Disclaimer: I’m from Australia, and there’s not so much of an emphasis on rights to free speech as there is in say, the US…so it tends to not be talked about much here.
Never the less….(and some of this is hypothetical, some of this has already happened)
* If you have the right of free speech, does that mean that you don’t need to care about whether your statements are offending others? Or do you just say “This is my right to free speech, stuff you”
* At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe? Should it?
* At what point do you stop blaming a language barrier for offensive posts, and conclude that the person is just trying to provocate you?
* If something is right in your country, does that make it right throughout the world, and does it mean that you can use it as a disclaimer for your behaviour?
Just some thoughts…
Words are just words. They don’t hold power if people don’t believe them. The only thing that empowers this whole scenario is because people keep making it a hurtful issue.
If you know stereotypes are not true, and are confident in your own abilities, then you would not be writing this post. The fact that you can is great, because that is freedom of speech, and you should be free to write it. But maybe you should think “why am I writing this?”.
Another thought, does free speech mean you’re protected from being challenged for what you’ve said by others who are thereby exercising their free speech?
One in this spat appears to think so.
My right to say what I like is equivalent to your right to ignore whatever I say. If someone has a problem with what I say, it’s their problem, and theirs alone.
Having said that, I try to keep what I say civil and polite. Censorship of what people say does not solve the underlying problems of lack of manners, common sense, and thinking before speaking. Censorship instead introduces all new problems that undermine all the work we are doing to try to make a fair and equal system where people CAN feel safe. That’s why tyranny and torture abound in China, where if you say the wrong thing you can be thrown in jail or worse (*coughTibetcough*).
An interesting associated link is
http://blog.tonyyarusso.com/politics/what-free-speech-isnt/
It started in the US with our constitution’s First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
As I understand it, this all had to do with the colonists here being controlled by the British prior to the revolution where we gained our freedom from the British crown. The British did not want anyone fomenting revolt, so they wouldn’t let people go around speaking their mind about the oppressive British rule. I’m sure this was harshly dealt with. Anyways, to make sure government couldn’t hush anyone up with conflicting opinions in the future, they wrote this into the constitution. From there, people have used it to defend all manner of expression outside of its original milieu as you’ve noticed on the Internet. Here in the US though, in my experience, most people have enough sense and common courtesy to not deliberately try to offend other people. Also, you can’t legally threaten people or yell “Fire” in a crowded place, that kind of thing. I’m sure you have the same customs in Australia
Wow, a lot of remedial education needed here….
(((If you have the right of free speech, does that mean that you don’t need to care about whether your statements are offending others?)))
That’s correct. That’s why it’s called “free” — it means “freedom.” No one has “a right not to feel offended,” because that equals “my right to decide what you can say.”
(((At what point does your right of free speech impinge on my right to feel safe? Should it?)))
No. You have no “right to feel safe” that restricts my freedom of expression.
(((At what point do you stop blaming a language barrier for offensive posts, and conclude that the person is just trying to provoke you?)))
That’s up to each individual, because each of us has freedom to decide, just as we each have freedom to express ourselves — and to decide whether to rise to the provocation.
(((If something is right in your country, does that make it right throughout the world, and does it mean that you can use it as a disclaimer for your behaviour?)))
The first question is irrelevant, and the answer to the second is “yes.”
It’s the Internet. You’re out in the whole wide world. Parochialism and prudery won’t carry you far and can damage the community. As we have just seen.
* At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe? Should it?
That point doesn’t exist. In example: The politicians are a public figure; the news, shows and even cartoons can say anything about them (not to mention all the jokes made on Bush…) and they can’t stop it. They listen to all kind of things and -with their money- try to stop some rumors, and sometimes make it but the truth is that they can’t stop that from happen, and that HURTS them.
Now, when you translate that kind of free speech things to the planet, where there are some rules about the content, the things became different, even though I don’t think that the iGasm post should be banned (I neither thought that it would end up in such a thread of flame post on each other…).
I don’t understand why anyone would, in Ubuntu’s community of all places, question free speech.
Just ignore the individual who doesn’t meet your approval. You’ll feel better about it in the long run when someone more uptight than you gets offended from what you write.
Much like Democracy, in the absence of responsibility for your choice, the freedom (to choose in case of democracy, or to speak your mind in case of free speech) to do anything is undefendable by any law.
Every right rides on an inherent purpose for that right, and regardless if the conduct (choosing a moron as your president, or saying offensive things) has only as much right to be as the applicability of the intent to the spirit of the right.
I take it, someone offended you though speech. Regardless of how it makes you feel pleading for moral absolutism in no way resolves the issue:
Was the intent to blabber like mad, throwing dudu at you, or was that their attempt to stake a higher ground before being burned at a stake?
[...] response to this question. For those not familiar with the issue, [...]
What an astonishingly gorgeous picture for the blog head!
Freedom of Speech is the mother of all double edged swords. Everyone wants it, but no one likes it used against them.
I take no offense to people having or using their freedom of speech, what I take offense to is there willingness to abuse it to the point of making it ugly. Just because you can say something doesn’t always mean you should.
Tact, decency, and common courtesy have all been lost to the loudmouths of an anonymous virtual world and a morally bankrupt physical world.
But what can I say? I’m using my freedom of speech right now, and probably offending someone out there. Seems all to easy to offend people these days. lol
with freedom comes responsibility.
if you can’t act responsibly and with due consideration towards others, then you forfeit your freedom.
there is little value in trying to defend free screech.
Free speech is a little over hyped these days. It’s good to be able to speak your mind but if the brand of free speech that’s being served out today starts getting accepted throughout the world, you’ll end up having a planet full of people who absolutely don’t care about what other people think, who are incapable of understanding what other people think and who simply yell at each and throw opinions and facts around. That’s not constructive in any way. Voltaire over simplified the idea with his quote. There are times and situations where exercising free speech (ie. nowadays almost equivalent to yelling and ranting) is not the most prudent or considerate thing to do. However, if someone suggests this, he’s accused of “suppressing free speech”.
I am an absolutist free speech advocate from the US. Nevertheless, I think the posts on planet.ubuntu.com rallying behind “free speech” were pretty childish and grossly ignorant of the principal they were supposedly defending . The purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular views from being censored by *governments*. Since Ubuntu is not a *government* but a private organization, its members have every right to say that certain behaviors should not be tolerated within the organization. It simply isn’t a matter of free speech.
There’s one large missing questions here: To what extent is Ubuntu committed to my right to free speech? Most US law and ideas about free speech center around the government. Ubuntu is not the US government, although it does have governance.
Hermann seems to feel that removing his post from the Planet infringed on his right to free speech. Perhaps this means Ubuntu should republish everything he asks them to, but I doubt that’s what he means. I think it’s better to say that the Planet is not actively supporting some of his speech. They’re not preventing him from speaking (I’d wager his blog is partly powered by Ubuntu provided software), they’re just refusing to allow him the Planet as a platform for advertising his blog post. I think that’s fine; not everything a developer blogs about is interesting to planet ubuntu readers. I do wish the rules for content in the planet were a bit clearer than “don’t annoy people.”
Ultimately, Planet is little more than RSS aggregation software, it should be simple to start your own. Planet Ubuntu should be careful to avoid censoring themselves into catering to a very slim few people’s sensibilities and interests. But I could do with a few less “America voted wrong” posts, online personality quiz results, HD-DVD keys, and “I’m quitting” drama.
Six to one, half a dozen to the other.
I think grand statements about freedom are rather missing the point about was basically a clash of personalities. The folks involved have disagreed in the past and it seems likely that Melissa’s comments about what was a fairly innocuous post were more informed by her opinion of Hermann than it’s content.
It may only have needed a gentle reminder of what Ubuntu Planet is for to work things out and if not I gather there’s a system in place for just this sort of thing. What was guaranteed not to work were daft arguments about advertising and talk of having someone banned.
So Hermann takes his ball away and Melissa’s standing is undermined. No one wins.
If you have the right of free speech, does that mean that you don’t need to care about whether your statements are offending others?
– I think you should care, if you want to be taken seriously. With all the different cultures mixing on the net, people are going to get offended, mainly through ignorance of other cultures. What is acceptable to one is offensive to the other. Accept the differences and learn from these incidents that have happened and will happen again.
Or do you just say “This is my right to free speech, stuff you”
– I don’t see free speech as a right to be deliberately uncaring of the other person. To me that attitude just undermines the “free speaker’s” credibility and they deserve their “opinion” to be dismissed without a thought.
At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe? Should it?
– It should not. It is not very “free” if it robs you of your safety, quite the opposite.
At what point do you stop blaming a language barrier for offensive posts, and conclude that the person is just trying to provocate you?
– If they come after you personally,culturally or sexually I would think.
If something is right in your country, does that make it right throughout the world, and does it mean that you can use it as a disclaimer for your behaviour?
– No it does not. No disclaimers either. People know how to treat other people properly and they choose whether they will or not. If not sure, err on the side of caution and don’t say it.
If you are rude and thoughtless to other people, then enjoy the rewards that life will dump on your head, you deserve them.
Some good points and all worth cogitating upon Sarah…thanks.
Michael
You’ve got to love the rhetorical trick in “At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe?”; implying this is all the fault of SH’s original post when it’s nothing of the sort. If a planet poster threatened or attacked someone, /that/ would be a problem, but SH didn’t do that, he made an amused (and amusing) post about a funny, slightly geeky, and completely harmless, curiosity. If that makes you feel unsafe then it is you that has the problem.
The first person to attack and threaten a fellow Ubuntu member in this sorry kerfuffle was Melissa Draper, and it’s her narrow minded intolerance that is unacceptable behaviour, not SH’s post.
Reading the various posts and comments about free speech depressed me so I just wanted to post to support Rob’s comment (#17). Seems totally on point to me.
Rob: Many people have asked Stephan politely about considering to remove that post from p.u.c. , even before he spoke to Melissa. I have, too (see my comment on that blog post). I even told him that he will get criticised a lot for the post. Sadly, the gentle reminder did not work.
Oh boy, seems like some US citizen do not understand a few thing (and guys from other countries too.)
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, was created to protect political speech, not to say Melissa show us your boobs, Sarah suck this or anything of that sort.
What would you do if a guy call your Mother, Sister or Daughter a cunt or a bitch or whatever terms idiots like to use?
You would beat the crap out of them, so why is it OK to show disrespect to the Women of Ubuntu and of Linux in general, to debase them.
In most civilize country you can sue someone for misconduct in the workplace, that’s include verbal harassment, sexual harassment and so on.
Every evolving community recognize the fact, that acting with disrespect toward a group of people is unacceptable.
So why should the Ubuntu community be different?
If you say “It’s part of the Geek mystic”, then you should be ashame, todays Geeks are the God and Goddess of technology, they are the Gadget Gurus, and with knowledge come responsibilities.
If you don’t understand why Melissa, Sarah and all the other Women in the community are pissed off, THEN YOU ARE IDIOTS.
The First Amendment of any country should be “SHOW RESPECT TO EACH OTHER” (The Ubuntu Ideology)
Go see the definition of the Ubuntu ideology in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28idealogy%29
P.S.: If I’ve use words that have offend some you, please accept my apologies, they were only used to prove a point.
I don’t see what should piss off any women with that realy funny sex toy add. i realy dont see it. show me a fun men sex toy and i will laugh. realy.
in fact laughing about such things is a sign of a emancipation, look at conservative countrys where women have no rights. such adds are forbiden there. look at countries that even have women as their presidents, there those adds are not.
so telling me that i’m a idiot because i dont understand why they are upset, is something that i realy can’t understand
Beat Wolf,
Show that AD to your Mother or your Sister or your Girlfriend or any women in your life, then ask her if she understand why this is offending to many women.
Stephan Hermann could have shown more tact in adding a link to the AD instead of showing the poster and the gadget
I think, women should wear bourkhas on their web pages to no offend some islamistic people.
And: Please no criticism about China or Birma. You can offend a lot of people there.
You can find many other points to offend others. Who should define it?
(((The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, was created to protect political speech, not to say Melissa show us your boobs, Sarah suck this or anything of that sort.)))
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not just political speech; the Yarusso post linked earlier in this comment thread outlines certain specific, sharply limited exceptions to freedom of speech, including personal threats. No one involved in this fracas made a personal threat or expressed any other kind of speech covered by the exceptions.
(((What would you do if a guy call your Mother, Sister or Daughter a cunt or a bitch or whatever terms idiots like to use? You would beat the crap out of them)))
First, there was no abuse in the act of posting an ad about a vibrator. Second, in answer to your question: Uhhh, no I wouldn’t. I would behave like, you know, a grownup. Because I have the maturity to decide whether to be provoked by verbal abuse.
(((The First Amendment of any country should be “SHOW RESPECT TO EACH OTHER.” … If you don’t understand why Melissa, Sarah and all the other Women in the community are pissed off, THEN YOU ARE IDIOTS.)))
Nice show of your ideology there. Again: Posting an ad about a vibrator does not constitute abuse. People who take offense at this have a personal problem, and their taking offense does not constrain others’ right to freedom of speech.
Btw: the First Amendment is a law for the USA. Please learn, that the USA is NOT the world.
2. Btw: My wife laughed a lot about the posting with the iG*** widget.
I would have preferred a more level-headed approach to the handling of this whole situation.
We have three incidents: 1 the original post about the gadget, 2 the irc exchange, 3 the post about htis exchange. No 3 is what initiated all this drama, which could habe been handled better in my opinion with something like:
“Hey, I got criticized on irc by $community-member for posting post number 1 on planet ubuntu, with the following arguments:… But I don’t think they apply because of… What do you think?”
I believe something like this would have made the discussion much more civil and productive, instead of this drama where people get called names and nastinesses because of voicing their disagreement.
A lot of these responses have been posted about a specific case, which has happened in the past couple of days.
I, however, wrote it for the general case. Discussing the specifics of this recent one, while interesting, doesn’t actually have terribly much to do with what I originally posted.
Wolfgang,
I believe that I was clear enough, when I said
“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution” that it was implied “OF AMERICA”, unless your first contact with civilization and computers is no longer then half a day, that you might have thought I meant “The First Amendment of the United States of MARS Constitution”.
Of course that is not the case.
Just consider the fact, that Stephan Hermann (who I usually found quite interesting) who first posted about that poster and Apple, could have inform us about the situation and simply put a link to that AD, I believe we would not be having this discussion.
Glad that your wife found the AD funny, like I said, ask the women in your life if they understand why some (or many) Women would found it, lets say inappropriate the way is was posted for Planet Ubuntu
This is my last comment on the subject.
Hobbsee, if my posting on “Hobbsee’s Blog” have cause discomfort, I deeply apologize.
Albinodrew – you seem to be somewhat missing the point here, that the reposted advert is one put out, in public, by a major high-street retailer, aimed at women. The product in question is aimed at women. The Ann Summers company is run by, and essentially for, women. It’s a successful business built on selling things like this to women. Where are you getting the idea that this sort of thing is somehow offensive to (almost) all women?
BTW, writing a post like this one in this situation then pretending that the course of the comments “doesn’t actually have terribly much to do with what I originally posted.” is just plain disingenuous; the SH/Melissa argument is, at the very least, a good case in point of what you’re talking about.
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
As a brit I have the god given right to call you auzzies a bunch of crims (criminals), but thats only because we got the short end of the stick. If we had a sensible gov’t we would have kept the crims here and sent the do-gooders to the sunny island paradise…
My freedom to speak may offend you, but really I’m just jealous.
That is all.
Karl,
Awesomeness. Pure awesomeness.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh over that one
I think that most of the points have already been made here. The primary one I’d like to emphasis is ‘you do not have the right to never be offended’. This is crucial. This is the one that most people do not understand. Even here in the USA, there seems to be this myth going around that if someone has offended you, they have broken the law or done you grevious harm. There have been lawsuits for people being ‘offended’.
If we allow people’s offense to control what we say, we’d never say anything. I guarintee you that in just about every post you make, there’d be a sizeable chunk of folks out there, of some religeon/race/creed that would find parts of it intensely offensive, even just because of gender, subject matter, etc.
On the other hand, ‘right of admission is reserved’. This is private property – your blog – and nobody has a ‘right’ to post here. If someone is spamming your blog with commercials, its a no-brainer to ban them – even though technically thats anti ‘free speech’. If someones posting PURELY to troll and decrease the quality of your blog overall, its also a no-brainer to band them. Its really just like for example, owning a bar or club, and having a couple nasty folks ruin it for everyone. The owner tends to kick those folks out to improve the quality overall. Perhaps others might get upset that folks are being kicked out, it all depends on circumstance.
Remember that in most countries with ‘free speech’ laws, those laws apply only to the government. They restrict what the government can do. They say nothing about private citizenry.
I will preface my response with the statement that I am a Libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative.. generally absolute when it comes to freedoms).
* If you have the right of free speech, does that mean that you don’t need to care about whether your statements are offending others? Or do you just say “This is my right to free speech, stuff you”
No one has the right to not be offended. In a free society anything said can and will offend somebody. If anything said had to go through the checks of whether or not it would offend someone out there, no dialog or progress would ever happen. I am deeply offended by the Westboro Baptist Church’s statements, but believe they should have the uninfringed right to say them. Freedom is an easy concept when given to those you agree with, but becomes a challenge when you realise that those same liberties must be extended to those you do not.
* At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe? Should it?
This is an issue that has been debated for hundreds of years here in the US. When speech becomes direct and personal threats of violence, that is the point that it becomes criminal.
* At what point do you stop blaming a language barrier for offensive posts, and conclude that the person is just trying to provocate you?
If someone is provocating you on your own site, you have the full right to ban them. The site is your private property and you have the right to ban or allow anyone you wish. If the site is a third party site, then you can either ask the owner of the site to take a look themselves and decide if it constitutes abuse. If they are posting from their own site, then there’s pretty much nothing you can do but ignore them.
* If something is right in your country, does that make it right throughout the world, and does it mean that you can use it as a disclaimer for your behaviour?
In the US the right of free speech only applies to how the government can treat the speech of citizens. As long as they are speaking from their own property (like their own website), or public property, there is nothing that you can legally do to them. The US government is unable to intervene because they are doing nothing illegal (unless the posts are direct, personal threats of violence, then there MIGHT be something possibly done). The freedom of speech does not extend to private property. If I go on someone else’s property (virtual or otherwise) and I say or post things that the owner of that property does not want me to say, they have the full right to ban me from their premises.
The biggest problem as I see it is not free speach, but context. If Spanky and Alfalfa are whining about how Darla is such a such and such in the “He-man Woman Haters Club” blog, I feel that should be protected. However, that has no place in the Ubuntu Planet.
Context!
I only subscribe to professional blogs. As such, I keep my postings to subject matter related to the topic at hand. Occasionally I will post on opinion or news related sites, but the two are very different types of posts. Context much be observed.
Posts in the Planet have sometimes bordered on insensitive, and that is unacceptable. Regardless of if a poster is male or female, German, American, Asian, or , your post should be respectful of others.
On that point, your insinuation that Americans value the right to insult anyone in the name of free speach, is exactly the type of intolerance you posted about. As an American, I do not like that generalization. Tact is tact around the world, and some people have it, others don’t, and geography has nothing to do with anything. Though as you do point out, it is sometimes wrongly used as an excuse. Even in America, we realize that you can not say anything at any time (you can not yell fire in a crowded hall for instance).
All that being said, there are allot of things America needs to grow up about, Sex, Alcohol, Guns, Violence, its dependence on oil, the ecology, shall I go on… but these things are universal. Branding Americans as leading this charge of political correctness is just unfair. These insensitivities are world wide, just ask Og Maciel about his use of the word America…
So now I get back to my point about context. The Ubuntu Planet is not a place to bash others, but instead is a place to get out ideas regarding Ubuntu. Sometimes the direction some would like, is different than that of others. Ubuntu seems to take a very European slant to its philosophies. Where that conflicts, I feel that some have expressed hurt feelings. But it is their turn to get over it. Rarely have I seen a personal attack (this column being an exception) on the planet. While I may not agree with some of what is being said, it is incumbent on me to place that inside a context of “this is their opinion, and should be honored as I wish them to honor mine”. And as long as the opinion expressed is within the context of making Ubuntu the best Linux Distribution it can be, that is fine. When the attacks begin generalizing about people, nations, gender, and making opinions based upon that, it is time to leave. The planet is about making Ubuntu better, not political bashing. There are other places for that…
Context!!!
**** RESPONSE ****
Disclaimer: I’m from Australia, and there’s not so much of an emphasis on rights to free speech as there is in say, the US…so it tends to not be talked about much here.
Never the less….(and some of this is hypothetical, some of this has already happened)
* If you have the right of free speech, does that mean that you don’t need to care about whether your statements are offending others? Or do you just say “This is my right to free speech, stuff you”
**** NO, YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED TO WORRY WHETHER WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY OFFENDS SOMEONE. IN FACT, IF IT DOESN’T OFFEND SOMEONE, IT’S PROBABLY NOT WORTH SAYING. If a subject is not at all controversial (i.e. offensive to someone) then there really isn’t anything to say about it to begin with. “Offense” is something someone decides they wish to take, not something that is thrust upon them. You can only be offended at anything if you choose to be offended. Honestly, I’m not going to give a whole hill of shit if you tell me you’re offended by something I’ve said. I could give a rat’s ass! If, on the other hand, you provide a cogent argument as to why I might be wrong in my thinking or conclusions, then I’ll listen considerately. Telling me you are offended doesn’t mean shit to me! Nor should it matter to anyone. ****
* At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe? Should it?
**** You DO NOT have a RIGHT to FEEL SAFE! How you FEEL is entirely up to you. It is not someone else’s responsibility to make your FEEL any way (safe or otherwise). ****
* At what point do you stop blaming a language barrier for offensive posts, and conclude that the person is just trying to provocate you?
**** At what point do you conclude that someone wants to control your speech by claiming to be offended rather than providing a cogent and rational argument or discussion? ****
* If something is right in your country, does that make it right throughout the world, and does it mean that you can use it as a disclaimer for your behaviour?
**** YES! If it is right, it is right! Period! If you think something is Right, then you should do it! Never, ever, ever, let someone else tell you what is right or wrong. Know for yourself. Be prepared to back up your statements and live with the consequences. Don’t be a coward! ****
Just some thoughts…
My thoughts. First, the legal right to do something is not the same as what is and is not moral. Just because you have a legal right to something does not mean it’s moral. Just because something illegal does not mean it is immoral.
* Everyone should have the right to be offensive. This does mean that everyone should be offensive.
* You right to free speech ends when it becomes lible. I define lible as lying with the intent to cause harm (financial, physical, or otherwise) to someone else. Your laws may vary.
* A language barrier only makes communications difficult. It doesn’t change the obvious intent of someone.
* Wrong and right are universal and knows no boundries. There is a difference between cultural boundries and the intent to hurt someone. When “Borat” went around kissing men he was trying to offend them. That was not right. If someone honestly tries to kiss someone on their cheek out of ignorance for the related cultral norms it’s an honest mistake.
isnt’t australia that racist hell-hole where the scumbag locals were rioting to against “wogs” just last year?
Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden
Rosa Luxemburg
(“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently”)
You have the right to way what you want to say.
But, once you’ve decided to say what’s on your mind, you ought to consider:
Are you going to be a good person, or are you going to be a bad person? Will you be a good person and consider the feelings of others before you make such-and-such incendiary remark, or will you be a bad person and just *say the thing* regardless of whether or not someone’s feelings will be hurt.
This is unreal, I left for lunch and even more venim is pouring out while I was gone!
Listen, Sephan got caught arguing with an idiot. Nothing good ever comes from that. An now the Ubuntu community has lost one of its most proliphic contributors. Lets not forget that!
I live in Denver Colorado, so trust me, we are dealing with the type of intolerent idiots like Melissa Draper all the time… We call that Colorado Springs and the “moral majority”. Bigots is probably a more appropriate term. These are the same morons that give money and follow blindly a church leader that rallys people to hate gays, then gets caught sleeping with a male prostitude up here in Denver. And still they think themselves the moral police for the rest of society (here in the US as well as around the world). Nothing good comes from this war… nothing!
But as I said in my previous post, this entire conversation is out of context. Planet Ubuntu is supposed to be about making Ubuntu the best distro ever. Melissa has turned it into a religion war, and wrapped it in sexism. All over a toy that in all likelihood will be given away at Bachlorette parties world wide with a card saying “The first few years will be wonderfull, but after that you will need this”. Everyone will laugh, including Melissa if she were there. (for those of you with no sense of humor, this was a joke… its OK to laugh now)
Stephan probably sould not have posted that on the planet, but Melissa went phycho on him, then got everyone else wound up by her posting. None of it has anything to do with Ubuntu. If Melissa wants to have discussions about morality, can someone show here where there is a building with a big T on top, I’m sure someone inside that building will be more than happy to talk morality with her. In the mean time, lets stop all the nation bashing, and figure out how we can get Stephan back, or hopefully find someone who can fill his shoes. Religion and Nation bashing is not going to get that done. If anything, it risks chasing away even more good contributors.
“Stephan probably sould not have posted that on the planet, but Melissa went phycho on him, then got everyone else wound up by her posting.”
Psycho??? Hmm, lets see…:
___________
* \sh is downloading regnum online…let’s see how good this mmorpg is
\sh, pray tell, why are you advertising sex toys on the planet?
elkbuntu, advertising? nope…
elkbuntu, it’s more a gadget for people with an ipod ,-)
\sh, it’s damn well near an advertisement. either way something of such a sexual nature is not family-friendly
elkbuntu, it was on golem.de and on several “familiy friendly” pages
\sh, if someone was to link to your blog in an Ubuntu channel, i’d ban them for adult content
elkbuntu, please do what ever you want…
* elkbuntu drafts up a letter to the CC
elkbuntu, please…
elkbuntu, do…
elkbuntu, btw…in germany it’s normal that you learn
about those things in primary school…
elkbuntu, officially by the teachers…
\sh, let me introduce you to the world outside germany
the part of the world that the internet reaches.
elkbuntu, yeah, niminy-piminiy…and far away from freedom, thx
elkbuntu, in japan it’s a funny thing as well, you can buy some other hard stuff there, even where children are around…but please do what ever you want
elkbuntu, do me a favour, go with your morality to the CC…and ask them what’s inapropriate to blog about an IT gadget…regarding it was about apple not being amused..anyways, welcome to the real world
_______________
THAT is going psycho? Wow. I didn’t know. Maybe I’m missing a statement she has made elsewhere, if so, please correct me. But if not, I’d say your standard for “going psycho” might possibly be just a teeny bit out of whack. Matter of fact, my statement right here probably has you locking your doors.
cool website!
please add me to your blog roll
Chilly731clubpenguin.wordpress.com
and check out our Abercrombie and Fitch Penguin Model contest!
Thanks!
Quote: THAT is going psycho? Wow. I didn’t know. Maybe I’m missing a statement she has made elsewhere
She went phyco in her actions after that exchange when she started a shooting war in the actual blog-o-sphere, accusing everyone of being anti-woman, and hostile to her because she is a woman (more like a little girl that needs to grow up)
Where did she do this? I just perused Ubuntu-Women to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Her own page’s last entry is May 22 I believe. The non-psycho conversation above has been the only thing I’ve seen her say on the matter.
[...] Some thoughts on free speech… Disclaimer: I’m from Australia, and there’s not so much of an emphasis on rights to free speech as there is […] [...]
Tastefully done. That’s what I would suggest next time. I agree that the iGasm ad should have been linked elsewhere, therefore, putting the responsibility on the individual that linked there. Yet, by placing the ad on a forum as thus put it in an arena with too many cultural beliefs. In doing so, created a bullying effect. Similar to presenting adult material in a workplace, you put an irresponsible strain on those that cannot tolerate the impropriety. Had it been accidental, then it would have been acceptable. Similar to a house on fire and the residents have to exit quickly half clad. No one frowns on life and safety. But, by intentionally exiting your house when it’s not on fire nude,…. you might need professional help. Unless you are kilometers away from your nearest neighbor.
Knowing what is proper for you. That event was improper. It was amusing. Tactful? No. Sophmoric perhaps.
Maybe the over-exagerating “free speech” words have to be put in front of over-exagerating use of “discrimination”…
Wow. You surely got everyone thinking, didn’t you? Congrats.
We can say what we think, but use our intellect to be diplomatic about it. Just because opinions differ doesn’t mean we can’t be peaceful about our conversations.
Free speech should never impede your right to feel safe. Words are just that. It’s when people get defensive about things that ugliness can pop up it’s nasty head. You may not agree with me, but that is also your right.
There are some people out there who are just looking for a fight whether it be in person or on the internet. I always have found if you don’t pay any attention to it, the negative will diminish in power. I can see that sometimes language could be a barrier as words are used differently in different cultures. Even in the Bible”terrible” can mean “magnificent”.
No disclaimer allowed for bad behaviour! Personally, because we are culturally different, I believe we all have the right to be different on many levels. “Our way” is not right for everyone.
What is missing is RESPECT. We must respect the rights of others!
Disclaimer: These are my opinions and in no way represent those of Hobbsee.
Your readers have posted interesting reply here, passion is quite alive.
*** If you have the right of free speech, does that mean that you don’t need to care about whether your statements are offending others? Or do you just say “This is my right to free speech, stuff you” ***
You should consider others, it’s the right thing to do, but you can say whatever you want, as long as you do understand that you could end up being sued, fired or in jail.
Of course some will point out that in the United States of America, free speech is protected under the First Amendment, but the First amendment protects you against government intervention, a private citizen can sue you, may even win. And the First amendment of the constitution of the United States of America do not apply outside that country.
*** At what point does your right of free speech impend on my right to feel safe? Should it? ***
Your SAFETY outweigh free speech, when it comes to things like crying fire in a theater, making psychological physical or even death threat. In most country these are illegal and you can be prosecuted, have to pay compensation even go to jail.
In any way to belittle people, to harass them is usually the sign of immaturity.
*** At what point do you stop blaming a language barrier for offensive posts, and conclude that the person is just trying to provoked you? ***
After the first time, as long as someone has explained to them their misuse of language, since book knowledge of words may not be the same as usage of those same words.
Example: the word bitch designate a female canine, can also be use as an insult to women.
After that it is provocation.
*** If something is right in your country, does that make it right throughout the world, and does it mean that you can use it as a disclaimer for your behaviour? ***
Of course not, for example if you are a woman lounging on the beach only wearing the bottom part of your bikini, in Australia it may be acceptable, but is not in Canada.
Same thing for blogging, you may write whatever you have to say, as long as your readers choose to go to your blog, but as soon as you choose to connect it to someone else website, then you must consider that, what you post may be seen as offensive, inappropriate, and even cause harm, since it will be seen everywhere in the world, without discrimination and in some country a crime simply to load the page.
I do not care about americans that get offended by every second word in the dictionary. That is their own problem that they should work out with their psychiatrist or smth.
And I fully agree with comment #6. People invent all kinds of fake “rights” to undermine fundamental rights f other people when they do not like them.
Grow up! In all normal countries sex education is mandatory and includes all about masturbation, vibrators and condom use. If USA (or Australia) is so back water to not even have that in their kindergartens or at least in the first years of the school, then those ‘morales’ are just as outdated as Greek traditions of sodomy between teachers and male students.