This may be a thread where balls out might prove beneficial, so let's see how far it goes.

You first EMG.

I think there is a benefit in setting a range of standards. It should be a selective process, where users can judge which balance of censorship and open debate they prefer and is most beneficial to communication. Let people vote with their feet.

Whatever standard you apply, it should be done consistently and tranparently.

 [ send green star]

Passionate jousting is always good, though the experience can be a bit of a letdown online.

 [ send green star]

Differing opinions result in debate, which to me, is quite welcome. "Trolls", on the other hand (those who drop a few lines of gibberish-commonly in all CAPS with a multitude of spelling errors) who disagree for the sake of disagreeing thru blatant ignorance or feeding deep-seeded issues from their miserable lives...have a tendency to be rather annoying. But I prefer to simply ignore such individuals.

 [ send green star]

I'm not in favor of censorship in general.

The only places I would consider applying it here at Care2 would be where vicious personal attacks or deliberate disruptions are hampering the ability of a group to function.

Then, I believe, I would block the offender from the group in question.  I would not remove posts, but Care2 probably would.

I really dislike people going behind the scenes and whining to Care2 about something.  I, too, prefer to ignore the disruptors, but sometimes it becomes impossible to do that and keep the group's ability to operate.

In "real life," censorship is only OK with me if there is some demonstrable harm occurring because of it.  Pornography involving children would be one of those cases, IMO.

And i believe there is justification for keeping certain discussions and images out of the way of children.

 [ send green star]

Censorship on Care2 or any other site should be done only to protect against foul language and personal attacks.  Period.  Any censorship beyond that anyplace that the public has been invited to share their ideas is an infringement on their right to free speech and free press. 

We seem to be headed for a time when all free speech and free press will end.  We should not hasten that day in any way.  Sometimes, I disagree that folks should be fired from their jobs for saying something totally unrelated to their jobs and away from their workplaces.  We have seen examples of that in recent years.  I have suffered so much because of censorship that I appreciate how bad it is.  "They" want to contain this news on indendent Internet news sites, like it is contained in mainstream news:

New World Order Nullifies Constitutional Rights for Neal Family
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1019414

Mary

 [ send green star]

Some have no sense of self-irony.

--What are some pros and cons of censorship in general, and regarding Care2 specifically? --What are the advantages and disadvantages of setting boundaries versus allowing an unimpeded 'free market place of ideas'? --What are some of the reasons one might choose one versus the other? Is there a middle ground?

With regard to Care2, I can understand how lack of censorship of certain things might prevent certain groups from accomplishing their goals.  Such as this one ... the goal being debate ... or ... at least .... an exchange of ideas. 

Cons:  In general, it seems to me that censorship is not generally applied in a fair and consistent manner.  In Care2, it for SURE isn't applied in a fair and consistent manner. 

Disadvantages:  Well ... the possibility that we might not get to hear an idea that might rock our worlds? 

As adults, we aren't as open to learning to change our ways, but maybe someone else could learn what not to do ... or the right way to do it. 

There's a middle ground ... one has to want to toe that line, though.  Seems like not too many do.  Most people here seem fairly passionate about their beliefs.  There are a few about who have open minds, though. 

To me, it sounds like you're advocating a "let's be honest and even in your face" sorta ambience.  I like that. 

I don't advocate meanness for the sake of meanness, and some people can stab you in the heart with a gentle smile on their face, but I do like it when people are honest with their thoughts and opinions ...

 [ send green star]

Ideally, people should be free to express their opinions without being attacked personally for doing so, but even the best of us lose our tempers when dealing with dishonorable trolls. Group hosts must do what they can to protect their other members from disruptors. The alternative, to sit back and watch chaos unfold and nothing productive result from the dialogues, is even worse than occational blocking and deleting.

Maybe censorship as a concept should apply only to governments and group hosts shouldn't even be considered in such matters.

 [ send green star]

I generally oppose censorship, yet with freedom comes responsibility.

 [ send green star]

The alternative, to sit back and watch chaos unfold and nothing productive result from the dialogues, is even worse than occational blocking and deleting.

There's almost always more than one alternative, and chaos in a group is not always the end result of not enforcing censorship. 

There are other groups that can testify to that. 

 [ send green star]

Having been the victim of a small-minded and vindictive forum moderator in the past, I naturally find censorship here abhorrent.  Those who use vile language and personal attacks reveal themselves for what they are, and can simply be ignored.  I think the nuisance value they create is minor compared to the risk of having a forum which is limited to the range of views or styles of expression acceptable to the host.

Admonitions by the hosts are quite in order, though, and can be quite effective in reigning in overenthusiastic controversy.

 [ send green star]

But, unfortunately, it's more often the rule than the exception on the political and/or "hot topics" boards here. 

I have not found one yet that does not censor. 

 [ send green star]

are often more tha minor nuisances, though - based on the reactions of their "targeted audiences." 

If everyone actually could just ignore and move on, then they would fall into the minor nuisance category. 

But most people can't ignore - it goes against human nature, it seems.  Even if you know you're being baited, it's often hard to resist slamming someone in the face with reciprocal words. 

 [ send green star]

  I am for it at times and will explain why I am in a bit.

  First off, Care2 censors, Care2 limits the rights to speech.  Anyone coming here, joining the community and thinking they have the right to free speech is obviously misled as it is already restricted from the get to.

  Now, here is where I find censorship not bad.

  Dan, I whole hearted agree with you about ignoring, and that when people become mean, that they reveal themselves.  Problem is, some if not many do not think that way and most of the time, it ends up spiraling downwards and enventually the topic becomes bloated with BS instead of content regarding the subject. 

  Also, and I say this from past experience, some of us are not confident when expressing ourselves, or maybe cower when challenged.  Or quite possibly feel we do not "fit in" with the many here that are obviously well versed (educated) and can express themelves properly.  Then come along someone who obviously does not have this deficit, they possibly become mean and the ones who are unsure of themselves no longer participate.

  Blackcat, I somewhat disagree with your statement but I guess this is all dependent upon what we are here for.  To me freedom is just that, "free".  There is no responsibilty about it.  It is when we look to gain from it, do we put restrictions upon it.

  Some genuinely are interested in what others have to say whereas others do not even care, but are here to drive a point home.  Me personally, I would like to think I am firmly grounded in my beliefs, but am always interested in an opposite view as it allows me to challenge myself.  A few times I thought I truly believed in what I did, but then come a different point of view, and it made me think twice.

  I am not sure if I speak on behalf of all the hosts here, but I will state my stake in this.  I believe that all should be welcome to speak here at Care2, especially at this group.  I have seem some brilliant people here, to which some of those I really do not care for as people, would not even piss on them if they were on fire, but I still respect their viewpoints and take it as that, "a viewpoint".  But what I detest with a passion, is the inability for some to keep it above the belt. 

  A person's viewpoint can be challenged without the challenge to the person's mental capacity, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, income, etc.  That is sometimes not the case here as when some people do challenge, they make the fatal mistake of categorizing the poster because it is easier then to diminish not only the viewpoints of the person, but the person as a whole.  In this, I feel the person who creates the box, limits themselves from new experiences.

  Like I said, it all depends on why we are here or why we join groups like this.

 [ send green star]

A person's viewpoint can be challenged without the challenge to the person's mental capacity, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, income, etc.  That is sometimes not the case here as when some people do challenge, they make the fatal mistake of categorizing the poster because it is easier then to diminish not only the viewpoints of the person, but the person as a whole.  In this, I feel the person who creates the box, limits themselves from new experiences.

I agree, it is truly unacceptable to attack the poster for their background, rather than questioning their idea for its rationality, logic and truth.

 I think you hit the nail on the head that people do it because it is easier to call a person a, "bleeding-heart idiot," or a "cold-hearted douche," than to say their idea may need some reliable evidence, and some people even "get-off" on the former more than the latter.

My opinion on where the line may be drawn is that if someone sincerely questions one's assumptions there is no harm(though some will be offended simply by being questioned), but if someone is aggressively attacking the viewpoint or especially the person, they have moved outside the "set parameters of freedom" since they are damaging and threatening another individuals liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 [ send green star]

shouldn't have any "set parameters" in my opinion.  Otherwise, it's not freedom. 

By that, I don't necessarily mean that I think all of these politically inclined groups shouldn't have limits.  Judging by some of the things that have gone on in these groups in the name of politics ... or whatever ... there apparently has to be some limit set in order to foster "civilized" discussion. 

Or there can be a looser moderation that allows for unfettered ... ahem ... koff ... "discussion."  However it's done, though, the important thing - in my opinion - is that any "rules and limitations" be equitably applied to all group members.  That's not usually the case, unfortunately.  Or different hosts have different ideas about what pushes the limits. 

In the end, a group is what it is and anyone who doesn't like the way it's moderated is free to leave.  That's generally what I do when the hosts piss me off. 

 [ send green star]

Freedom shouldn't have any "set parameters" in my opinion.  Otherwise, it's not freedom.

Then by your standards, I would suggest that "freedom" is a meaningless concept that we should simply discard as unworkable. Absolute freedom only leads to anarchy which enables the strong to oppress the weak, resulting in tyranny. Limits on freedom that can be rationally justified prevent both anarchy and tyranny, IMO.

 [ send green star]

About the weak and the strong ...

I disagree about the tyranny, though.  Tyranny is also the result of those who want to put limitations on others' freedoms ...

But in any case, I think maybe, in the context of Care2 groups, freedom - or freedom from censorship - probably won't ever reach the point of anarchy or tyranny of the weak.  The "weak" can always leave.  No one is tied to a group unless they want to be. 

 [ send green star]

Even the "strong" have their weaknesses, and the "weak" their strengths.  I would like to think that it eventually evens itself out.

 [ send green star]

Political and other topics on Care2 are moderated because the subject matter is controversial and people are passionate and sometimes intolerant. This can be deleterious when the desire is to genuinely explore, discuss, and hear multiple sides.

Not one member I've encountered on Care2 ignores all disruption. In some instances removing centre stage will end a drama, but as in 3D there are people who are undeterred by the ostrich approach.

I respect the right of others to choose how they wish to conduct their ventures, as long as it is legal and not overtly harmful. Everything is not The Man. If I am adamantly against "censorship" of any kind, I will not join a site with clear Terms of Service and Codes of Conduct.

Some block or delete because someone isn't left, right or otherwise disagrees with their opinion. I distinguish between this and moderating towards a forum which isn't overcome by highly disruptive behaviours. And while I appreciate the ability to 'know it when we see it', dealing with it as a member is not the same as co/hosting.

Indeed, some hosts favour in their moderation. Some are even-handed, and still others can have unclear motives or tendencies which are not as one might think. In which case, it is better to ask and receive an honest answer versus making an assumption or accusation.

 [ send green star]