think her opinion is of great value and warrants looking at closely. Is suspending someone for the contents of their posts justifiable then?
The problem (seems to me) is drawing a fine line between the contents of a post (ideas, opinions) and how the content was expressed.
As far as banning certain ideas and opinions...first, we are arguing in favor of free speech and an unimpeded flow of ideas based on our home countries, whereas Simon's in the UK. Our perspectives are different in many cases. Some have had relatively free speech for a long time; others much less. Things that would be considered acceptable in one country may not be in another and vice versa. Chris Rock might be seen as sophisticated in Los Angeles; would he get the same rating in Manchester?
Second, there are some things that probably most/all of us could agree are properly restricted--advocating the violent overthrow of the home country's government, slander/libel, encouraging a suicide, etc.
But, say, (Bleep's? FredHall's?) statement that Bill Bowen is using the people who've testified about abuse as weapons in some private war he has with the Society, while maybe outrageous, isn't illegal and deserves airing if someone wants to discuss it. And thoughtful discussion can happen without the thread degenerating into a Jerry Springer-like brawl.
The comment made by (can't remember who--I'm old, what can I say?) toward CC Ryder's wife was outrageous as well as unexplainable. And it's contemptible that no apology or try at clarifying the post happened. But it wasn't illegal or one of the other categories mentioned above. I may come off sounding like I'm defending that poster for what they said, but I'm not. I'm defending the principle, and unfortunately X happened to be the particular user of that principle. An analogy: in 1996 in America the Communications Decency Act was passed. At an early stage it mandated a six month jail term and a $250,000 fine (someone correct me if I'm wrong on the details) for making "porn" available on a website to minors. A couple in Milpitas California ran a BBS with kiddie porn on it. Someone in Memphis d/l'ed some and complained. Those opposing the terms of this law were demonized as supporting kiddie porn. We weren't, but it was easy to make it look that way, if you didn't care to split hairs. Speech can be offensive, but here we're getting to the point (as JanH and others have noted) where clean, non-"F" word speech can bring repercussions. That scares me. It scares me more when a sizable portion of a country willingly goes along with it. Mob mentality.
Maybe I'm getting callused about insults, but I hear lies and misinformation over and over by the fundamentalist Right in America. I understand why people here get upset at the conduct of some. But how hard is it not to read their posts? Ignore threads they start if need be. That way you don't get upset with them. FredHall's, Youknow's, and Bleep's pictures above their names are distinctive enough.
Back in the 1970's when CB radio was popular, I could count on out-of-towners starting fights over the air with locals in my town. Lots of "Where you at, man?" and threats, and of course the two sides rarely if ever met up. I see the same thing here.
So on the original question: I think the two are different. People get banned from here, but others are free to talk to them via e-mail and so on without the fear that they, too, will be banned from JWD for doing so. You don't have that in the Society. The pub story is a more accurate model.
