Hiya,
I'm happy to say, this has never happened to me on this site, but has been a cause of some amusement for me on others.

I asked a moderator their opinion, in that, considering human rights and freedom of speech, if a chatter is muted or kicked that not only their freedom of speech is denied but most importantly the freedom of all the chatters to decide whether they wish to listen or ignore is also taken away and that the only similar example i can compare that to is dictators like nazis and communists.

I got banned! The dictator proved me right! lol

The irony being, it is the moderator who takes away the liberty of the chatters whilst trying to protect the liberty of the chatters.

Who Moderates the Moderators?

I'm not sure how how the law is written in the UK, but in the USA when speaking of freedom of the speech it is only the government that is really restricted from barring free speech. Private entities are free to ban or include any speech as they see fit. Other wise every letter to the editor in a paper would have to be printed, every viewpoint and counterview would be required to be presented equally. This would be a boon to the people who make paper and ink - but I wouldn't want to have to read or hear it all.

$0.02

Jeri

I find that a bit worrying Jeri. I think your post is really good and I'm going to express my opinion about it! lol

I think people apreciate that newspapers and magazines only print a singular point of view which may not be truthful but more of a sensationalist story to increase readership and that it would be a bit far fetched to represent every viewpoint, however, there are now lots of websites where anyone can post their opinion regarding such stories.

With Nikki's example, it makes sense to restrict the freedom of speech, because it is insighting people to break the law.

My example, which I started the thread with, is that it seems some people feel they have the right to stop other people because they dont fit in with their personal opinion.

What I find disturbing regarding your statement Jeri, with an example, a website hosting a forum that has a thread saying gays, lesbians and transsexuals should be wiped off the planet. Lots of people have made contributions to this thread. Posts that agree and offer suggestions on how to go about purging the planet are viewable where as all oposing posts are sensored. Obviously this is inline with the current law in the US where private parties can decide what should be banned or included but the whole thread gives the idea that what they are saying is perfectly acceptable and normal. a perfect example of this is to view the link on the TW forum thread titled "transsexuals dont exist" which goes to a wordpress forum. this thread has a lot of people discussing the human condition of the transgendered and how it should be dealt with and every oposing opinion has been sensored.

you see my concern? its a very "dictator" situation in being a freedom at the expense of the freedom of others.

i supose people with that kind of thinking would say, you have the freedom to have your own thread, probably also say, this bus is for whites only, you have the freedom to have your own blacks only bus.

but anyway lol, one last thing,

"every viewpoint and counterview would be required to be presented equally" isnt that the whole point of equality? isnt that the fundamental philosophy that should be adopted to ensure that everyone experiences an equal sense of freedom? you make it sound such a drag but i thought that was exactly the point of basic human rights, that everyone, whatever their opinion, gets an equal oportunity and chance of being represented.

Over to you
Love
Penny

Penny

This kinda rambles I hope you don't see it as a rant, because I don't mean it that way.

I see your concerns and I have the same concerns. I was just stating that the government can't bar free speech - which is a good thing so we are free to criticize it and call our politicians buffoons without winding up in jail.

On the other hand, I do wish they could ban inflammatory speech, which is only meant to get people riled up. The web has allowed every group of haters to get a presence everywhere and make it appear they have lots of support. They can do this by posting under many different names through anonymous accounts, it’s called marketing. Terrorist groups even operate websites based in the US to advocate the destruction of our vile culture, and the government can’t shut them down, but the companies that host the internet servers can – and do.

Tabloid newspapers do the same thing to titillate and shock, so more people buy their product. In the US local newspapers are struggling with sales but the tabloids (National Enquirer) seem to be doing just fine. “News television” that is on 24 hours a day doesn’t really have enough real news to report so they resort to editorials which they call news or they just make stuff up. They know controversy sells so they sell sell sell.

I personally believe in the free exchange of ideas in the open. I have found that many times people disagree out of misunderstanding and not knowing (ignorance not stupidity). I have had my eyes opened to other’s ideas, view points that had never even popped into my head, and I hope I have done the same to others. Yeah yeah, I have also talked until my tongue had blisters to people that had their mind made up and nothing would change it. My experiences on the internet have found that this type of place does not exist for long because a few people take over and try to crush the spirit of the others and dominate the discussion. That’s why Tranny Web has been such a pleasant surprise! I enjoy the forums and they the fact they don’t degenerate into personal attacks and name calling.

So anyway Penny I see your points and agree. We shouldn’t use our freedoms to take away the freedoms of others. I once read a statement that said our freedoms extend only to where someone else’s begins.

Dang I need to get to work. Have a great day.

Hugs & kisses Jeri

Although I rarely speak my mind at TW, I would like to offer some of my thoughts if that would be ok.............................lol. There have been a lot of great posts here supporting the rights of others to speak freely and there have been thoughtful posts on how it would be nice if we could somehow stop hate speech. I can't argue with those concepts but there seems to be one thing that has had little if any mention in this thread and that is, freedom of speech does not come without consequences. Some of the posts alluded to censorship and if you think about it, censorship when used on an individual basis is freedom of speech. You need to realize most hate groups, or any group for that matter, tend to preach to the choir. Meaning the people that seek out what they have to say, already to some extent agree with the viewpoint being spoken. And that brings us back to freedom of speech at TW and how moderators react to various things that are said. There are guidelines for the chatrooms, call it chatroom etiquette. Although some people may not see something as undesirable, there still could be others that do, and that is when a moderator needs to step in and apply the chatroom guidelines to the situation. That does not mean the annoyed side is going to win every time, or let me say, it should not mean the annoyed side will win every time. The guidelines are established to keep some order, to maintain a consistent environment that those seeking to chat can expect to find here. When those guidelines are ignored, there are consequences.
Hugs,
Marsha

Hiya Jeri & Marsha, great posts, I really enjoyed reading both of them.

Upon reflection, thinking about my little rant here and the websites which cause me frustration, I should learn to accept that theres a lot of people out there who see nothing wrong with opressing those they dislike. I know I am very passionate about everyone having equal representation and I'm sure I will come across more iniquty in the future.

I grew up thinking the US was the land of the free and so on and so forth. Since realising that there is a huge struggle in the US where people are still fighting to have everyone included in the equality human rights bill, as highlighted by various previous threads here in TW. I'm not sure how that is progressing. And understanding that it is lawful for private entities to ban and exclude whoever they like, with such open discrimination, i can undertsand why a lot of people struggle to comprehend basic human rights. Tell me if my understanding is wrong, but I cant help feel an immense sense of disappointment with what I once considered an icon and beacon of freedom free from opression. Its more like, the land of freedom and oportunity for the select.

Obviously, I only know what I've seen, heard and been told, I'm not living it. The preconceptions that I have developed may be totally way out. I look forward to reading other points of view.

I do get very disappointed when I hear people complaining about immigrants. Apparently, they come over to steal our houses, steal our jobs and claim our benifits. Whats wrong about these humans, are they sub human or something? Should they not be treated as any human being should, equally? The only thing I would say is that for someone to receive benifits and services that are provided by and paid for by the taxpayers funds, they should at least be a contributor to that taxpayers fund. I'm sure the government arent stupid enough to allow anyone to claim benifits, have you tried claiming? lol

Anyway, thats enough for me at this time, I'm sure I'll find more stuff to blurb about lol. cya x

Penny, sometimes I have a hard time understanding whether or not you are being sarcastic or maybe it is just our somewhat different cultures and word usage. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater without cause is a crime and rightfully so. So can we say that is restricting someone's freedom of speech?

I agree most topics should be allowed to be discussed in the chatroom, and if someone doesn't like the particular topic they can excuse themselves and leave until a topic more to their liking comes up. Even I have been involved in conversations I felt were appropriate and found myself told to stop by a moderator. As I stated in my last post to this thread, there are guidelines for our chatroom and basically for the main room it is to keep the conversation clean and not make unsolicited advances to others without their permission.

And to think that equality has to mean freedom to do or say whatever is ridiculous. Should murderers and rapist be allowed to do what feels good for them? Obviously not, and that is why we have laws here in the U.S. and likewise in the UK. Laws can alternatively be call restrictions on freedom. That is why most developed societies have a method for creating new laws so as to avoid the dictator craziness. Many laws have loopholes that allow unwanted behavior to persist and that is where we find ourselves battling to remove the discrimination that currently exists. In the U.S. we have the freedom to gather and that is something many countries around the world do not have. That means we can gather to protest or gather to speak out about hatred, or gather in churches that meet our needs. Saying that is not equality is ridiculous. Basically you and I have an equal right to setup our own chatroom with our own rules. That is equality.

Lots of hugs,
Marsha

Penny

In general terms the freedoms and laws we have in the US are the same as you have in the UK. After all our laws were originally derived from British common law, of course over a couple of centuries they have evolved and in some instances may be somewhat different than yours. But like driving on the other side of the highway it may seem odd but in the grand scheme of things it really isn’t that different, and you could get used to it. We aren’t perfect – individually or as a whole – but I think we're pretty nice.

Jeri

Hiya,

Good responses, i did enjoy reading. I'm sure you guessed I am stiring the mud a little to generate debate lol.

I'm sure most sensible people respect others views and facilitate good hearty debate. It just came to my attention that there seems to be quite a number of websites which only allow one point of view to be voiced and I thought a discussion on various aspects and understanding of human rights and freedom of speech would be nice.

Moderators perform a valuable role in ensuring that people who break the law or incite to break the law are removed, It just seems to me that some moderators seem to think that they can remove anyone they like, hence my "dictator" view on such individuals and my irony bit.

now diversing the discussion a bit...

Someone once said that isnt the black policemans assossiation illegal because it is discriminative, and my response to that is I think you will find that you dont have to be black to join and you also dont have to be a policeman either because if it was the case that only black police people were allowed to join then it would be an unethical and illegal organisation, or should be. I dont know the actual truth though, maybe someone does.

I refused to join the freemasons because in my opinion it is an illegal organisation because I found their philosophy unethical and I didnt want to allign myself with such people who thought it was ok to do so.

The Womens Institute and Working Mens Club shouldnt refuse any application on the basis of sexual discrimination either. It is my understanding that people join organisations because they are interested to join and will add to the organisation instead of trying to cause disruption, which of course would lead to expulsion.

I think thats enough for now lol. I look forward to reading responses.
Love
Penny

No responses damit! lol, I feel as if Im all soggy and wet and Ive been left out to dry in the sun!

we havnt had any resident nutters recently.

I'll think of somin! lol

Poor Penny... disappointed by the lack of responses.. perhaps little me should get this going again.

Actually I'm going to use this thread to raise the matter of an experience I had in the chat room yesterday - Not exactly 'hijacking the thread because it is on-topic. I was thinking of starting my own but ,hey, this is an appropriate place for my comments.

What happened was this. One of the room regulars came into the room and apropos of nothing (the rest of us were discussing the weather) put forward a view I disagreed with very strongly indeed. Its appropriate that I leave the person unnamed but I need the repeat what was said for my posting to make sense.

First, s/he said the recent attempt to bring down a plane over America was due to UK membership of the EU. I pointed out the lack of connection since the man responsible is a Nigerian. S/he told me Nigeria is in the EU. (Ok, I don't really need to debate this, just suggest we all get our atlases down of the shelf). S/he then said that you can only be British if you are white.

I left the room. I did this because I was in the mood for a light hearted chat, not to have a 'debate' on this matter. I did first say that I'm surprised that in a room set up for a minority (the transgendered) we get views against another minority (British people of different ethinic group). Actually, I not that surprised - there are plenty examples of prejudice within minority groups - but i'm still alarmed it exists here.

However this thread isn't really about the view itself - but about censorship. Was guilty of censorship by just upping and leaving at that point? If so, it is the one form of censorship allowed to me. I just didn't feel like engaging at that point.

I am generally of the view that if an opinion is out there is should be heard in public. Firstly so it can be argued against (if necessary) and secondly so people hold these views don't feel their own rights havn't been infringed. For example I was in favour of N. Griffin appearing on Question Time recently (For those of you not in UK, the leader of our far right part appeared on the BBC's flagship political debate show)

The question, is a support and general entertainment chat room the most approrpiate place? I really don't know. Conversations anywhere can be quite stilted if there are forbidden directions for it. On the other hand, this room needs to be open to people of all ethnic groups.

Pip, I look at it like this is a TV or Radio station. I have my favorite stations to watch or listen to, however there are times when they have something on that I just don't like. So I go do something else and come back later. Just because someone should have a right to express their opinion doesn't mean anyone has to be there to hear it. Censorship is more about not letting others see or hear the words. As for what had been said, I don't agree with it and it would not be my first topic of choice in our chat room, but it is a current event so I personally would not have an issue with someone bringing it up. I think sometimes in an effort to be more lady-like or something, some are too polite. Instead of you leaving, maybe if you said "Sorry but I'm not interested in discussing that here" then this person would have maybe changed their tone or left.

I don't hate anyone because of their particular views on a subject, but if it they have an opinion on a certain subject that I don't like, I just try to avoid the subject. Hopefully we can remain friends.

Hugs,
Marsha

I am all for freedom of speech but.................at what point does it become harmful? Away from TW, (so no, I'm not comparing the two issues), here is an example, in my opinion, of why even 'free' speech still needs regularing.

'Hamza, aka the hook, 48, is serving a seven-year jail term at Belmarsh high security prison for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred

"Killing of the kafir (non-believer) for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it." He called on his followers to poison, ambush and kill non-believers and added: "You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don't ask shall I do this, just do it."

Of licensors for alcohol sellers he said: "Make sure that the person who gave him the licence for that wine shop doesn't exist any more on the Earth. Finish him up. Give him dawa (inviting non-Muslims to accept the truth of Islam). If he doesn't respect dawa, kill him."

Yes, this person has had his 'right to free speech' taken away, I personally can't see a problem with that. It's one thing to say these things in private, it's another to preach them in public and incite (at the very least) bad feeling and civil unrest.

Nikki

In the chatroom Lillianne Lee is head moderator. If you think one is to heavy handed contact her.

A chat hostess should be reactive.

It is not her position or remit to judge content, but to be aware of the way in which it is presented. To remain calm and not react to provocation.

If, for instance, a lot of swearing is involved, this is generally unacceptable, and the user should be taken aside and politely asked to moderate their language.
If a concept that is generally unacceptable to most cultures or societies is introduced, it should be discouraged. And so on.

The question of whether or not suspending or banning a chatter conflicts with their right to free speech ought to provoke a lively discussion, and as such should be encouraged. In TW we have often have long discussions about some extremely controversial subjects, sometimes with someone taking a position contrary to their own beliefs - it's called a debate!

I would only step in if things became acrimonious or reached a point where things got too heated and personal. Then it would be my job as a hostess to attempt to defuse the situation. Privately. Only if the perpetrator(s) declines to follow advice would I consider a time-out by 'kicking' them from the room. This is only a temporary action, and they can rejoin shortly afterwards, hopefully having had time to cool off.
If all else fails, then it can be referred. As yet, over a period of some years, I have never reached the point where I have had to seriously use the 'boot button'.

Penny, perhaps when the right people are chatting you ought to bring it up again and we'll see what the TW girls (who are, of course, a cut above average) make of it.

There's a first time for everythin penny.....NOW who you been upsetting.....lol


Lol xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

This thread is now suspended.




Naaah just kidding.
xx

I am not aware of any current situation concerning moderators as I cannot access TW at home for the moment, hence I am not around as much as I would like.

As a moderator, however, I will say this - all too often people enter the chatroom after having had a bit too much to drink. Need I say more? Just last week the museum held its Christmas party. At the after-party, one of the supervisors - who was quite well-oiled at that point - became very abusive and it took three of us to haul him out. I'm suprised I didn't reinjure myself during that episode. Sometimes when people come in to the chatroom filled with liquid courage we do need to be on watch. More than once there was a fight brought about by someone who needed to go sleep it off.

Yes evan a closed minded Archie Bunker wannabe has the right to be heard. But it has been desided long long ago that they can not force anyone to listen.
But sometimes I will let them go on I find stupidity at that depth funny.