch.
I, for one, am quite satisfied. Compare
**
with
**
Looks to me like the message has been received and, albeit somewhat snarkily, agreed with.
:rolleyes:
You are asking the readership of this board to accept a demonstrably false proposition: that the Reader is in legal jeopardy from foriegn regimes when it allows threads about how to circumvent their laws. And your only answer is “bullshit”?
This is a board dedicated to eradicating ignorance. So please tell me, where exactly does this “risk” come from?
If your position was simply “purely as a matter of preference, we would rather not have these types of threads,” that would be one thing (although it would still call for discussion – there is a moral dimension here as well, after all). But you’re adding an additional claim: that there is potential legal liability here. And that, frankly, is a load of crap. It is factually incorrect, and all the “too damn bads” in the world won’t make it otherwise.
All I’m really saying on this point is this: don’t insult my intelligence. Don’t ask me to accept that black is white, day is night. The board is under no jeopardy from the Saudis, the Chinese, the North Koreans or the Cubans for threads about how to violate their peculiarly repressive laws. It is willfully ignorant to claim otherwise.
Dewey wrote:
[…shrug…] I have no difficulty with it.