Free speech for Fascists but not anti-fascists?

[Richard III]

I have noticed a creeping increase in pro-fascist comments in this forum. Ok, it happens. What is more distressing is the fact that the position of CFC seems to suppress anyone's efforts to point out this fact. In one thread, I found a guy quoting David Irving to attack FDR. Not a lot of people reading David Irving these days after he lost his libel suit. After all, losing that suit meant he is one of the few people in the world to be found to be a "Hitler partisan" and a Holocaust denier in open court - in a suit he started, no less. Apparently, the recent OT "shakeup" was to defend this Irving-quoter and others like him from the attacks he so justly deserves.

Another fellow, sporting the name of a British political party that is legal but also plainly bigoted, has argued that Hitler's failure was that he fought a war that killed a lot of white people "while claiming to speak for and defend white people"; I think the implication is pretty clear, and pretty offensive.

I beleive in free speech. I beleive that these people have a right to speak, even here. But I am at a loss as to how censoring someone for attacking fascists is somehow helping free speech... why not let the fascists talk - AND take the brutal lumps they deserve from the rest of us? I've already seen one guy this morning banned for "stalking" the guy who made the "white people" remark. Where I come from, stalking holocaust deniers online is considered a public service, not a bannable offence. Please, let me know why it is an offence here, because I have a hard time coming up with any rationalization whatsoever...

R.III

 

[carlosMM]

You put what I feel into very eloquent words - thanx!

 

[Richard III]

While poking through another OT thread, I found this comment from a relatively new (20 post) visitor:

Vote BNP? Is that allowed here?

Oh dear and I thought this was a nice site. Well I am not coming here again.

To further add to my point, in sincere but direct rebuttal to a comment I'd received from one hard-working mod, he'd noted that the BNP IS legal. But I think it's easy to miss that hearing those initials to some on our forum is like hearing "KKK" in certain states of the Union - e.g. not the sort of thing that's seen as very welcoming.

Once again, let me reiterate, I don't believe these invaders should be banned or censored, but I do believe that we should be allowed to ostracize them so that they feel their poison won't be treated seriously here and allowed to infect others.

R.III

 

[jack merchant]

I completely agree - also, I don't think endorsements for a political party should be allowed as usernames anyway. Put it in your sig if it's so important to you.

Great post, Richard III

 

[Yago]

Yes, I think too, that thats a great post. And maybe it has something to do with the fact, that there's lacking an European moderator. Well, I don't want to imply, that the mod is doing a bad job. Quite the opposite, but I think it's just because that's an European problem and the way, Europeans deal with those, aren't known to an American. Again, I don't want to say, that the mod is making a bad job or isn't trying to be neutral, it's just not the way, most Europeans react to people like that. Pointing out for what they stand for.

 

[test_specimen]

Very true RIII, I have similar problems with posters that defend Hitler and Nazi Germany. Even Simon's defense for Hitler as an artist is rather hard to stomach, but at least he tries to differentiate. On the other hand there was a poster, West German, who quite openly pitied that Hitler lost WWII, I really don't know how to react to statements like those.

But I would not meet such people in real life. It's just hard to distinguish between those that are trolling and those that want to discuss their views.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Richard III
Another fellow, sporting the name of a British political party that is legal but also plainly bigoted, has argued that Hitler's failure was that he fought a war that killed a lot of white people "while claiming to speak for and defend white people";

You had not notice he was banned for that post? Within a short time of it going up even though niether you nor other posters reperted it.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I sort of agree with you Richard III. I don't think, for instance, that Vote BNP is an appropriate username for a board devoted to civilization computer games. But the sort of mob attacks and slandering that Lefty had to deal with are not acceptable either. Some people like to use the words "Nazi", "racist", "fascist", etc whenever they disagree with someone.

And BTW Richard, you once called me a Nazi apologist because I argued that the second world war was not soley caused by German aggression. Is that the sort of thing you want to encourage?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola

You had not notice he was banned for that post? Within a short time of it going up even though niether you nor other posters reperted it.

I have noticed since, but that's exactly my point.

1. Your job - fairly, I think - is only to sack or edit blatantly offensive posts, not blatantly offensive IDEAS.

2. So, in this situation, because the poster was "open" about his white power talk (instead of hiding it just under the cloak through talk of immigration or the EU or "greatest Germans" or whatever) you were able to bounce that particular post. But you can't bounce the person, nor can you bounce every just-barely-legal post he makes. Nor would I suggest you should.

3. My problem is not whether you ban or unban these posters or their posts; I very rarely report a post (I think I've done it once) because I'd prefer to have the community rebut or humiliate the poster instead. Better to learn from our peers to see what's offensive, rather than having some red ink strike from above.

And THAT's my point: when the CFC community rose up to denounce these guys as the particularly offensive people they've proven to be, it was treated as though the denounciations were the crime, not the despicable ideas. As I'd said, in the case of the second poster I refer to, the guy who was "stalking" him took as big a hit for calling the bigot what he clearly was as the bigot took for only his most outrageous of many statements. And, given the one-day "shakeup," it is as thought the entire OT community took the same hit, again being held to fault for attacking these guys for what they are.

I guess this is me showing my bias of "free speech is a self-policing model" here, and I know you have other limits to deal with. I know this isn't an easy issue; you guys have the added problem of keeping debates cool and calm in an environment where some people are often wrongly denounced as fascists...

More later.

R.III

 

[Richard III]

Just clicked beyond my ignore screen to read your post, Calc. Based on what I remember, I still believe it was a fair call; your arguments didn't sound like "there were more factors at work," but instead sounded to me like you implied that countries that got invaded had it coming.

But since I'm in a charitable mood today (long story) I'll click off the ignore button and look forward to continuing that discussion in what I HOPE can be a more civil vein offline via PM.

I will freely admit, btw, that I lose my temper - at software pirates and nazi/imperial japanese apologism in particular. But I think we can all agree that the likes of what we're speaking about here is not simply a problem of quick flashes of temper or too-quick denounciations. Clearly, from the pattern of posts being made, the people being "stalked" seem to be people who are here to do nothing but use the forum as a target to promote a particularly odious agenda, rather than people who wander into one controversial statement now and again.

R.III

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Richard III
3. My problem is not whether you ban or unban these posters or their posts; I very rarely report a post (I think I've done it once) because I'd prefer to have the community rebut or humiliate the poster instead. Better to learn from our peers to see what's offensive, rather than having some red ink strike from above.

I don't think I agree with this. I mean, isn't that exactly why we have moderators? To handle offensive or otherwise inappropriate posts? To keep the forum civil?

Doesn't it come down to what Thunderfall's vision of the site is? Would he rather see public floggings or moderator actions?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Richard III
he so justly deserves.

What ever a posters political opponents may judge that he deserves, CFC does not deserve offense to its peace. Stick with responding to posts, not flaming posters.

I've already seen one guy this morning banned for "stalking" the guy who made the "white people" remark.

and flaming and threadjacking (the last post you site injected into a thread totaly unrealated to the subject BNP politics. And that was yerterday, before BNP made his extremmely unwise foray into a thread invovling Nazis adn Hitler. Even the most minimal political commonsense should have told him to avoid it like the plague, and you are worrying about him promoting the party or trying to back? If his opponents had any bacic political tactics they should want him to post more.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Dralix
Doesn't it come down to what Thunderfall's vision of the site is?

Exactly which does include anything remotely like RichardIIIs preference.

 

[Richard III]

Oh well, it doesn't seem as though I can take you off the ignore list.

Amusing.

just click anywhere on the name in the list, and erase it with delete and backspace keys, then save changes.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Richard III
To further add to my point, in sincere but direct rebuttal to a comment I'd received from one hard-working mod, he'd noted that the BNP IS legal.

Shall Thuderfall ban every party or political symbol, ther would be Zero left. Open them up to flaming, nearly the same result. I guarran-damn-ree, that I could burn, traumatize, and drive my political opponents better than almost any of you, (The variation of the old psychological ploy at my office was "Good lawyer, bad lawyer, and you do even want to meet Barrett {Lefty}"). Before becoming a moderator I had already done some of that even staying within the (somewhat loser) rules of the time. Most of the political posters here a rather young, and lack the stamina or steadiness for un-moderated debate.

 

[Richard III]

Well, organizations adapt.

I'm sorry, but the situation might have evolved beyond that vision - which is why Thunderfall is smart enough to allow for site feedback, I assume.

In the most obvious example of evolution (or involuntarily devolution), a guy with the name "Vote BNP" or "Love the Klan" or whatever is not someone you can just deal with on a post-by-post basis. Hell, people are obliged to promote the frickin' BNP even as they rebut his posts, simply by having to refer to "Vote BNP's last post."

I guess I started the thread to ask a direct question: is this forum adapting to make life easier for guys who want to promote reactionary ideas, or easier for guys who are willing to let the reactionaries talk but not without a robust response?

R.III

 

[Richard III]

Sorry, Lefty, we were crossing posts.

Again, I'm not suggesting Vote BNP be banned or edited. Quite the contrary. If I had my way, it would simply be a manner of allowing people to explain just what vote BNP meant every time the name appeared. If our Democrat posters can do it to Republicans, surely our anti-racists can do it to our racists?

(absolutely NOT comparing either US party to either view, obviously)

R.III

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

If BNP policy is the subject of the thread or his post rebut it, if he posts a thread about "why I like bikinis", posting that no body should pay attention to him because hes belong to BNP and is racist scum is flaming threadjacking. Posting DL, Troll, baby-raper, is always out. In the BNP topic thread posting an amzingline devastaing trashing of the party Like Kafka2 did is damn fine, tossing out naked pejoratives unsupported by evidence.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

In any case your thread title is false advertising. The actual question YOU are posing is
"Free speech for politics I do not like, but not for flamers? "

And the answer is Darn Tooting, that is the way it is here.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

And premptively for the next suggestion that will likely come up.
Thunderfall has REPEATEDLY rejected an unmoderated free for all debate and flame forum.