*****FREE SPEECH--OFF TOPIC--OXYMORON?*****
Duane, I have little doubt that you are sincerely offended by this Auric flamer. Equally, I "hear" you enthusiastically endorsing free speech, willing to take on all comers, let the best argument win, all the classic John Stuart Mill stuff. The distinction you seem to be making is that you want to put strictures on the process when posts veer off to what you describe as "personal attack" vis a vis staying on the topic of the merits of this or that stock. Believe me I am not trying to set you up, but you can obviously see the immediate difficulty--what's a personal attack to you may not be to someone else, what you consider to be an appropriate topic, likewise. Libel laws are different for celebrities than they are for you and me, the idea being that folks who have voluntarily put themselves out in the public limelight have necessarily forfeited the protection that would otherwise be afforded a private citizen. Thus, if an editorial claims that "Richard Nixon (or Bill Clinton, or pick you pol) is a crook", we as a society have adopted the notion that the press needs to be ever vigilant in exposing celebrities to intense scrutiny which protects the public's right to know, to make informed decisions, etc. But, of course, if I claim you, Duane, are a crook, then I have exposed myself to legal recourse because I have damaged you. It is an interesting question if some of these concepts spill over into cyberspace,e.g., nobody forces us to post but once we do, haven't we just kind of opened up the door? Maybe this is nothing more than a long version of "If you can't stand the heat . . . " but I do not mean it unsympathetically. Call me zany, but I very much enjoy the QCOM thread and it would disappoint me greatly if some flamer jumped in and spoiled the party. But, using that example, I wonder how long he/she would last? More to the point, wouldn't more damage be done by restrictive rules than by a few days annoyance? This thread has had a few wars from time to time as folks got put off by one remark or another, but it has always been short lived, and seemed to be resolved by--dare I say it?--majority opinion: If one poster was deemed off-base, the resulting outpouring of contrary posts pretty much sufficed to put a lid on it. I offered to respond to this issue because I thought (and think) it is an important one. A suggestion to consider might involve some formalization of the process I just described--some guy/gal starts fling posts which,in YOUR personal opinion, qualify for censorship. Write the headmaster and call for a vote on the thread. If 2/3 or more want the offending thorn removed, adios for one month. Second offense, again confirmed by 2/3 vote, three months. Third time is sayonara. I cannot think of another mechanism and am sure that this suggestion has flaws, but it might be a start. It's either that or have Ramsey appointed czar and just start flagging guys for bad jokes (sorry Caxton). ;-) Hope some portion of this is useful. Best Regards, Mike Doyle |
