Hi, Thanks for starting the discussion.
Personally, I think people should be banned from Snapzu for hate speech- this is no impingement on free speech. Free speech means not being imprisoned for for what you say, it doesn't mean a site has to publish what you say. Book publishers do this all the time with rejection letters :) If people want a forum to spread malicious, nasty, hateful, denigrating material then let them invest their own time and money into creating their own space to do so.
If people want a forum to spread malicious, nasty, hateful, denigrating material then let them invest their own time and money into creating their own space to do so.
Yes - totally agree that banning certain people for spreading hate is not necessarily an impingement on free speech - the hard part is drawing the line. Ultimately, if someone is going to draw a line, it's inherently a jagged and subjective line. Would you ban Scientologists from creating a tribe? How about the Westboro Baptist Church? How about a group affiliated with the KKK? Is creating the tribe ok, but they aren't allowed to hate a "certain amount"? More importantly, who is responsible for deciding who to ban? One person, or a select few - are these people elected or volunteers?
I'm not condoning any hateful behavior, and with a small community I doubt a system like the one I proposed is even necessary. But if this site eventually gets popular, you're going to get all kinds of people. Better to have a system in place beforehand, in my opinion. Changing the rules once you have e-mobs can get messy :)
Hi, Thanks for starting the discussion. Personally, I think people should be banned from Snapzu for hate speech- this is no impingement on free speech. Free speech means not being imprisoned for for what you say, it doesn't mean a site has to publish what you say. Book publishers do this all the time with rejection letters :) If people want a forum to spread malicious, nasty, hateful, denigrating material then let them invest their own time and money into creating their own space to do so.
That's perfect, I couldn't agree more.
Yes - totally agree that banning certain people for spreading hate is not necessarily an impingement on free speech - the hard part is drawing the line. Ultimately, if someone is going to draw a line, it's inherently a jagged and subjective line. Would you ban Scientologists from creating a tribe? How about the Westboro Baptist Church? How about a group affiliated with the KKK? Is creating the tribe ok, but they aren't allowed to hate a "certain amount"? More importantly, who is responsible for deciding who to ban? One person, or a select few - are these people elected or volunteers?
I'm not condoning any hateful behavior, and with a small community I doubt a system like the one I proposed is even necessary. But if this site eventually gets popular, you're going to get all kinds of people. Better to have a system in place beforehand, in my opinion. Changing the rules once you have e-mobs can get messy :)