[SocialistPunk]

Quote:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship

A fairly accepted definition of censorship. If there is another widely accepted definition I'd love to hear it.The fact is censorship goes on all the time, by many different organisations, for many different reasons. There's no point claiming it can't happen in a socialist space.The question should be is it appropriate, and if it is, when and where should it be used. If after discussion it is deemed acceptable in certain circumstances then that is fair enough.I don't understand the fear.

[SocialistPunk]

YMSI guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of vetting contributions and retroactive removal of contributions, being censorship or not.   I see little point in going round in circles on that aspect. Though I will add that if vetting and retroactive removal of contributions on socialist discussion forums is not regarded as censorship, it (conveniently) allows the discussion of whether censorship is an appropriate tool for socialism, to be ignored. The, "How dare you accuse us of using censorship.", dismissal. Whereas I come from a starting point of accepting the definition I have provided several times and ask, "Is censorship appropriate for socialism?"Perhaps you could redefine censorship.Regarding the idea of improving communication on SPGB sites to reduce the incidences of non intended disruption through misunderstandings, I'm all in favour. I see communication as a central aspect of socialism and something that is an ongoing process. I don't see censorship as a good way of improving communication, and find it difficult to think some socialists do.On a practical note, I think it would be a nightmare to manage, with the likely scenario of endless appeals to the IC. Unless what is unacceptable could somehow be defined including the various contexts, so allowing forum members to be fully informed of what is deemed acceptable.  Not really sure what you mean by your last paragraph. The SPGB has been "rule driven" since day one. But if you refer to online "offenders" then it is already up to a moderator to decide what is a breach of rules and there exists no guidelines to tie moderators down to any one particular approach, as has already been discussed.  

[SocialistPunk]

YMSA further point I missed.Removing a disruptive person from a space is not censorship. Unless there is a human right to be deliberately disruptive?

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

A couple of aspects. 

Article four of the European Convention of Human rights wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent Statesfrom requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises

and

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I've bolded a few words, to highlight an important aspect, which is the right to receive information.  This, in part, covers what I mean by maintaining channel clarity.  If someone is shouting at a public meeting, or sending spam to a forum, we have to screen that out.  Now, at, say, Speakers Corner, I just walk away from a platform I don't like, or tune out a speaker, and concentrate on theone I want to hear.  On the internet I might us Google alerts.  Here on the forum, I rely on myself and editors, who might screen some of the noise and let some of it through.I find it had to believe that some individuals here would infring my rights to receive information, rather than allow a moderator to use the moderation facility to check posts from suspect/possibly disruptive sources for useful information, and censor people by silencing them. 

YMSYou've just stated that you have the ability to screen information. We all do it.You think your right to receive pre-filtered information outways my right to be able to decide for myself what information to filter? Deadlock on that one.I notice though, that you are no longer claiming that pre-moderation and retroactive removal of information is not censorship. It took a while but we finally got there.

[SocialistPunk]

Well said Mod1. I fully agree, censorship amongst other things removes the ability to learn from mistakes.I had suspected you were not in favour of using censorship as a tool for forum moderation, from the in depth discussions that took place on this forum a couple of years ago.Thanks for clearing this issue up.

[SocialistPunk]

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

 Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

Hi Mod1,Not really sure what is meant by your post. Are you in favour of the use of censorship for use on SPGB communication sites such as this forum? Or do you view it's use as a moderation tool as likely to cause more problems than it solves?The sentence of mine you quote is a reference to the moderation approach being used here now, with censorship not being needed. It was tried briefly on this forum and only succeeded in further complicating the issue of moderation for the SPGB, as it added the issue of whether censorship is appropriate for a political party that is opposed to it's use for a number of reasons.Back on topic.There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly. It is patronising and elitist to assume a role of deciding what people can or can't think and/or decide for themselves on various issues. It is often used to airbrush history, thus altering events and restricting the ability to examine and learn from past events.

[SocialistPunk]

I agree Adam.I don't think criticism of halal meat is because of any "Islamophobia", but I can imagine a scenario whereby it becomes another issue used against Muslims by the right wing. Another, Sharia law by the back door, scapegoat scenario.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

 But hallal meat is served everywhere, and not just to muslims, in prisons, schools, hospitals. Does anyone know why? It can't be just to suck up to muslims. Is it cheaper or something?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27324224

Quote:

The HFA says many slaughterhouses will have chosen to move to halal processes so they do not lose Muslim customers.The latest census suggests there are 2.7 million Muslims in the UK, with a spending power estimated in the region of £20bn.

Most people don't give a flying toss about how their food gets to their table, so it wouldn't matter to most non Muslims if their meat was halal or not. Though with growing anti-Islamic sentiments, resentment towards it may develop just because it is Islamic, rather than concern for animal welfare.

[SocialistPunk]

To be properly classed as halal meat, the animal has to be bled to death while a blessing is spoken by a Muslim? 

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Looks like I'm having to go through it again.Ok, so the Socialist Standard has limited space for letters, meaning editorial decisions need to be taken. Articles or letters? Tough one there.

So you accept that different media, and different communication channels demand different conditions on the manner of expression?

SocialistPunk wrote:

At a physical meeting you could find yourself removed for disruption, likewise on the forum via the system of reminders, warnings and suspensions. So there is no difference there. I don't see the problem with removing people who are disruptive. And it's a pretty poor argument to say they are being censored, as by that defintion there would be many a censored individual cooling off in police cells come the weekend.

Not all disrupters are drunks, some are sincere opponents of the meeting's aims

SocialistPunk wrote:

Imagine the scenario at a physical meeting whereby all contributions had to be heard by the chairperson before the audience could hear them, with any "unsuitable" bits disallowed".

That would be difficult to organise in a live environment.  But, lets say it was a very busy meeting, and contributors were asked to pass a note to the chair asking to speak, and saying what they would generally say.  The chair could decide in such circumstances to not choose to call off-topic speakers, those whose contribution may be abusive, disruptive, etc.  That, again, would not be censorship, but maintaining channel clarity.  So long as democratic methods for redress existed (again, which did not clog up nor disrupt the meeting) that would be fine.The point is, on the internet, people can go and spot their opinions elsewhere if they want, freedom of speech doesn't mean they have to do it here, or that we have to give bandwidth over to them.There is no embarrasment here.

YMSI do accept different media have limitations and require different managerial approaches. The current managerial or moderation approach being used on this forum is the reminder, warning and suspension system. Simple enough to deal with disrupters without the need to engage in censorship practices.Ooops, I keep forgetting that you argue the removing of a disruptive person from a meeting space could be seen as a form of censorship, but checking what they say to make sure it meets approval before it can be heard, is not censorship. Silly me for thinking it the other way.

Quote:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.

I didn't say that all disrupters are drunk. Merely that if you define the stopping of disruption as a form of censorship then many people who find themselves arrested on a weekend for "drunk and disorderly" could fall into such a category of being denied freedom of expression.The imaginary scenario I spoke about was merely that. Imaginary. So imagine a physical meeting whereby the chairperson could vet all contributions and remove comments? That would be censorship. But according to you if it happens on a forum such as this it is "maintaining channel clarity"."maintaining channel clarity", interesting one. Reminds me of military euphemisms, "collateral damage", "shock and awe". I can picture a military spokeperson in front of reporters saying, "We disagree in the strongest terms that the military engage in censorship, there is however a need to maintain channel clarity for national security reasons."Your last paragraph is quite telling. Your defence of censorship has broken down to nothing more than if people want to spout opinions (presumably about cake decorating) then they are free to go elsewhere. In other words, "sod off, this is our space". Albeit a space the SPGB must want non Party members to come to and engage in political discussion, as two internal communication forums open only to Party members already exist. At the end of the day if the SPGB want to "maintain channel clarity" then they are free to do so in any manner so desired. But if openness and transparency are deemed important, and I assume they are, (as is proved by the NERB on-line branch meetings taking place on this site) then censoring contributions is a step in the wrong direction.Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

[SocialistPunk]

Not sure who your'e referring to, JC is no longer in the SPGB.I know there were axes to grind, I was keeping an eye on things. But my point still stands, if suspensions are warranted, Mod1 will swing into action. Remember you aint the only one on the receiving end of a suspension in recent months.The problem with going on at the moderator to leave you alone is it confuses the situation, that expands becoming an issue of itself, taking center stage and making it harder to ascertain if you are being unfairly treated.Just a bit of friendly advice. 

[SocialistPunk]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Before I forget it would be appreciated if you are  keeping track and making a list of any suggestions you have for moderation.  Anything which makes life easier all round would be very welcome.  I agree the rules need reviewing 

 Easy. Stop wasting your time on the unnecessary moderation of me. You seem to have plenty of time for that. There is a lot worse than me on this forum of which you have every right to suspend _ permamently. 

Come on Vin.I think it's a bit un-comradely to call for others to be banned from this forum. If you recall there are Party members who didn't want you back in the SPGB and on the forum, citing disruption as the reason. I would have thought you would rise above their level after being on the receiving end yourself.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,different channels of communication opperate under different principles.  We have a standing principle to publish all letters to the Standard, but they go through the editorial committee, who have to exercise a degree of judgement (the ones in green ink and going on about Satan tend not to make it through to print for some reason, hideous insidious censorship).At a physical meeting, someone who shouts "whoop-de-whooop-mcpoop" continuously would eventually be "censored" by being man handled outside, where you would no longer be able to judge if somewhere in the noise there was a meaningful message that deserved to be heard.There is no difference when this happens online, save that, because of the delayed nature of the communication, someone could look at it and see if there is something that could be forwarded to the meeting.  This is actually an advance.So, we have three clear distinctions to make:Content of communicationManner of communicationAction of communicationThe case being made here is that there should be no restriction on content, but manner and action are matters for consideration, since they are the point at which speech acts impinge on other people.The principle is that the least interference necessary to enable people to communicate their ideas to one another is ideal; and preferably in a democratic context.  Obviously, in the case of this forum, the democratic context is not the participants of the forum, but the members of the party through their demcoracy – non-party members have no say in how this forum is run. Fat fact..

YMSLooks like I'm having to go through it again.Ok, so the Socialist Standard has limited space for letters, meaning editorial decisions need to be taken. Articles or letters? Tough one there.At a physical meeting you could find yourself removed for disruption, likewise on the forum via the system of reminders, warnings and suspensions. So there is no difference there. I don't see the problem with removing people who are disruptive. And it's a pretty poor argument to say they are being censored, as by that defintion there would be many a censored individual cooling off in police cells come the weekend.Imagine the scenario at a physical meeting whereby all contributions had to be heard by the chairperson before the audience could hear them, with any "unsuitable" bits disallowed". And what if the chairperson could retroactively remove a persons contribution from the meeting or decide for the audience what does or doesn't count. I imagine most audience members, never mind contributors, would feel insulted and a little angry, that the chair had the audacity to think they couldn't decide for themselves what was worth considering and ignoring. In case you didn't grasp it, this is worth quoting again.

Quote:

There is a further point: all censorship — especially censorship of this kind, allegedly exercised for the benefit of the working class — is an insult to the intelligence of ordinary working men and women since it implies that they cannot be trusted to hear or read certain ideas and are incapable of making rational judgements on the merits of rival ideas. Those who favour censorship always assume that they are somehow superior to ordinary people and have the right to decide what ordinary people should or should not hear.

Your whole argument seems to focus on how forum members conduct themselves. If someone abuses the rules of the forum that are there to organise the multilayered environment, then they can be dealt with, as in a physical meeting. But when methods of pre-moderation and retroactive deletion are used to control contributions then that is censorship in action, doing exactly what it is meant to do, control people.You make it quite clear that you think the issue has nothing to do with me as a non Party member. But the "Fat fact" remains censorship happened within the domain of the SPGB. A little embarrassing perhaps, but not the end of the world considering the relatively new environment it took place in. I see it as something to be learnt from, a chance to discuss whether or not it is suitable for socialism.

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

An easier way is to allow free access to info' and freedom of expression so long as it does not involve the abuse of others. I think we may be confusing the issue regarding abuse and freedom of expression.

I think the separation of 'abuse' from 'freedom of expression' is not as clear cut as you seem to be assuming.To me, it's a bit like someone arguing that "common sense tells us the diference between 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters' ".We all know that one's starting point (political ideology) has different 'common sense' with that issue, and I'm inclined to think that 'one person's 'abuse' is another person's 'free expression'. Perhaps a starting point for a reconciliation, though, would be to agree that 'abuse' should be censored.From that, we could identify the body that 'censors abuse', and then I would probably claim that it would be the 'censor' that I think is inescapable for any society.At bottom, this is a question of 'political power'. And I think that all political questions should be answered by workers' democracy, not by individuals' opinions or by unelected experts.

I've already said that what constitutes human abuse differs from culture to culture. It would be up to a socialist society to decide what those parameters were. As I said, I hope some basics, such as exist in Britain, would be adopted globally as a starting point. It's why I think some sort of "human rights" charter would be a good idea for the WSM to consider.For abuse to be censored requires a definition of what constitutes abuse. The likes of "snuff films" and child abuse imagery should  most definately be removed from view, as they are the result of obvious serious abuse and have nothing to do with freedom of expression. Ultimately those who peddle in such misery must be brought to account and dealt with severely.   Does your idea of an elected censor only extend to areas of abuse, once abuse has been clearly defined?   

[SocialistPunk]

Here's a link to the incident mentioned by Darren.http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/09/wiltshire-police-apologise-details-charlie-hebdo-readersI don't expect any newsagents stock the Socialist Standard, but is it possible for newsagents to acquire it if someone put in a monthly order for it?Maybe one to watch for in the future.

[Author]

Posts