Re: Question - "Content flagged as objectionable"
|
It seems to me that free speech rights don't come into play here. This isn't a government-sponsored forum.? The owners of groups and Groups.IO can set limits on content.
The real issue is whether the comments were related to the stated purpose of the group and conformed to group expectation concerning content.? If the group was established to talk about computer programming, for example, then the comment about the administration's response to the pandemic doesn't appear to be relevant to the group and was objectionable because of that.? If the group was established to talk about health care, for example, then the comment was relevant.? It all depends on the nature of the group.
What was the group's purpose?
? Bob
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:11 AM Chris Jones via <chrisjones12= [email protected]> wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 05:51 AM, Gesine wrote:
One member recently complained to about a post a moderator wrote <snip>
(the allegedly-objectionable aspect was, stating that our federal government's response to the pandemic is incompetent, and that we all need to be doing social distancing whether or not our area has mandated it)?
My co-moderator/co-owner is distressed over this and wonders what we need to do.
What follows is a personal opinion with which others may or may not agree.
If your fellow owner actually wrote what you quoted above then I'm afraid I see that as problematic. Politics is a very polarising subject (as is religion) so some care is necessary in avoiding the unnecessary raising of the temperature.
This of course brings us into the territory of Free Speech. Does that include the right to say things that others will or may find deeply objectionable? If it does, then we cannot deny others the right to voice their objections with as much force as the original comment to which they are objecting. In this case that objection took the form of a "Content flagged as objectionable" notification.
By stating our federal government's response to the pandemic is incompetent then IMO your co - owner did make a statement to which others might reasonably object, so it is then reasonable to ask why does he or she find the means by which that objection was raised so upsetting? Or is it simply the fact that someone has registered a disagreement with the original statement that has caused an upset?
Had the original comment been In my view our federal government's response to the pandemic is seriously flawed then the use of a potentially inflammatory word - incompetent - has been avoided and a rational discussion may follow.
Now I fully accept that others here may not agree with what I have written, but I hope that I have written it in such a way that rational discussion may continue without needless confrontation. Yes; your co - owner was probably within his or her "Freedom of Speech" rights, and the complainant was within theirs as well.? If we insist on our rights of Free Speech then we cannot object to others doing the same, even if their doing so upsets us.
The Art of Diplomacy is that of telling someone to go to h*ll in such a way that they actually look forward to the journey. There are occasions when the use of diplomatic language on a group is to be recommended.
Chris
|
