Moderated "freedom of speech" : spaying the truth ?

I love ATS as a unique place where I can find people telling their own opinion on events hitting the world.
It's sociologically interesting.
I can understand more accuratly what is the feeling of the human race about these events, and more specificaly, what is the feeling of the American people.
But I feel a little ... unconfortable when some are calling for more moderation when the expressed opinions are too far from their own feeling.
Some people (I should say "most" people) are living with postulates that do not afford negation.
The problem is not that these postulates are often wrong.
The problem is that these people can't afford to accept that these postulates could be wrong and will struggle to death in order to proove that they are right.
There is another problem, which has some link with hyprocrisis : naming a cat a CAT is felt like bad educated behaviour depending on the cat ...
In my own opinion, when something is black, and somebody tells it is black, he shouldn't be flamed for that.
Even if it's very annoying and the thing "should" be white, or any other colour which is admitted to use in this occasion.
I understand the rules of civility on a forum, specially on one like ATS.
But we should all be aware that this gets another name : self-censorship.
And this is maybe the end of the free-speach.


[edit on 3/6/2010 by orkson]

Great thread!
.
.
.

I get your point, but you are on a privately owned board. Meaning they can make the rules. They cant tell y ou NOT to say something, they can only tell you not to say it here.

Some posters do use it as a shield for their arguments, but there ARE many times when it is necessary for mods and the such to remove posts.

I understand your point of view. My PERSONAL view is this:

Online discussions tend to devolve when left to their own policing. ATS is primarily focused on what many believe are very important issues, many of them are. If we allowed the forum to become clogged with insults, denigration, and all manner of tactlessness, ATS would not be the popular repository of valuable information that it is.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by projectvxn]

Edits due to the fact that my iPod types for me at times.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


I do understand your point of vue either.
But ...

If we allowed the forum to become clogged with insults, denigration, and all manner of tactlessness

All the problem is here : what is an insult, or more precisely, what is FELT like an insult ?
If I say "JEW", this will be felt like an insult by some persons.
If I say "zionist", this will be felt like an insult by some jews.
But "Zionism" is a word which exists since 150 years (and more ...), and the zionism exists as fascism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, etc ...
"Denigration" ?
Is this the way we have to name "opposition" ?
Are we denigrating Israel when telling that a boat-jacking in the International waters is Piracy ?
"Tactlessness" : this is exactly what I meant when telling that naming a cat a CAT, depending on the cat, is tactless.
You see, this is exactly the issue I adress :
We are civilized and educated people.
We understand the constraints of a public forum.
Is THIS compatible whith free-speech ?
Or will it be necessary, from now on, to tell the intelligent ones to read between the lines ?