response 25 of 109:

Feb 10 22:12 UTC 2004

SLIP


( I agree with #23)

response 27 of 109:

Feb 10 22:52 UTC 2004

I can't believe I am still struggling to make a point that should be clear
to a sixth grader. I do not a believe a single person involved in this debate
claimed there was an absolute "no exceptions" rule against censorship. For
instance, we all agree that credit card numbers could be removed. Starting
from that basis then, no can possibly frame the argument as one in which the
"anti-censors" were seeking to impose rigid principles with no
flexibility.

In my case, I begged the users to explain what CRITERIA they intended to
use to determine whether an exception was warranted. I even suggested what
I believed would be appropriate criteria to consider. Rather than engage
in any principled (ooh, there's that word again) discussion, the
conversations almost invariably returned to (a) "jep and valerie claimed
they would be harmed, and that's good enough for me", or (b) "stop talking
about principles, we should be allowed to do favors for our friends;
that's how we show what a caring community we are!"

Note, though, that in neither case have you created any guiding basis for
deciding how to proceed in the future. Once again, someone can come along,
make vague and unsupported allegations of harm and then point to valerie
and jep as reasons to support a third request for deletion. Or someone
insider can come along and attempt to obtain a personal favor as a favored
person. NOTHING HAS BEEN RESOLVED.

Please remove the free speech ribbon from the website. It has no place on
grex.

response 31 of 109:

Feb 10 23:16 UTC 2004

Would someone please enter a citizen member's in good standings' initiative
to have the free speech non-sense removed?

response 35 of 109:

Feb 11 01:24 UTC 2004

The calls for the removal of the blue ribbon seem to be 
predominantly coming from those whose own hypocrisy in suggesting 
that their judgement of what it means to support free speech is 
superior to that of the Grex community at large should, in the mind 
of any reasonable reader, cause those calls to be vigorously denied.

If the retention of the blue ribbon on the website becomes a matter 
of policy to be determined by vote because of this series of events, 
it will only further support the basis for keeping it there in the 
first place.

response 39 of 109:

Feb 11 03:28 UTC 2004

The Blue Ribbon is linked to EFF, not the ACLU.  Try clicking on it to learn
a little about what you are purporting to talk about.  Short form:  You are
not in touch with reality.

response 41 of 109:

Feb 11 03:52 UTC 2004

The EFF is a member corporation of the ACLU.

response 43 of 109:

Feb 11 08:51 UTC 2004

exactly.

remove the ribbon, please.

response 45 of 109:

Feb 11 12:29 UTC 2004

"The ACLU may or may not agree that Grex has crossed the censorship 
line."  No, cy, the ACLU is concerned with *government* attempts to 
suppress free speech on the Internet.  As a card-carrying member (when 
I can stand their obnoxious fund-raising blitzes) I know whereof I 
speak.  

Grex has no obligation, least of all any legal obligation, to preserve 
every post everyone makes.  The Grexers That Be can delete anything 
they please, for any reason they please.  Grex supports the EFF, I 
guess, as we all should.  If the government ever started regulating 
private bbses like Grex so as to prevent them from deleting text, for 
example, that's when EFF and ACLU would step in to defend Grex.  

You're on the wrong side of this argument!

response 47 of 109:

Feb 11 12:51 UTC 2004

Re #45: I absolutely understand the ACLU is concerned about government
actions and not private actions such as Grex. And if the ribbon is related
to the EFF rather than the ACLU, then simply subsitute EFF for ACLU in my
comments. My point is NOT that Grex is engaged in "illegal" censorship. My
point is that if Grex purports to be a bastion of free speech in the face
of government attempts to supress same, then its current stance is
hypocritical (criticising the government for behavior you engage in
yourself is not very persuasive even if legal). Reread my posts and you
will see that what I am concerned about is that grex decide whether there
will be (a) principled reasons for removing control over individual posts
from the person who posted them or (b) whether there will be no such
standards and instead a system of personal favors for favored persons. So
tell me gelinas, what do you think is "not in touch with reality"  about
that concern? 

response 49 of 109:

Feb 11 16:55 UTC 2004

well, you point to where the government told us to censor any items and it
was done, adn I will agree.

Otherwise, get off it.