To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 690
689  |  691
Subject: 
Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:45:34 GMT
Viewed: 
986 times
  
"Moz (Chris Moseley)" <moz1@ihug.co.nz> writes:

[...]
So in that sense a ban assumes nothing about people, and in fact
only in the sense that it introduces a censorship step to what is
already a store-and-conditionally-forward process can it be
said to assume anything. In practice it is IMO more reasonable
to install a filter than to expect Todd or his minions to
read every post an remove objectionable ones.

Keep in mind, If someone desires any kind of filtering or censoring, they'll
have to do it themselves at the client end.  For legal reasons, it's never
going to happen at the server end, either manually or automatically.  Doing
so opens things up more toward lawsuits (historically).  And besides, we are
against censorship anyway, for both moral and technical reasons.  (But not
against self-censorship or using common sense.)

When we speak of a ban on profanity, it's a "just don't do it" and not a
"you literally and physically can't do it."  If you do it, and it upsets
people or it gets us in trouble, then you run the risk of losing the
privilege of continued use/posting to the system.  But it's impossible to
put anything in black & white.

I'm sure we can all agree that it's equally impossible even to define
profanity in the first place -- in any meaningful and practical way.
Is "phuck ewe" profanity?  How about "corksucker"?  Or "fargin' icehole
bastage"?  How about "poopy head" or "dumbshit" or "piss off"?

BTW, I was surprised to hear the words "son of a bitch" on the David
Letterman show last night.  Apparently it's OK in the U.S. to say that on TV
now.  So are those words appropriate here?  Maybe not, maybe so.  I'm not
even going to touch that one.  It's such a gray area and the context is so
important.  If someone says, "1x2 plates are a sonofabitch to get apart,"
it's probably going to offend a lot fewer people than someone saying, "It's
sonofabitches like you that make this hobby no fun anymore."

Super-gray.  Everything is a judgment call.  Use brain.  Be nice.

Simple guideline:  Don't put us in a position where people are complaining
to us or to other people about the use of language in the groups.  Err on
the "clean" side if there is any question.  Or put a disclaimer at the top
of your post if you've got something to say that you think is walking the
fine line and you're not sure whether it would be offensive.


This is what has already been done with respect to binary posts and posts
from unidentified sources.   [...]

Sort of, yes.  Rejecting binary and MIME posts or posts from unrecognized
sources isn't censorship, though -- it's a data-format- and origin-based
filtering mechanism rather than a concept- or content-based filtering
mechanism.

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
 
Beaker wrote in message ... (...) How so? Even I could write a simple filter script to detect and reject a list of banned words for the news environments I've seen. And I don't see how having such a list is "intellectually limiting" - if anything (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

16 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR