What exactly is the rationale for banning any discussion of the "illegal aspects" of p2p file swapping? Editing posts that actually contain links to pirated material? Sure, I can understand that, but there is a wide gulf of difference between speech about prohibited activity and the activity itself.
At best, that kind of action amounts to sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the problem will pass by, at worst, it amounts to a DMCA-style sledgehammer ("if you even wonder how to go about it, you'll be banned, banned I say!!").
Where do you draw the line here? Can I ask why ******** is crashing on startup (it's not, but just an example)? In all likelihood, I'm using ******** to get WaReZ. Does that make the question unsuitable for discussion? Perhaps you should also black out any posts that discuss pre-release software ("Safari with tabs? Not until you show me proof of your Apple Developer status")
What about another example? I've seen more than one post refer to smoking pot. Uh-oh, illiegal activity alert, call the censors! Now what if I started a post asking about how to recognize high quality smoke? What if I started a thread about the merits of legalizing drugs/prostitution/p2p file swapping? Censorship is a slippery slope, and a right, once abdicated, is rarely regained without a fight.
Even speech concerning instructions on how to go about engaging in illegal activity deserves special consideration. The US Congress recently (2000) tried to pass a bill banning the discussion or dissemination of information pertaining to the manufacture or acquistion of controlled substances. Thanks to pressure from the ACLU and a bit of wisdom on the part of the House Judiciary Commitee, this anti first amendment language was removed from the bill. The fact remains however, that until and unless this kind of speech is prohibited, it remains protected (and when it is prohibited, it's the Bill of Rights that takes it on the chin).
Of course, any constitutional argument is, at its heart, spurious. This is a private forum, with private rules. If the moderators wish to censor my posts or ban me outright, they need no further reason than their own desire to do so. However, I suspect that a large part of the motivation of banning posts about p2p rests in a fear of liability, and with the ambiguous wording of the DMCA, this fear may not be unfounded. But do we really want to relinquish our right to open discussion of whatever topics we see fit because of a heavy handed and likely unconstitutional law whose clear purpose is to extend and expand the hegemony of plutocratic copyright holders?
Anyway, I don't want to go out (any further) on a tangent here, but it's vitally important that we realize the difference between proscribed activity and speech about said activity. If someone is posting wArEz in the forum, by all means, regulate. If someone is smoking weed out behind the fora (not sure how that would work, exactly, but...) sure, call the cops. But speech? Discussion? Surely that's what these fora are here for: the open debate and discussion of whatever issues the community sees fit to bring up.
Just some thoughts...
-alex.
At best, that kind of action amounts to sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the problem will pass by, at worst, it amounts to a DMCA-style sledgehammer ("if you even wonder how to go about it, you'll be banned, banned I say!!").
Where do you draw the line here? Can I ask why ******** is crashing on startup (it's not, but just an example)? In all likelihood, I'm using ******** to get WaReZ. Does that make the question unsuitable for discussion? Perhaps you should also black out any posts that discuss pre-release software ("Safari with tabs? Not until you show me proof of your Apple Developer status")
What about another example? I've seen more than one post refer to smoking pot. Uh-oh, illiegal activity alert, call the censors! Now what if I started a post asking about how to recognize high quality smoke? What if I started a thread about the merits of legalizing drugs/prostitution/p2p file swapping? Censorship is a slippery slope, and a right, once abdicated, is rarely regained without a fight.
Even speech concerning instructions on how to go about engaging in illegal activity deserves special consideration. The US Congress recently (2000) tried to pass a bill banning the discussion or dissemination of information pertaining to the manufacture or acquistion of controlled substances. Thanks to pressure from the ACLU and a bit of wisdom on the part of the House Judiciary Commitee, this anti first amendment language was removed from the bill. The fact remains however, that until and unless this kind of speech is prohibited, it remains protected (and when it is prohibited, it's the Bill of Rights that takes it on the chin).
Of course, any constitutional argument is, at its heart, spurious. This is a private forum, with private rules. If the moderators wish to censor my posts or ban me outright, they need no further reason than their own desire to do so. However, I suspect that a large part of the motivation of banning posts about p2p rests in a fear of liability, and with the ambiguous wording of the DMCA, this fear may not be unfounded. But do we really want to relinquish our right to open discussion of whatever topics we see fit because of a heavy handed and likely unconstitutional law whose clear purpose is to extend and expand the hegemony of plutocratic copyright holders?
Anyway, I don't want to go out (any further) on a tangent here, but it's vitally important that we realize the difference between proscribed activity and speech about said activity. If someone is posting wArEz in the forum, by all means, regulate. If someone is smoking weed out behind the fora (not sure how that would work, exactly, but...) sure, call the cops. But speech? Discussion? Surely that's what these fora are here for: the open debate and discussion of whatever issues the community sees fit to bring up.
Just some thoughts...
-alex.
However I think there is value in questioning the rules, examining their boundries, and perhaps even challenging them.
