User:Psircleback/CaseLaw

Please remember that the discussions quoted below may well have progressed further since these snapshots were taken

There is, of course, nothing to stop you drawing this to my attention; thanks in advance, -J Psircleback (talk) 13:13, July 16, 2021 (EDT)

re: Commandment Three

on: Obscenity

[from: Conservapedia_talk:Commandments/Archive_2#Obscenity ]

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . Sulgran 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" Geo. 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)

What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. JoshuaZ 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. MountainDew 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. Geo. 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

on 'rule 3'

[from: Conservapedia_talk:Commandments/Archive_3#rule_3 ]

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. Sterile 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. Karajou 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. Sterile 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? Karajou 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--Reginod 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

• That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--Reginod 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ TK ^MyTalk 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

• Let's look at some definitions of family:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family:

"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.

9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.

10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."

I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. Sterile 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

• That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ TK ^MyTalk 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

on: Please list banned sites

[from: Conservapedia_talk:Commandments/Archive_4#Please_list_banned_sites ]

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --woozle 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. HenryS 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--Hurst 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --Benp 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--Hurst 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --Benp 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. HenryS 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)