Free Speech and Criticsm on Democratic Underground.

[Danger Mouse]

     I wanted to say a few words about the issue of free
speech on DU. This has been in the back of my mind for days,
and I feel I have to say it, or burst from frustration.
Certain events on DU over the past few days have caused many
DUers to evaluate not only their own behavior, but the
behavior of other DUers. To what extent do we have the right
to criticize a public figure, express differing opinions, or
disagree with one another?
     First things first. Free speech. It's is a bit of a
double-edged sword, yet it is important to the nature of our
country. Vital, I daresay. Free speech allows every American
to have a voice, and to freely express their ideas. The
downside of this is that people like the KKK or Fred Phelps
also gain a voice...however, we need to take the good with the
bad, and stripping Phelps or Falwell or Robertson of the right
to express their (loathsome) ideas hurts every American. Hate
speech is disgusting, and it should be fought at every
opportunity, but it is not restricted. The way to fight is not
with laws and restrictions, but with truth. It is our greatest
weapon against hate, because laws don't change minds, but
education and truth can. 
     Why did I bring all of that up? Well, for one, hate
speech is one thing that is not tolerated at DU...with good
reason. However, the rules of DU DO allow for open expressions
of ideas as long as they are not discriminatory in any way.
Therefore, every DU'er has the right to express their opinion
within the rules.
That means that yes, there will be people with opinions that
are different from yours. There will be people that will argue
with you, perhaps even be rude and disrespectful to you (bad
form), because you disagree with them. Even on DU, we are not
of 'one mind'...we are all individuals with diverse
backgrounds and experiences. We will have our arguments, and
that is okay, because that's what political discourse is all
about. It would be boring if this were an echo chamber where
all we heard was our own opinion spewed back at us time after
time.
     This brings me to the issue of criticism of public
figures. According to the rules of DU, we are allowed to
criticize public figures, both political and apolitical,
within the bounds of civility and decency, of course. Some are
unable to do that, and those individuals are dealt with.
However, it is the right of every DU'er to express criticism
for public figures, whether liberal or conservative. Not ONE
person is above criticism. There is no ONE person that is
perfect and sacred and universally loved. Even if someone is a
hero to you, and you think that person should be a hero to
everyone, there will be someone out there (maybe MANY people)
who disagree with you. And they may let you know.
     What I am sick of is this. I am sick of people shrieking
that we aren't 'allowed' to criticize certain people.
Criticism is not the same thing as hate, rage, jealousy,
bitterness, etc. It is simply what it is: criticism.
This includes holding people accountable for their actions,
pointing out flaws, and disagreeing with stuff that public
figures do. It is normal, it is acceptable, and it is WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF DU RULES.
If someone on DU criticizes someone that you like, feel free
to disagree with them. Feel free to tell them why you think
they are wrong. Feel free to tell them your opinion. That is
our right. However, it is not my right, or your right, or
anyone's right, to tell others what they should think, who
they can criticize and what topics are 'taboo.' There are
rules, mods, and admins here to deal with disruptors and
haters. 
     As for the rest of us...hey, we've got hide thread and
ignore. If you can't stand someone's opinions so much, use
thos e resources. We have a right at DU to have differing
opinions and to criticize when we find fault. When we start
trying to restrict that...we hurt the spirit of DU...and do
the work of Bush and Rove for them by driving deeper wedges
between us. Anyway, I just wanted y'all to consider that. Feel
free to disagree with me. That's the beauty of DU. :) :hi:
Hope everyone is having a decent evening, honestly. :hi:
 

[Marrah_G]

1. K & R

:applause:

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Amen!

I have been mildly amused at the irony of many discussions here on DU the last few days.

[Danger Mouse]

4. Yeah, sometimes it's funny...sometimes.

:P

[porphyrian]

3. "...because laws don't change minds, but education and truth can."

You got it.

[cynatnite]

5. Free speech requires responsibility. Well said! n/t

[hobbit709]

6. My take on free speech is this

Everyone has the right to open their mouth and see how down they can shove their foot. If I don't like what you have to say, I can ignore it but I can't stop you from saying it. I don't have much use for clowns like the Klan, Neonazis, religious nutjobs, etc., but they have the right to say their piece-I have the right to turn my back and walk off.

[BurtWorm]

7. DUers should have the right to say what they want, except when it's to criticize another post on DU?

I do agree that people should try to tolerate different opinions that are expressed within the rules. But if you're going to say something critical of a public figure, especially one on the left, you should know, you're wide open to being hit from all sides. I think most people who express those opinions can sense when they've crossed the flame sparking line.

[question everything]

17. It is OK to criticize, of course

(my opinion, I am not quoting and DU "rules.")

But if you disagree with something someone says you should be able to explain why, instead of just hurling insults saying that someone is an idiot, an ignorant, a troll and others.

This is the cheapest way to object to someone and does not accomplish anything... except to drive out good individuals who refuse to follow the herd.

[BurtWorm]

22. I basically agree with you.

People should respond with intelligence and care. Easier said than done, unfortunately.

[mopinko]

8. free speech means i can point out the blatant sexism

that permeates all discussions of women activists, left and right. really. men just do not get the same kind or degree of personal attacks. if you don't believe me, search around here a little. compare micheal moore and cindy sheehan. for that matter, compare rush limbaugh and ann coulter.
oh yeah, it also means that people who engage in this kind of b.s. will have to hear people tell them to s.t.f.u. i am really sick of the double standard.

[Missy Vixen]

10. Thanks, Mopinko

I agree.

In the meantime, I'm headed to Chicago again in April of '08, and I owe Mr. Nixon a pizza because he's graduating. Would you like to join us? It's my treat ;-).

Julie

[mopinko]

50. would love to

just holler.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Really?

You find DU to be misogynistic?

Really?

[mopinko]

51. yes, i really do.

don't you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Not in the way you mean it. n/t

[Iris]

60. Are you serious?

The sexism runs the gamut.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. The DU "gamut" runs from; "most men are pigs" to "all men are pigs".

I find it to be a limited spectrum of viewpoints.

[Danger Mouse]

80. i wouldn't necessarily argue with 'most men are pigs'...

but that's just me.
:P

[Iris]

87. well, I've learned here at DU that hygiene for women REQUIRES shaving of their private parts &

douching.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Danger Mouse]

89. requires?

well...i don't necessarily agree with that...don't think either is a 'requirement' for me...

[Danger Mouse]

21. i agree that sexists attitudes are alive and well

even on du

[BoneDaddy]

41. And a great deal of it

is anti male, where it is encouraged and justified.

[blondeatlast]

47. Indeed they are, indeed they are. nt

[nini]

61. I think a lot of that coincides with the level of adoration of the person in question

Consider the other side of this .. is Moore put on as high a pedestal as Sheehan? I'd say more people ADORE Sheehan than Moore around here. I agree there is sexism involved on some levels but it goes both ways.

As far as I'm concerned Rush and Coulter are cut from the same cloth and instill equal amounts of nausea in me.

[fizzgig]

9. well written

and very well thought out.

those who tell me what i can and cannot say, who i can and cannot disagree with or criticize and what i can and cannot think are, imho, no better than those on the right.

you don't like what i have to say, disagree with me, criticize me, ignore me, whatever. but don't tell me that i CAN'T have that opinion or feel the way i feel.

the issues discussed on this board are, without a doubt, very personal and very sensitive, i understand that, but that does not preclude constructive and thoughtful discussion. that means, to me, that i should not have to hold my tongue out of fear of being flamed. i cannot control how other people react to what i have to say, do not take it personally if i have a differing opinion with you/your candidate/your cause.

i welcome discourse. tell me your thoughts, your opinion, your experiences. try to change my mind. but is it so hard to do it in a respectful manner?

[Danger Mouse]

26. why thank you, you must be an intelligent

and wildly attractive young lady ;)
wanna get together sometime? :D

[fizzgig]

30. ...

:P

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

12. Democratic Undergound.

Moderated forum.

[zalinda]

13. But, my dear, this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND not

the GREEN PARTY UNDERGROUND. If we dems went over and disrupted your forums then you might have an argument. Oh, wait, there isn't a GREEN PARTY UNDERGROUND............never mind.

zalinda

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. go fuck yourself is considered a personal attack: which is also NOT allowed

maybe you should read the rules again.

[Danger Mouse]

67. Sheesh, someone had to predictably prove my point from the OP, eh?

:D

[BlooInBloo]

14. As if "freedom of speech" has anything to do with what *private* institutions do.

[Danger Mouse]

19. It's a symbol. DU doesn't have unlimited free speech but it does

allow its members to openly express their opinions and differences within certain guidelines. Polite criticism certainly falls within those guidelines.

[camero]

36. Huh?

There have been many posters here that have been critical of Dems lately, myself included, and I haven't heard one iota from admin or the mods about it. As long as it isn't a personal attack, it's all well and good. That's what the OP is saying about free speech being a double edged sword I presume but there is free speech here.

[question everything]

16. Just in time after I left the TV on for Scarborough

whom I never watch - and Michael Reagan was promoting limiting the press in covering Iraq!

I agree with everything you say.

I still question why it is "against DU rules" to refer to Sheehan as a whore, but it is OK to use the same term for Coulter and Lieberman and others. (Not that I have any admiration for them).

The "reply" was that this rule sometimes is applied and sometimes is not..

Generally, I think that people who use foul language, and just hurling insults at others, including other DUers instead of expressing in coherent sentences why they disagree with the subject of their curse show inability to articulate what they think, or perhaps even inability to think clearly and are just "dittoheads' with a left label. Maybe.

[cynatnite]

23. Sometimes you just gotta yell 'FFFUUUUCCCCKKKK!!!!'

Least that's how I get at times. :) And I totally agree with that disgusting name. Personally, I don't think that name has any place here at DU. Not my call to make.

[Danger Mouse]

24. I don't think it's okay for Sheehan, Coulter, OR Lieberman to be called whores.

Using hate speech is inappropriate no matter how much you hate the person involved.
I prefer 'Toad' for Lieberman anyway.

[Skinner]

44. No, that was not the reply.

You make it sound as if I said "It's okay to call Coulter a whore, but not Cindy Sheehan." That is not correct. You also make it sound as if I said "Sometimes we enforce the rule and sometimes we don't," which is also not correct. I said that sometimes the word is okay and sometimes it is not. For the record, here is my response.

In my previous reply, I quoted the relevant rule (which is actually pretty specific), and then I explained that in borderline cases the moderators have to make the call. For the record, here is the rule (again):

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "cunt," "whore," "slut," "skank," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. A common exception that is permitted is the use of words like "whore" or "prostitute" in cases where public figures or the media do favors. (For example: "Fox News is whoring for the GOP again" or "Tom DeLay is a prostitute for corporate interests.")

Here's how that works in reality:

If you call someone (specifically, a woman) a "whore," you would get your post deleted. The rules disallow sexist language, and the rules specifically mention the word "whore" as not being permitted.

However, if you call someone (specifically, a media personality) a "media whore" or if you say a media personality is "whoring" for our political opponents, you would not get your post deleted. The rules specifically permit an exception in these cases, as this construction is frequently used in the liberal blogosphere, and has tended to be used without regard to the gender of the person.

There was an enforcement question in Cindy Sheehan's case, because the term used was "attention whore". This is obviously a commonly used phrase, and it is frequently used without regard to gender. For this reason, I would consider the phrase to be a borderline case. In borderline cases, the mods have to come to consensus and decide what to do. So, the question for the moderators was: Would this specific phrase be eligible to stay under the media-whoring exception? They decided that it should not, and they removed it.

[question everything]

45. You left out the last sentence of your reply

"In other words: Sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's not. When it's borderline, the mods decide where to draw the line."

How does this differ from what I said, above

The "reply" was that this rule sometimes is applied and sometimes is not..?

[Skinner]

49. No. The reply was that sometimes the word is okay and sometimes it is not.

I did not say that we sometimes apply the rule and sometimes we don't. The rule indicates that the word "whore" is usually not permitted, and then explains the exception where the the word is permitted.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Your post was perfecfly clear the first time.

Those of us who were attempting to read it with an open mind understood what you were saying.

[ComerPerro]

54. lets set the record straight: No one called Cindy Sheehan a whore

"attention whore" and "whore" itself mean two very differnt things.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. "very different" not really.

An attention-whore is a subset of the universe of whores. But this has been discussed to death. Sometimes it is acceptable to call people various sorts of whores, sometimes it isn't.

So besides that, while indeed we may be a little bit sexist here on DU, and the *-whore label with its permitted usages is an example of that, we are so less sexist and so much more aware of the importance of language here on DU than in society at large that it is ridiculous. Sometimes we forget just how bad it is out there in the real world.

Last night, for example, I was playing some pickup volleyball. It was a generational mix with some of us in the late 30's - 50's range, and a group of youngin's in their 20's. The 'kids' were shockingly, openly sexist, heck they were blatantly misogynist. Everything was bitch this and that with constant and odious sexual innuendo ("I'd like to drill her in the face too" after a hard hit.) There was no awareness whatever in the young men just how hurtful their language was to the two women who were present.

Sometimes we forget just how bad it is out there in the real world. We find ourselves nitpicking the racist and sexist content of our posts here, and as usual if we stare closely enough everything is crawling with bugs.

[ComerPerro]

59. take a term like "attention whore" or "media whore", though. Its not just used towards women

[Warren Stupidity]

72. I am mostly agreeing with you.

Where I differ is that of course it can be sexist, and there certainly is a tendency to use this sort of language against women who are not behaving 'correctly' more than against men. My point was only that while we aren't perfect here by any means, there is a whole world of hurtful language out there far more deserving of our attention, and the infighting here over the nuances of the appropriate uses of *-whore is just one big waste of time.

[Danger Mouse]

73. It is a rather difficult issue.

There are some people on DU who almost LOOK for stuff to take offense to. However, I would not rather use the word 'whore' if i can avoid it. I don't NEED to use the word (i prefer 'toad' for Lieberman anyway), and there seems to be more than a few people here that would take offense to it.
So I just won't use it.
Won't necessarily argue that others shouldn't though. If the mods allow it, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[Blashyrkh]

18. Brilliant

The best post I've read here all week. Hands down.

[Danger Mouse]

20. Aw shucks.

:blush:

[bridgit]

27. straight up, homey!!!

:kick: k&r'd :patriot:

[Danger Mouse]

32. thanks for your support...

;)

[SeattleGirl]

28. Well said, EH

I don't see anything wrong with criticizing someone on the left, as long as it's done well. I don't consider name-calling, etc., good criticism. I also don't like the same kind of thing being hurled at me or other DUers. I don't expect that everyone will agree with every opinion I have; I don't live in lala land. But when someone responds to me by telling me I don't know what I'm talking about (and doesn't explain WHY they think I don't), or does other kinds of drive-by snarks and insults, it pisses me off. But then, people who do that usually don't have any facts to back up what they are saying, which is why they must resort to nastiness.

[Danger Mouse]

33. They use snark and insults in place of discourse and they use it well.

It's an effective tactic because it ellicits an emotional response: it makes one angry, making it harder to debunk the jerk.
That's why many snarky asshole posters get away with so much of their garbage...they bully and intimidate people.

[SPKrazy]

29. It works well

it has now for a while

lots of tension lately

some people even accuse others of being cold and callous when they disagree with posters, or them.

Well written post.

:thumbsup:

[Danger Mouse]

31. Yeah, tension is building and could potentially just get worse.

The more people try to stifle one another's ability to express ideas, the more tense things will get.

[SPKrazy]

40. Yeah Dammit!

trying to stifle one another's ability to express ideas is wrong any way you look at it.

:banghead:

:eyes:

[19jet54]

34. Well said!

:grouphug:

[Danger Mouse]

35. Thank you very much :)

and one last self-kick before I head off to work :D
:kick:

[19jet54]

92. Free speech

We are limited by law;
1) Cannot liable another
2) Cannot threaten life of another (US President threat is a felony)
3) Cannot yell fire in crowd when there is none
4) Not a good idea to tell military drill instructor to "F" himself
5) Disrespecting Mom, Dad or the Boss is ill advised
6) Pissing off the world brings negative response
7) Family speech should be - Less is More :)

These are just a few items off the top of my head, that incur negative reactions to total free speech - but you are right, we each can & do say such things from time to time, that we later regret, but have a right to say, if not illegal?

The DU blogs - Your comments are the best - Responsible Free Speech.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. well said. i think its perfectly acceptable to reasonably criticise democratic candidates or

political activists.

and while i think cindy was a very brave woman, i thought her "resignation" letter calling out DU was a bit tacky.

this is my opinion and its not a personal attack on her or her views, but to think that public figures who are not republicans, should not be scrutinized is ridiculous.

[Danger Mouse]

68. Agreed on the calling out of DU.

I was turned off by it as well.

[TOhioLiberal]

39. Excellent, Elrond!

Well thought out and clearly written. K & R'ed! :thumbsup:

[patricia92243]

42. Agreed - K&R n/t

[philosophie_en_rose]

43. K & R

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

46. Well said. Bravo/a! nt

[blondeatlast]

48. Sometimes I just won't weigh in. I have an opinion on one of the recent

firestorms here and have kept it to myself except that I did go after a poster whose heavy-handed arguments came from a suspect, if not outright forbidden, source and thirg-parties (he/she has since been bench-pressing granite).

There's no sense trying to alter a person's cherished beliefs other than to hurt (I'm a Christian and while I have doubts sometimes, the arguments on DU aren't going to change that--EVER.)

If DU was of a like mindset, it would be neither enjoyable nor informative. I've had my mind changed on a few issues and still stand my ground on many.

Hide thread and Ignore are superb features that I honestly find that I rarely use.

[Danger Mouse]

70. I too have had many of my opinions and perspectives changed by the open exchange of ideas on DU.

Disagreement and civil debate breeds enlightenment and learning.
I enjoy that.

[mike_c]

90. ",,,he/she has since been bench-pressing granite..."

:rofl:

I love the way jewels like this fall out of DU discussions! :yourock:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. What's any of this got to do with free speech?

You want to be able to criticize Cindy Sheehan, but you want to be free from criticism for stupidly criticizing Cindy Sheehan?

[fizzgig]

62. i don't think that's the point of the post

but you are a perfect example of the crap he is talking about

but you want to be free from criticism for stupidly criticizing Cindy Sheehan?

are you capable of engaging in a conversation without saying things like that? just because you disagree with something doesn't make it stupid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. I agree.

Just because people disagree with me, it doesn't make them stupid. That said, criticism of Sheehan is stupid. And rude, but mostly stupid. I'll be happy to retract that remark if somebody can present to me a valid reason to criticize Sheehan.

[fizzgig]

65. it's still not your call

you are not the end all be all of what is a valid arguement, criticism, whatever.

[Danger Mouse]

71. Thanks for sticking up for me, hun.

:hug:
:)

[ellisonz]

93. Umm...

No. At some point Cindy Sheehan's strategy stopped being gonzo journalism and simply became cultic:eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

69. Excuse me?

Thanks for being rude, condescending and insulting right off the bat. Did I say I personally have any significant criticism of Cindy Sheehan? No. I was defending the right of others to express that criticism.
By the way, you saying that it's 'stupid and a bit rude' to criticize Cindy Sheehan is a LOT rude. It's not your choice who people can and can't criticize. Nor did I say I wanted to be 'free from criticism'...but using abusive and downright insulting language towards someone who DISAGREES with you is pathetic and childish.
If you are capable of being civil when disagreeing with someone, why don't you give that a try? I'm seriously starting to have doubts, however...

[SoCalDem]

53. Many people forget too, that "free speech" was included as a valuable right

because of the time those folks lived in. Back in Merry old England, speaking out against the King or Queen could have landed one in jail..and in some places even today, speaking out POLITICALLY can mean jail or death, so the right to speak "freely" against power is a valuable right..

BUT the word-twisters of our day, have manipulated that right into almost a requirement to be used against everyone all the time. It's as if you now have a DUTY to challenge anyone who dares to voice an opinion that differs from your own.

I subscribe to the philosophy that I do not have to have an opinion on everything and everybody and I don't have to speak out or to every issue..

When people go looking for a fight, they will always find one, and just because someone else thinks differently, that does not make them automatically wrong..

[Robb]

55. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE OFF!!

:rofl:

Nicely put. :)

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. ...

:evilgrin:

[Danger Mouse]

66. Bill! I didn't know you were a DUer.

Always nice to find a fellow falafel lover :D

[cwydro]

64. good post.

:kick:

[gravity]

74. Great post

We just need to learn the difference between criticism and personal attacks.

You can disagree with someone but still respect them as a decent human being. We all have the same goals, just different ideas of achieving them.

[Danger Mouse]

75. It is, unfortunately, mostly wishful thinking.

...as I think many DUers are incapable of expressing disagreement in a civil manner.

[gravity]

82. I know, but to be fair

most human beings are incapable of that.

Just look at cable news. When was the last time you seen an civil debate?

[Danger Mouse]

83. That is very true. And all of us slip up at times.

So...it won't change, really. Not anytime soon.
Hmmm..

[Mythsaje]

76. I think sometimes we just need to learn where our opinions

aren't going to be useful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1018300

[Danger Mouse]

79. Thanks for sharing that excellent thread with me.

:)
I'll post in there in a minute.
I agree that going into certain threads and posting certain things, while valid opinions, is just going to set people off. Picking fights is useless and contributes nothing to the discussion.
However, the people who get set off have to realize that DU is not an echo chamber, and that some people may well show up to express a different opinion.

[Mythsaje]

81. Right on both counts...

We're growing intolerant, and that's not good.

[Danger Mouse]

84. When we grow intolerant of each other...

the rift between us grows...and we do the work of Bush and Rove for them.
We need a unified front to take the white house in '08, and right now, we're far from united.

[Danger Mouse]

85. One self-kick...

hoping to catch the friday evening folks :)

[file83]

86. Apparently discussing Law in current events is forbidden...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1016087&mesg_id=1021211

Weak sauce.

[Danger Mouse]

88. Hmm...not sure I feel about that issue.

However, I think in cases like that, DU mods have to err on the side of caution. We don't want to attract the wrong kind of 'attention'...
sigh.

[mike_c]

91. I've learned that sort of thing simply happens on DU sometimes....

It's not logical, or fair, but there it is. The mod's comments about national security and inciting violent overthrow of the gov't were particularly nonsensical in the context of that thread. But that happens sometimes. We had an interesting discussion until someone (a participant in the thread) became so angry that he/she petitioned the mods to shut the thread down, no doubt expressing themselves with some hyperbole that influenced the moderator's judgment.

[ellisonz]

94. Amen.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

...Amendment I

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.

[timtom]

95. With any group...

there is always the manifestation of "groupthink". If one posits a divergent viewpoint, then that person is deemed to be "not one with the body of Landru".

Many people mask their true opinions for fear of being called out on being out of step.