Dear List,
I think there is a gross misunderstanding about what censorship on a list
should include/exclude. What exactly would be censored? Someone insulting
another individual online? Someone asking for help and assistance because its
"off-topic"?
No, I don't think this is censorship.
Arguing, debating, discussing, expressing opinions can all be done with some
harmony that is not dissonant. We are not censoring ideas, personal
viewpoints, but the language we use to make our own viewpoint known. THIS is
where the author- based editing comes in.
It seems there is no real definition of what "censorship" would entail on this
list. The worst part of the term connotes "restriction, suppression, control,
expurgation" while the least offensive would be "cutting, editing, restraining".
Do we HAVE to allow rude, obscene, flaming language to rule our posts? Is this
what most of you mean when you say "I don't want to be censored, or I will
leave this list"?
Every list has some form of "restriction". It is to protect and serve. BUT,
this does not mean that the individual has lost freedom of expressing his/her
own opinion. It only means that responses need to be modulated (re-phrased,
edited, etc.) to eliminate list "riots" and infernal "flaming".
Did anyone see Lynda Lacy's or my post from yesterday afternoon? The protocol
I wrote about was meant for another list, but is has some ideas that might help
this group. I do not, in any way, suggest we use this protocol for the
vocalist list. It was only meant to serve as a guideline, to suggest topics
for discussion.
But all I seem to read are posts that say "No, I don't want to be censored",
and hardly any discussion of what "censored" means.
I don't want "censorship" either. But there have got to be some guidelines for
the language I use when writing a post to the hundreds online who will read it.
Chris
Christopher Caleffi
European Travel Specialist
ITG Travel Companies
WorldTravel Partners Affiliate
|
|  |
