Baen Bar closed down.

I think both are not allowed and are actually punishable.

It doesn't matter what vile a human being N might be, he got rights and legal protections just like everyone else does.

Also, see my edit above, straight from Wikipedia about free speech.

clancy688 wrote:The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Since USA refused to take ICCPR obligations, this formality is not actually applicable.

Okay? Then let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exceptions

The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".

clancy688 wrote:I think both are not allowed and are actually punishable.

It doesn't matter what vile a human being N might be, he got rights and legal protections just like everyone else does.

Also, see my edit above, straight from Wikipedia about free speech.

Okay, so essentially we should forbade all literature staring from fairy tales. There are numerous acts of violences described here, you know (just recall Little Red Riding Hood!). And even if you argue that it's not applicable to fictional characters - which is, actually, debatable, since violence against fictional character could theoretically provoke someone on violence toward real peoples - there would be enormous number of historical, documentary, ect. literature, which must be forbidden.

Dilandu wrote:Hm.

So essentially you are admitting that free speech is not some kind of basic right, but just a feature, not very important even for Western democracy. Safety is more important, so chosing between freedom and safety we should always chose safety: because there is always a probability, that some idiot might took an inspiration from some words.

No, what I'm saying is that you can't create a community based on "Free Speech" as an ideal. It's the paradox of tolerance over and over again: In order to create a tolerant community that can sustain a plurality of viewpoints, it is necessary for that community to be intolerant to viewpoints that call for the exclusion (or, as is the case with people fantasizing about an american civil war to root out all the liberals, killing) of others.

Free Speech is absolutely necessary in the first amendment sense. Government influence on speech and the illegalization of speech is a massive issue that needs to be pulled back as far as possible.
But that's not really applicable to communities created by, for example, an SF/F publishing house. In Baen's case, if their goal as a company is to promote a certain brand of writing and to build a community of fans of that writing, their approach to community moderation should take its cues from their approach to content curation. As Eric Flint argues at length, Baen's goal was to promote good books from authors that fit the Baen mold (whatever that is) regardless of the personal politics of the writers or Baen staff involved. On that axis, they've definitely been successful.
However, their approach to community moderation does not match that commitment to a plurality of viewpoints. The community they built harbors some pretty toxic people who, as several posters here have attested from personal experience, have driven people away who would otherwise be engaged members of that community.
Why did that happen? From my POV, it's because they've taken "Freedom of Speech" to be a core value of their moderation approach. This leads to the issues I talked about at length here; in the absence of effective moderation, the tone of the bar is set by the loudest people in it.

Well, at least its a point of view. Not very well argumented, of course, but at least coherent. Of course, by sticking to that you also admitting that, say, China have every right to out their minorities into re-education camps for the public safety (after all, radical Muslim terrorism is a real problem, and China found pretty efficient solution)...

Dude. No. I have never, ever argued that. This is you intentionally misreading and cherrypicking, and I thought that that's a bad thing to do?

The E wrote:Dude. No. I have never, ever argued that. This is you intentionally misreading and cherrypicking, and I thought that that's a bad thing to do?

Bingo) So you are not happy with me cherry-picking against you, but rather happy with Sanford doing this against those who you don't like. Now, that we researched "moral relativism" we could discuss why simplified general measures are remedies, not solutions.

The E wrote:But that's not really applicable to communities created by, for example, an SF/F publishing house. In Baen's case, if their goal as a company is to promote a certain brand of writing and to build a community of fans of that writing, their approach to community moderation should take its cues from their approach to content curation. As Eric Flint argues at length, Baen's goal was to promote good books from authors that fit the Baen mold (whatever that is) regardless of the personal politics of the writers or Baen staff involved. On that axis, they've definitely been successful.
However, their approach to community moderation does not match that commitment to a plurality of viewpoints. The community they built harbors some pretty toxic people who, as several posters here have attested from personal experience, have driven people away who would otherwise be engaged members of that community.
Why did that happen? From my POV, it's because they've taken "Freedom of Speech" to be a core value of their moderation approach. This leads to the issues I talked about at length here; in the absence of effective moderation, the tone of the bar is set by the loudest people in it.

With all respect, but as long as they are staying within THEIR community, they have right to fill their community with those who they liked. We could agree, that it may not be the most practical way of doing buisness, but while it is not practical to hammer a nail using microscope, as long as its their microscope, you could not accuse them of doing so.

I may even agree, that communities with, say, "toxic" atmosphere validate more outside attention to their activity (i.e. that they are by definition more suspicious), but as long as they done nothing actually wrong or illegal - and collective masturbation on militia fantasy is not illegal - it could not be a reason to intervention.

Essentially, its all about preventive intervention, frankly. Do you have right to interfere before anything was actually done? Or not? And if yes, then at which level you must stop?

Dilandu wrote:
Okay, so essentially we should forbade all literature staring from fairy tales. There are numerous acts of violences described here, you know (just recall Little Red Riding Hood!). And even if you argue that it's not applicable to fictional characters - which is, actually, debatable, since violence against fictional character could theoretically provoke someone on violence toward real peoples - there would be enormous number of historical, documentary, ect. literature, which must be forbidden.

Dude, you're wrong. Violence in fictional stories against fictional people living in a fictional world is completely different from proposing violence against real people in the real world.

Dilandu wrote:Bingo) So you are not happy with me cherry-picking against you, but rather happy with Sanford doing this against those who you don't like. Now, that we researched "moral relativism" we could discuss why simplified general measures are remedies, not solutions.

I am not happy with you misrepresenting me because we're just two dudes exchanging posts on the internet and I know that what you wrote about me was factually wrong.

Sanford, on the other hand, doesn't do that. Noone is arguing that the posts Sanford cites directly do not exist; Flint's and apparently your disagreement is in how representative they are. Sanford argues that they are representative of a kind of poster whose presence raises questions about the priorities Baen has for their community; Flint (and you) argues that they're not representative of the bar as a whole and certainly not representative of some real danger that exists out in the world. That's definitely something one can have disagreements over.

Dilandu wrote:With all respect, but as long as they are staying within THEIR community, they have right to fill their community with those who they liked. We could agree, that it may not be the most practical way of doing buisness, but while it is not practical to hammer a nail using microscope, as long as its their microscope, you could not accuse them of doing so.

Survivorship. Bias. Again and again and again. If the only people allowed to criticize a community for what it does and how its members behave as part of it are people in that community, if an outside perspective that isn't flattering must be shouted down into oblivion, then the potential of the community to attract new members is severely reduced.

I may even agree, that communities with, say, "toxic" atmosphere validate more outside attention to their activity (i.e. that they are by definition more suspicious), but as long as they done nothing actually wrong or illegal - and collective masturbation on militia fantasy is not illegal - it could not be a reason to intervention.

People talked themselves into a frenzy because they imagined a child trafficking ring operating in the high society of US politics. People in the US were fantasizing about how the election was being stolen to such an extent that they filed dozens of spurious lawsuits and tried to kidnap elected officials.
This sort of stuff does have real-world consequences, and it's not enough to incarcerate people who actually do commit crimes, it's also necessary to look into the why and how of them becoming radicalized and, more importantly, how to get them to step away from the brink.

The E wrote:
People talked themselves into a frenzy because they imagined a child trafficking ring operating in the high society of US politics. People in the US were fantasizing about how the election was being stolen to such an extent that they filed dozens of spurious lawsuits and tried to kidnap elected officials.
This sort of stuff does have real-world consequences, and it's not enough to incarcerate people who actually do commit crimes, it's also necessary to look into the why and how of them becoming radicalized and, more importantly, how to get them to step away from the brink.

And? Peoples also talked themselves into a frenzy about "Russian imvolvement" and invented stories about "Russia pays bounties for American soldiers". This stuff does have INTERNATIONAL consequences, but for some reason you are not arguing that promoters of said ideas must be shut up until they produce clear, undisputable evidences? That mass media and journalists must be silenced, not stir the public opinion against other nation because of mere rumors? That politicians who allow such accusations without overwhelming proofs being thrown must be severly reprimanded, removed from the places of power as they are dangerous and irresponsible?

(waiting for "IT IS DIFFERENT!!! line...)