Posted by Lou Pilder on June 21, 2010, at 15:13:01
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ihnphicehmow » Lou Pilder, posted by violette on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:47
> Lou,
>
> I forgot to say - it's not that I am uninterested in your situation with the anti-semantic statements you refer to, but I just don't have the time or motivation to look into it.
>
> I'd be disgusted if I came across an anti-sematic statement and I would think it would be very harmful and irresponsible to allow someone to post them here. I generally don't believe in censorship but I think if someone wrote an anti-sematic statement with ill intent, and did not correct themselves, they should be banned from posting altogether. If they said something of that nature, it should be brought to their attention by whoever sees it; it could be a typographical error or a misunderstanding, but if others conclude the person truly intended to convey racist views after it was first questioned as a possible mistake or misunderstanding-I think they should not be permitted to post here.
>
> Statements can be misinterpreted, so it would depend upon the situation. If a non anti-sematic person was referencing history, they could quote an anti-sematic statement in conversation to convey a point in reference to something else. So you see, it would depend on the context of the statement. Sometimes others' statements are misinterpreted since communication is a two-way concept. Dialogue between and among members should be encouraged to determine the truth of the situation.violette,
You wrote,[...don't have the time or motivation to look...harmful and irresponsible to allow...be brought to their attention by whoever sees it...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to thew following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. In,[...don't have the time or motivation to look....]
1. redacted by respondent
B. In [...harmful and irresponsible to allow...]
as to what you are wanting to mean here,
1. would the members or the adminstrators or both or someone/something else be those that could be irresponsible?
2. what kind of harm could occur if an antisemitic statement is allowed to be posted here (without sanction)?
3. Who could be the people that the harm could come to?
4. what actions could make any irresponsibility turned into responsibility?
5. In your opinion, do you think that the administrators could be held liable for any people's injuries or deaths if they became victims of antisemitic violence, or anti-Islamic violence or anti something else violence, and it could be shown that the one's that did the violence acted on what they were led to believe was supportive here in relation to a statement that could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings, as being allowed to stand without the rule drafter posting as to if they do or do not consider the statement in and of itself supportive or not as a reply from a request from a Jewish member that is concerned about the potential of him becoming a victim of antisemitic violence as a result of what the statement in question could purport?
C. In, [...be brought to their attention by whoever sees it...]
1. For those that want to see the post in question, here is the link to see the post on the faith board and then the link to my request bringing it to the attention of Mr. Hsiung on the admin board.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/941769.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/950671.html
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:951716
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951758.html