Comments on: On free speech and related topics //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/ I do stuff with people. Sat, 09 Apr 2011 03:06:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: yman //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-182 yman Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:27:30 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-182 @ Aigars Mahinovs: there is something called moral, which is about right and wrong. without moral we only have whats best. rape & murder are immoral, yet society can decide that it would be best to allow them. (I like using this extreme case). what is the source for moral code? god. what is the source of "whats best"? man. so if you believe that there are absolute right & wrong, such as rape & murder, you implicitly believe in god. while if you believe there are no right & wrong you implicitly believe in the nonexistence / irrelevance of god. it seems to me that in the name of whats best the ubuntu community or whatever have limited freedom of speech, and you come in the name of morals to demand freedom of speech, yet all the while bashing morals and demanding in their name the right to use ubuntu as a platform for further bashing of morals. do you see the paradox here? (the first paragraph is an introduction to the second one. if you don't like what I say please use logic and reasoning to contradict me so I may learn from my mistakes) @ Aigars Mahinovs:
there is something called moral, which is about right and wrong. without moral we only have whats best. rape & murder are immoral, yet society can decide that it would be best to allow them. (I like using this extreme case). what is the source for moral code? god. what is the source of “whats best”? man. so if you believe that there are absolute right & wrong, such as rape & murder, you implicitly believe in god. while if you believe there are no right & wrong you implicitly believe in the nonexistence / irrelevance of god.

it seems to me that in the name of whats best the ubuntu community or whatever have limited freedom of speech, and you come in the name of morals to demand freedom of speech, yet all the while bashing morals and demanding in their name the right to use ubuntu as a platform for further bashing of morals. do you see the paradox here?

(the first paragraph is an introduction to the second one. if you don’t like what I say please use logic and reasoning to contradict me so I may learn from my mistakes)

]]> By: joe //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-161 joe Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:34:18 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-161 @ Aigars Mahinovs , http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct Read it. The community has a set of rules, everyone in it is expected to follow them. If someone feels that a stipulation in the code tramples their freedom of speech, they're free to post, syndicate, or talk someplace other than the Ubuntu community. Linux is about choice. You're free to be insulting and offensive ... somewhere else. @ Aigars Mahinovs ,
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct
Read it. The community has a set of rules, everyone in it is expected to follow them. If someone feels that a stipulation in the code tramples their freedom of speech, they’re free to post, syndicate, or talk someplace other than the Ubuntu community.

Linux is about choice. You’re free to be insulting and offensive … somewhere else.

]]> By: Aigars Mahinovs //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-160 Aigars Mahinovs Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:37:16 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-160 Maybe in the USA the freedom of speech is only protected against governmental abuse, but in the civilised world freedom of speech is a honoured human right that is only limited by very strict exceptions ('fire' in a crowded place and direct, effective and realistic threats). Only existence of some prudes makes sex offensive (to them). That is their problem. It is very important to understand - I still have my freedom of speech regardless of how offensive it is to anyone. The offended people have the right and the ability to ignore me or to be offended and try to protest and moralise me. But they do not have the right to stop me from exercising my freedom of speech. There was nothing wrong with that post and there is nothing to apologise for. Maybe in the USA the freedom of speech is only protected against governmental abuse, but in the civilised world freedom of speech is a honoured human right that is only limited by very strict exceptions (‘fire’ in a crowded place and direct, effective and realistic threats).
Only existence of some prudes makes sex offensive (to them). That is their problem.
It is very important to understand – I still have my freedom of speech regardless of how offensive it is to anyone. The offended people have the right and the ability to ignore me or to be offended and try to protest and moralise me. But they do not have the right to stop me from exercising my freedom of speech.
There was nothing wrong with that post and there is nothing to apologise for.

]]> By: yman //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-140 yman Wed, 30 May 2007 15:49:00 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-140 I think it's quite an inappropriate topic for the ubuntu planet, although I don't find the post offensive. I don't think it's a question of children being exposed to such content, but of moral standards. if it's morally OK for adults then it's OK for children. any other argument is about technicalities. when I say morally OK I mean both the use of the device and the values it conveys. the use is fine, but the values aren't. that's why I think it isn't offensive and yet inappropriate. I think it’s quite an inappropriate topic for the ubuntu planet, although I don’t find the post offensive.
I don’t think it’s a question of children being exposed to such content, but of moral standards. if it’s morally OK for adults then it’s OK for children. any other argument is about technicalities. when I say morally OK I mean both the use of the device and the values it conveys. the use is fine, but the values aren’t. that’s why I think it isn’t offensive and yet inappropriate.

]]> By: JanC //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-136 JanC Wed, 30 May 2007 09:53:07 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-136 Many people disagree about "sex" being offensive and/or not family friendly. Things like that are and will always be subjective. OTOH, I agree that it would have been better if his reaction would have been less emotional. Maybe he should grow a thicker skin... ;-) I think limiting posts on the main, "official" Ubuntu planet to things related to Ubuntu would be an option (currently there is *no* such policy!), but then rather because some people don't want to read the off-topic posts... But some people actually love to read "off-topic" (wasn't Ubuntu about being humans--how can a person's life be off-topic then?) things that fellow Ubuntu community members write about. Maybe there could be 2 planets, one that does and one that doesn't include off-topic posts. Many people disagree about “sex” being offensive and/or not family friendly. Things like that are and will always be subjective.

OTOH, I agree that it would have been better if his reaction would have been less emotional. Maybe he should grow a thicker skin… ;-)

I think limiting posts on the main, “official” Ubuntu planet to things related to Ubuntu would be an option (currently there is *no* such policy!), but then rather because some people don’t want to read the off-topic posts… But some people actually love to read “off-topic” (wasn’t Ubuntu about being humans–how can a person’s life be off-topic then?) things that fellow Ubuntu community members write about. Maybe there could be 2 planets, one that does and one that doesn’t include off-topic posts.

]]> By: joe //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-133 joe Tue, 29 May 2007 23:52:55 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-133 Lots of comments, so I'll respond to them all at once. @Tiago That's a fair point. However, was the post in that category before or not? It doesn't look like it's syndicated at all now, so I can't really tell. Either way, part of the response should have been to have that fixed (I know there have been issues like that on Planet Ubuntu Users), not become indignant over its presence on the planet being questioned. @Bob no, and thank you for not reading my post. @shermann That's not the issue. The issue is simply that the article wasn't family friendly, and didn't belong on Planet Ubuntu. Many things that aren't family friendly do have worth, such as your article -- that doesn't mean they should go on Planet Ubuntu. Think of it this way: would you want that post to be the first impression someone gets of the Ubuntu community? @David This is true; I gave no definition of offensive. Had this issue not turned into a showdown on Planet Ubuntu (which it shouldn't and wouldn't have been, were it not for \sh 's reaction), the post would have been quietly removed, and what should or should not be on Planet Ubuntu would have been discussed, probably by the community council. Lots of comments, so I’ll respond to them all at once.

@Tiago
That’s a fair point. However, was the post in that category before or not? It doesn’t look like it’s syndicated at all now, so I can’t really tell. Either way, part of the response should have been to have that fixed (I know there have been issues like that on Planet Ubuntu Users), not become indignant over its presence on the planet being questioned.

@Bob
no, and thank you for not reading my post.

@shermann
That’s not the issue. The issue is simply that the article wasn’t family friendly, and didn’t belong on Planet Ubuntu. Many things that aren’t family friendly do have worth, such as your article — that doesn’t mean they should go on Planet Ubuntu. Think of it this way: would you want that post to be the first impression someone gets of the Ubuntu community?

@David

This is true; I gave no definition of offensive. Had this issue not turned into a showdown on Planet Ubuntu (which it shouldn’t and wouldn’t have been, were it not for \sh ‘s reaction), the post would have been quietly removed, and what should or should not be on Planet Ubuntu would have been discussed, probably by the community council.

]]> By: Tristan Rhodes //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Tristan Rhodes Tue, 29 May 2007 21:48:40 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-132 Nicely said. Keep up the good blogging! Nicely said. Keep up the good blogging!

]]> By: David A. Harding //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-126 David A. Harding Tue, 29 May 2007 09:02:41 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-126 From your article, and from a quick read of the hyperlinks posted therewithin, I think the argument is a question of definition. That is, there is disagreement about what <em>offensive</em> means. Your article doesn't define offensive and thus doesn't provide a resolution. Furthermore, your <em>correct and incorrect responses</em> section proceeds from the assumption that when someone says, ``your post is patently offensive,'' your post is offensive. I can't see how that would always be true: if I said this article of yours is offensive, would you (sincerly) appologise, provide an explaination for why its offensive, and try to not be offensive again (learn from your mistakes)? I don't know how you can do those things if you don't also believe your article is offensive. From your article, and from a quick read of the hyperlinks posted
therewithin, I think the argument is a question of definition. That is,
there is disagreement about what offensive means.

Your article doesn’t define offensive and thus doesn’t provide a resolution.

Furthermore, your correct and incorrect responses section
proceeds from the assumption that when someone says, “your post is
patently offensive,” your post is offensive. I can’t see how that would
always be true: if I said this article of yours is offensive, would you
(sincerly) appologise, provide an explaination for why its offensive,
and try to not be offensive again (learn from your mistakes)? I don’t
know how you can do those things if you don’t also believe your article
is offensive.

]]> By: shermann //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-124 shermann Tue, 29 May 2007 08:22:02 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-124 The problem is not, that I'm bothered about the critic, that's ok. The problem is more, that she didn't read the article, like thousands of other people and community member. She took it from her emancipating view, which is not correct, and was felt attacked. The problem is not, that I’m bothered about the critic, that’s ok. The problem is more, that she didn’t read the article, like thousands of other people and community member.
She took it from her emancipating view, which is not correct, and was felt attacked.

]]> By: Bob //www.joeterranova.net/blog/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/comment-page-1/#comment-123 Bob Tue, 29 May 2007 08:00:26 +0000 //www.joeterranova.net/2007/05/29/on-free-speech-and-related-topics/#comment-123 <blockquote cite="Terranova">Repeated posts of an offensive or sexual nature?</blockquote> Few people get offended by this kind of post. You can't restrict your right of free speech because some bigoted idiot who find what you say offensive, or you will not be able to say anything anymore. In fact Hermann doest not have to apologize as he didn't make a mistake. In fact Drapper have overreacted by being agressive with Hermann, she should have ignore that post if she feel "offended".

Repeated posts of an offensive or sexual nature?

Few people get offended by this kind of post. You can’t restrict your right of free speech because some bigoted idiot who find what you say offensive, or you will not be able to say anything anymore.
In fact Hermann doest not have to apologize as he didn’t make a mistake. In fact Drapper have overreacted by being agressive with Hermann, she should have ignore that post if she feel “offended”.

]]>