833
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay: Freedom of speech (view source)
Revision as of 00:58, September 10, 2008
, 00:58, September 10, 2008→Conservapedian "Free" Speech: new section
::Conservapedia can be thought of as an open wiki, but it's essentially a private organization with a low barrier to entry, and its leadership reserves the right to limit any speech that depends on using its resources. I can go to Wikipedia or a street corner and say that CP is wrong about "X", but I can't expect to put that up as a post here and not be judged, blocked or even banned for it. Speech here is only as free as the leadership condones it, and that is the essence of a private organization. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
::Conservapedia can be thought of as an open wiki, but it's essentially a private organization with a low barrier to entry, and its leadership reserves the right to limit any speech that depends on using its resources. I can go to Wikipedia or a street corner and say that CP is wrong about "X", but I can't expect to put that up as a post here and not be judged, blocked or even banned for it. Speech here is only as free as the leadership condones it, and that is the essence of a private organization. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
== Conservapedian "''Free''" Speech ==
<blockquote>'''''Conservapedia is not a society, nor is it a home. Conservapedia has the right to restrict freedom of speech to exclude any discussion on any topic it chooses, and will likely exercise that right for non-family-friendly topics. However, beyond that, Conservapedia should not (and generally does not) restrict one from expressing a view and arguing a case on any topic, but will restrict someone from acting on that view, such as swearing, name-calling, etc.'''''</blockquote>
I have a funny feeling that my complaining about my recent block inspired you, perhaps, to write this essay. (And by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.) Since Conservapedia can, and does, restrict free speech not only in regards to vulgarity and obscenity, wouldn't it be helpful for the editors to make a list of the ''verboten'' topics? Disparaging police is obviously high on the list, I know this from personal experience, in fact I received a ''second'' block for daring to report my first block as ''abuse''. (I felt a bit like Doremus Jessup in [[Sinclair Lewis]]' ''It Can't Happen Here'', but I don't think I'm going to join the "New Underground", yet.)
Now, my asking for a list may sound snide and dismissive, I assure you that while part of me is cynical about this rule, (and many others,) I'm still utterly confused (not to mention angered) by the unilateral and arbitrary blocking that happens here. It seems that many of the blocks are simply for having ''dissenting'' opinions. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)