Steve,
Just to enter my two cents worth;
I think everyone here will back you on freedom of speech issues, although just like not yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater, there are limits to your freedom in every aspect of your life, and I think there needs to be here, too. People believe the anomonimity of the internet give them the right to behavior that wouldn't be acceptable in real life. Courts have said you have to be responsible for what you post though. I bet if I walked into your office building yelling obcenities, calling you names, cutting you down, and shouting lies, security would show me to the front door in a hurry, or worse. Is that censorship? It's always a fine line whether you'd be violating my rights or I'd be violating yours. This is Jeff, Brad, and Jills' site so it's up to them what they will tolerate here. They have terms of use that we've all agreed to abide by to be able to frequent their site.
That said, we are all adults here and I agree people and posts here should only be censored in the most extreme cases. I think Jill has handled Jim well. In the beginning, I think Jim was definitely pushing the line. Jill has obviously asked him to temper it down a little, and he has. I have no problem with anything Jim has posted lately. It actually adds a little levity to the day. The Monica post was cute (to me anyway), and I doubt it offended Barbara at all (although I shouldn't speak for her). I'm sure she comes across worse everyday in real life. And I'm sure everyone that read Jim's Aids post to Paul just shook there heads at Jim, but noone thought anything less of Paul. So some of those posts can just be ignored and shouldn't bother people. And really I don't care if he wants to try and cut down WinStar all day, we can defend WinStar if we want. And I really don't care what he says about me. I've got pretty thick skin. I don't care if he wants to say we're getting married. Heck, we should tell him about our kid.
However, I know of two cases where posters on SI are involved in lawsuits over what they've posted on SI. So there are probably many more. So posting lies on SI aren't just wrong, it's illegal, and Jill ought to be able to try and stop illegal behavior. I would back Jill if she said anyone knowingly posting false or misleading information was banned from posting. This site could become worthless if you couldn't trust info that was posted here (apart from your own DD, etc).
Further, SI ought to be able to offer a post filter that imposes on nobodies freedom of speech. If I want to click a box that says "Do not show me posts made by Jim Fink" and another box that says "Do not show me responses made to Jim Fink", I don't see anything wrong with that. It's absolutely Jim's right to post, and it should be my right not to see it if I don't want to. Obviously, I might lose something in the flow of the thread, but that would be my sacrafice. I remember a couple weeks ago logging in here and seeing something like 58 new posts made in just a couple hours. It probably took me a hour out of my life to read them all, and it was nothing of substance except for Jim's rantings and responses to him. It would have taken just about as much time to just keep hitting the "next" button to flip thru the posts looking for something of substance. I personally normally have the time to do this, but for others who don't have this time, I imagine this over whelming amount of thrash posting can turn them away. One inparticular is Ric D. You could learn ten times as much from him about the company, technology, and competition as you can from the rest of us combined. When Ric and others like him quit posting because of all the trash, we all lose.
And PS, I'm around enough kids all the time to know that anything they could see on this site is nothing compared to what they're seeing/saying/experiencing everyday in real life and around school. And I've seen photocopies of jokes they're passing around school that make the Monica joke look like "See Spot run". So that seems like a weak argument to me. |
