#Profanity and BBSs
101 messages in this thread
I would like to poll the feeling of this BBS community regarding an issue I
became aware of a few days ago.
In one of my postings I used the word 'g****m' in the context of (as I
recall) "…I can't get the g****n module to work…". Now, where I come
from, this is an ordinary expression by which the speaker/writer (usually
speaker, of course) indicates frustration.
One of the sysops (Betty Clay) sent me a polite email asking me to refrain
from using profanity in my messages. She said she didn't delete my message
— although she has the power to do so — because she didn't think my
intention was to be profane. I want to emphasize that Betty's message to
me was quite polite and not threatening (BTW, I apologize if I offended
anyone).
On the other hand, I have very strong feelings about people not censoring
each others communications. So strong, in fact, that I did get a little
ticked off at her writing to me.
So what do the rest of your folks think about this? What's 'our'
'community standard', if you will?
Oh yes, before anyone gets the wrong impression: I am not looking for
approval or disapproval of my choice of words (Frankly, I find the whole
thing kind of humorous — in my experience, considering 'g****m' profane
was something that went out with the big band era. Or maybe the invention
of the airplane). I'm just interested in how the participants of the
electronic morass think about such topics. Nor do I care that my agreement
with Compuserve contains clauses subjecting me to moderator oversight. The
ability to coerce behaviour is not the issue — it's the role of network,
moderator and participant that I'm interested in.
Once again, my apologies if I offended anyone. That goes for you, too,
Betty! 🙂 -Mark
Mark,
Many people are offended by "taking the lord's name in vain" and
while I'm not one of them….I think we should be considerate to their
feelings.
As you noted, Betty did nothing about your message except send you
a polite request to refrain in the future. I wouldn't call that
censorship, merely a request from one person to another.
We do have a rule against profanity here, while I personally do not
consider the phrase you used profain…many others might.
Don
You're right, Don, censorship did not take place…but the promise (?; I
don't like to say threat without being certain I'm being threatened, which
is hard to sense in a text medium!) was there in the message sent to me by
email.
The interesting part of the question is: how is the determination of
profanity made? Your comment that we should be considerate of others
feelings is quite correct — but does that mean you will, as sysop, take a
similar stance on anything that I tell you I find offensive? If so, you
open yourself up to an interesting situation…not to say a difficult to
manage one!
Take the present example — 'taking the lord's name in vaid' (and, BTW,
some people would be offended by your lack of respect in not spelling that
as "Lord's", with a capial "L"!). I am not only not religious, but I
resent being forced to pay homage to something (i.e., god) that I do NOT
believe in. Thus I would find any rebukes to me over my use of the 'g'
word offensive, and would, under what I think your definition is, be
'within my rights' to demand the sysop suppress such messages and reinstate
any suppressed message of mine.
The point I'm trying to make is this: suppressing communication based on
'offensiveness' alone is not a workable procedure. BTW, that's one of the
reason so many trees have died to furnish the paper on which so much legal
wrangling over obscenity has been written.
– Mark
p.s. — The 'offensiveness guideline' strikes me as a self-referential kind
of thing (did you ever read Hofstader's "Godel Escher Bach"? A great book
on, among other things, self-reference). Self-reference always makes my
head ache!
Mark,
"Profanity" is a nebulous word at best…as is the definition of
what words or phrases constitute "profanity"…thus, it's left to our best
judgement of what is or isn't profain. There's certainly a lot of grey
area.
I think that we would all agree, there is a set of words and
phrases that the vast majority of us would consider unsuitable for a public
forum. Then there are those words or phrases that clearly are standard and
normal speech for everyday use.
The words or phrases that don't fit either of the above thus fall
into that grey area. I tend to leave anything in the grey area alone, I
don't believe in censorship…and I've yet to see a word or phrase that
personally offended me. I've heard quite a few though that make me wonder
about the intelligence of person saying it.
So we're left with best judgement, and as usual, that varies a bit
from person to person.
Don
Don,
My wife gave me an interesting idea (that I doubt a network firm would want
to implement, but what the heck?) about this issue today. How about a
filter program, user-configurable, that screens all messages and either
blocks words the user considers offensive or blocks the entire message?
This gets CS out of the business of trying to apply judgement to an area
where I don't believe that is — strictly speaking — possible.
The logic behind the idea is that objectionable material is not
objectionable if you don't see it. I presume this is an acceptable
practical standard, since the last time I checked the AmigaArts forum
contained many megabytes of pictures that a substantial minority of people
would consider offensive, if not obscene 🙂
– Mark
Mark,
If there were a way to warn you that the contents of any particular
message might contain material that would offend you…we'd have such a
mechanism in place. We have such a mechanism in the libraries, the
description of the file. Someone who is offended by nudes (male or female)
won't download the file. Since you have to download the file to view
it…then the choice is left to the individual, not to us here.
The "easy" way to filter things…is to not allow them in the first
place. If it's not there…you can't see it. The next easiest way would
be for your own terminal program to have a filtering capacity. The problem
would be that the user would have to configure it by typing in the words
the user finds objectionable. Having CIS implement such a thing on a
system wide basis is dreaming…the expense involved vs the benefit gained
would be way out of line.
Don
Don, I suspected the economic aspect might be controlling <grin>.
Actually, simply having to seek out material is not necessarily a guard
against people taking offense. Consider adult theatres and pornographic
magazines in stores. You have to seek them out (well, granted the movie
marquis titles are visible to the casual passer-by, but they are rarely in
and of themselves deemed offensive), yet the argument about pornography and
censorship rages on. Another example: the Robert Maplethorpe exhibit in
Cincinnati — you had to travel to the museum (?) to see it, but it was
still deemed obscene simply for 'existing'.
– Mark
While it is not a guard against people being offended by the content of the
libraries, the fact is that those people must make a conscious effort to
obtain the data housed therein, and then to unarchive it, and then to view
it. All of these require conscious effort.
On the other hand, many scripting programs for terminal packages, as
well as automated terminals (like Whap!), simply "vacuum" the forums for
messages. They collect everything and anything that happens to be in the
messages. Many of these people, who would not dream of even entering the
"Nudes" data libraries of any of these forums, may well be offended by the
language included in the messages.
A long, long time ago, I was informed that the reliance on profanity is
a certain indication of a lack of command of the English language. As
Betty pointed out early in this thread, English is a very rich language,
and there is no necessity for relying upon profanity to express any idea.
You have been screaming "censorship" all through this thread. However,
you are using CompuServe facilities, both hardware and software. CompuServe
permits this under certain conditions which are stated in the agreement
allowing you access to the system. You agreed to the conditions, at least
tacitly, as indicated by your very presence on the system. Since one of
the conditions of membership deals with language, you voluntarily waived
your right of free speech, or at least a part of that right, in order to
use the CompuServe system. CompuServe, thus, has the right to enforce your
voluntary agreement with it should it so desire.
In this particular instance, CompuServe itself is not involved at all at
this time. You were sent a message by a sysop of this forum requesting
that you refrain from using language which she found offensive. Betty does
not represent CompuServe, though she does represent CompuServe's contractor
for the Amiga forums, Steve Ahlstrom. Whether she was acting in the
capacity of a sysop in her message, or merely a CompuServe user, is really
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
irrelevent. Common courtesy dictates that your should make an effort to be
more careful in your language useage.
You seem to feel threatened by the fact that Betty could delete your
message if she deisred. That is one of the necessary powers given to
sysops throughout the network. In fact, she could probably have you locked
out of the forum, or recommend revocation of your account, if she felt
strongly enough about the matter. Like most CompuServe sysops, Betty
showed a great deal of restraint, restricting her actions to a friendly
note asking your future compliance.
I think this whole thing has been blown entirely out of proportion. You
were NOT censored, although the potential for censorship is available and
you agreed to it voluntarily by being here. Your, or Betty's, or my
beliefs, religion, etc., have absolutely no bearing on the matter. Some
people find certain words offensive, and it is part of Betty's job to
insure, so far as possible, that forum users are not given unnecessary
offense. In her judgement, your use of language may have offended some
users, thus she sent you a friendly note requesting that you not repeat
that language. I cannot find fault with her actions, although her mention
of the ability to delete the message may have been an error in judgement.
I think it is time to move off this subject and on to other things.
Bill, K3OZM
Bill, Since your own grasp of English apparently does not extend to
understanding what I was trying to get at, I suggest you refrain from
blasting others.
I never once said I was censored. In fact, if you will bother to read my
messages, you will see that I went to some lengths to point out that
censorship/message deletion/call it what you will did not happen. I felt,
however, that the issue — as it occured — was one that warranted some
discussion. You apparently do not feel this as strongly as I do. Or maybe
you aren't as curious as I am as to what other people on the conference
feel about the topic. In that case, don't bother reading the thread!
Your comment regarding the files needing to be sought out misses two points
— first, I brought that up in response to someone saying that
'offensiveness' was a standard to use in deciding what was in a message
base (excuse me, what should be allowed in a message base). I pointed out
that some people find the presence of offensive material in an area (like a
bookstore) offensive whether or not they actually are going shopping for
'dirty magazines'. I was pointing out a flaw in the proposed standard.
The second point you missed is that getting a message out of an electronic
network requires one to go through a lot of activity — it's hardly a
situation where data simply jumps out and hits you in the face!
Regarding the relationship of sysops, Betty and CIS — I said in an earlier
message that this was all news to me. I thought the sysops worked work
CIS, under contract.
You also seem to think I am trying to get Betty in trouble. Nothing is
further from the discussion at hand. I was hoping to spark a an
interesting discussion.
Once again, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't -it's
your choice.
– Mark p.s. – As an aside, I find your cavalier attitude towards censoring
("you agreed to it by being here") utterly amazing. Maybe you enjoy having
Big Brother watching over you, but I don't! p.p.s – I did not, and never
did, scream 'censorship'. I resent your implication that I did — and find
it rather offensive, speaking of
offensiveness <grin>
Very well. I shall not participate in this "discussion."
Perhaps my "cavalier" attitude comes from having been taught to honor
contracts I freely enter into. My agreement with CompuServe places certain
limits on what I am permitted to express in return for the privilege of
using the system. I agreed to that up front, freely. I choose to honor my
contracts. If you do not, that is up to you.
Bill, K3OZM
FOR THE RECORD: —————-
"Bill, Since your own grasp of English apparently does not extend to
understanding what I was trying to get at, I suggest you refrain from
blasting others.
"I never once said I was censored..
……" p.p.s – I did not, and never did, scream 'censorship'. I resent
your implication that I did — and find it rather offensive, speaking of
offensiveness <grin>
<<Extract from message base. First message this thread>>
#: 390 S16/Ramblings 13-Sep-90 23:17:55 Sb: #Profanity and BBSs
Fm: Mark Olbert 73557,1512 To: all
On the other hand, I have very strong feelings about people not
censoring each others communications. So strong, in fact, that I did
get a little ticked off at her writing to me.
"In that case, don't bother reading the thread!
…"Once again, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't
-it's your choice.
<<Extract from same message as above>>
So what do the rest of your folks think about this? What's 'our'
'community standard', if you will?
"Your comment regarding the files needing to be sought out misses two
points — "The second point you missed is that getting a message out of an
electronic network requires one to go through a lot of activity — it's
hardly a situation where data simply jumps out and hits you in the face!
<<Extract from message base>>
#: 540 S16/Ramblings 16-Sep-90 16:41:26 Sb: #518-Profanity and
BBSs Fm: Bill Eastburn 70007,1657 To: Mark Olbert 73557,1512 (X)
On the other hand, many scripting programs for terminal packages,
as well as automated terminals (like Whap!), simply "vacuum" the
forums for messages. They collect everything and anything that
happens to be in the messages. Many of these people, who would not
dream of even entering the "Nudes" data libraries of any of these
forums, may well be offended by the language included in the
messages.
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
———————-
My inadequate grasp of the English language would appear to indicate that
it was YOU who introduced the issue of censorship.
My inadequacies in the language also led me the the obviously erroneous
conclusion that all forum members were invited to comment on the issue, not
merely those who might agree with you.
Incidentally, I can swear fluently in a half dozen languages, and several
dialects of some of them, if I should choose to do so. I do not feel that
it is either necessary or appropriate to do so on the message base of this
forum. Neither do I feel the heavy hand of a "big brother", ready with a
bar of soap to wash out my mouth.
Bill, K3OZM
"blasting others'?? Surely you jest. I think perhaps you are letting some
paranoia show. I read Bill's message, then re-read it after reading your
comment. I find _no_ instance of 'blasting'.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Such an invention would make most forms of advertising useless. 😉
Would the filter remove words or ideas? If it just removes words,
you'de be in the same ridiculous situation as television, where people
can't say "<bleep>", but they can talk _about_ <bleep>ing and engage in
<bleep>ing all they want.
How could the filter recognize an offensive idea? It would need AI.
But the AI might be offended by the input as well, so _it_ would need a
filter. Did you say something about GEB? Oh please oh please, master Doug,
give us more!
As much as I try to respect others' feelings, I cannot empathize with
people that try to restrict the usage of certain sequences of bytes. I
might want to abolish the word "microsoft", but only as a proper noun —
the adjective meaning would remain. "You wrote your program such that it
won't run on a 68030!?! That was a pretty microsoft thing to do!"
John, You're right: economics aside (see Don's reply to me), I >>was<<
inadvertantly engaging in yet >>another<< self-referential idea!
GEB was a WONDERFUL book, although parts of it were over my head like a
circus tent. I always think of that dialogue between Achilles and the
turtle (?) over the flag with the circular cut out in it, completely
unconnected to the body of the flag, waving as a whole in the breeze.
– Mark
_Love_ it (the use of microsoft as an adjective).
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Mark,
While that phrase, and many others, are in my everyday vocabulary, this
is a family oriented forum. While you and I may not be offended by certain
"blue" phrases (no, I don't consider them profane; profanity requires a
belief system on my part that I do not have) others may. This forum is
frequented by people of all sexes, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds.
Usage and social acceptance of such phrases are usually dependent upon
the environment and audience present when spoken. You probably would not
use such a phrase in church (if you attend) nor during parent/teacher day
at a local elementary school. I don't believe a public forum is such a
place for their use.
In the vast majority of cases, the use of expletives is overused and
unnecessary. With a little thought in the choice of words you can be so
much more descriptive and get your point across without resorting to the
tried and trite.
You asked for an opinion and you got it! <grin>
Steve,
I appreciate your opinion, although, as you probably guessed, I don't agree
with it.
Without repeating my whole message to Don the Sysop (sorry Don, I forgot
your last name and my text buffer isn't large enough!), I don't believe an
'editing' (let's not call it censoring so as not to push any more emotional
buttons) standard based on offensiveness is not workable. I, for example,
DO find it offensive to be forced to pay homage to other people's belief in
god by limiting my use of certain words. This is because I find the whole
concept of religion silly. So now we're faced with a situation where I can
offend someone by communicating one way but I will be offended if I am not
allowed to communicate that way.
In programmer's parlance, "there's a bug in the code!" At least from where
I sit!
– Mark
Mark;
The definition of profanity is quite precise. The application of the
definition to a particular phrase is subject to opinions and difficult to
accomplish at best.
I do have a bit of trouble relating to your use of goddamn if you do not
believe in God. The original expression came from the "prayer" of a theist
to rid the world of some particular problem. While many people theist and
atheist alike will use such expressions without thought as to their real
meaning, an atheist would not be able to provide any justification for such
use except for the perceived effect on theists.
Bill, I see your argument but I don't agree. There are lots of words whose
connotative meanings and denotative meanings have changed over time,
sometimes quite radically. I seem to recall that 'goodbye' comes from 'God
be with you', but I'd be willing to bet that 99 people out of a hundred
mean absolutely nothing religious when they say goodbye to someone. Thus
while I agree that the 'g' word originally meant that one was invoking God
to curse someone or something (I guess), I don't think it means that
anymore — although the case is somewhat weaker than my example of
'goodbye'.
But give us another few centuries!
– Mark
Goodbye has evolved in English to be accepted as a part of polite speech
with not religious connotation, much as Adios has in Spanish. Your word
has not so evolved.
Bill, K3OZM
According to who, Bill? You? To me and many of the people I know it has
— at least as I used it. – Mark
Obviously you have never participated in polite society.
Bill, K3OZM
Bill:
I live in So. FL, and grew up in the "greater" NY area. I don't know what a
polite society is (is there really such a thing??), so could you please
explain it to me, and also does it really work?
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
You might try visiting a church function (any church, it doesn't matter),
or a country club ball, or even listening to Congress on C-Span for a
little while. Perhaps a visit to an assembly at a local school, or a
classroom might do the trick. People in those places, and others, have not
found the need to have every third word consist of 4 letters.
Bill, K3OZM
I submit that you "and many of the people I know" are simply uneducated in
this respect.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
May I suggest, by way of analogy, a "guide to acceptability"? If it can be
said on network TV, then it is safe to say on CIS.
Michael (I prefer no limitations) Sternberg
Michael:
I'm not sure if that'd work, as lately I've heard some really bad stuff on
network TV! Have you ever watched the show "Married with Childern"? some of
the stuff they say there is amazing!
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
Although I am a great fan of FOX, I should have said mainstream networks
ABC, CBS and NBC. Even so, nothing on FOX has bothered me regardign
language. OToH, MWC offends me on a social level…talk about a
dysfunctional family.
Michael
Married With Children annoys me on an intellectual level…but I must own
up to admiring what's her name in her skin tight outfits from time to time
(I don't recall the character's or actress's name — I'm not what you call
a loyal fan!)
– Mark
Michael:
That program is so dysfunctional that it makes the show one of my
favorites! I only see it once in a while, as I don't watch TV on a regular
basis (actually I hardly ever watch it) but of the shows I've seen, it's
one of the best, with all the other shows that I like also being on FOX!
Believe it or not, I've known some families that were so fu%&ed up (aka
dysfunctional) that the Bundy's almost appear to be the all American
family!
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
BTW, I *really* like the Simpsons. Yes, they too, are dysfunctional. As
for Fubar families <—note: insidious acronymic avoidance of possible
offense, I am glad the one's I know are not ever REady for Prime Time
players.
Michael
Hmmm, an interesting idea. But there are a lot of people who find what is
on network TV to be offensive.
– Mark
Mark,
For example, The savings and loan situation is obscene (in my mind).
Mileage may vary.
Michael
Michael,
What?!? You don't look forward to paying off, over the next 30 years, for
someone else to get rich?!? I bet you're just crying sour grapes that you
didn't get in on the action <grin>.
I agree with you — both about mileage varying and he S&L situation being
obscene. Do you suppose we could somehow tax those who made the bux to pay
for it all?
– Mark
I have no problems with 'g****m', but can understand the policy of CS. On
our local boards when someone becomes too much of an a*****e, they are
usually set upon by the crowd, and then they either clean it up, or drop
off the board. I'd wish that policy could apply here, but it is a comm'l
board with (parroting others) lots of different people. Maybe CS should
open a 'Profanity Forum' for everyone to get things off their chest in a
proper way! (first write your flame there, then calm down and write it in
the correct forum) –jp–
Just as a clarification — CompuServe had nothing to do with it. I didn't
see the email that Betty sent to Mark but I would assume that it was as one
user to another.
Steve,
Just a clarification of your clarification, (Gee, I hate getting involved
here since I have no opinion on the subject but…), I think "Compuserves"
involvement started when Betty sent the Email. Im not sure if you all have
2 ids your personal and your sysops but the fact that deletion was even
brought up indicates that another "user" could not have been involved! Add
to it the fact that the person is a well known sysop, and I think anyone
would rightly assume it was an "official" message, even if sent in an
informal, unofficial capacity. I realize that basically we are dealing with
semantics, but in come cases semantics can be the difference between night
and day. John
John,
I can see how you arrived at that connotation. And deriving that
connotation is probably the obvious thing to do. But, let me _try_ to
explain how things work on CompuServe (hmmm, I think I'm opening a can of
worms but it seems like some sort of explanation is in order).
The vast majority of forums on CompuServe are contracted to companies or
individuals. They are not directly administered by CompuServe. While
these contract holders must enforce CompuServe's rules of membership (GO
RULES if you want a clarification there) they may also impose others for
their own particular forums. The only "rule" that I can think of offhand
that the AmigaForums have, that is over and above CompuServe's own, is the
usage of a full name. That rule (policy?) is so that we all know who we're
conversing with in the message bases. There could be a variety of BobSs,
AmigaFreaks, Bonzos, etc. This could lead to confusion as to who is saying
what to whom. Because the only reason for this rule is to try to eliminate
ambiguity in the message bases, it normally only enforced when a person
using a handle or something other than a first name/last name in the
message base. Then the person is asked (hopefully politely) to use the
OP(tions) feature of the forum software to change their name to a full
name. We have no way of knowing if "Bob Smith" uses the name of "John
Jones", nor do we care. At least it is known we are speaking with "John
Jones" instead of one of a possible numerous "BobS"s.
In addition to the contract holder for individual forums, most have
assistants to help with maintenance, answering questions, etc. These
assistants "work for" the contract holder. Should an assistant request
something that is not clearly defined by CompuServe or forum rules it
should be taken as a personal request rather than an "official" one. That
is how I see the basis of this discussion. I was not offended by the
phrase "goddamn", nor do I see it as profane as the G was not capitalized
and to be profane it requires the reader to have a belief
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
system in which to make it profane (to them).
As the contract holder for the AmigaForums, where would I draw the line?
As others have noted, it's a very tough call. I basically go with George
Carlin's "7 Words You Can't Say on Television". While rough or profane
language may be offensive to many, this type of language is in general use
in everyday US society. While someone may be offended by it, it is heard
on a constant basis and the person should have built up a tolerance for it.
The "7 Words", on the otherhand, are used strictly to evoke a response,
usually shock, intimidation, or cause (mental) discomfort. These words are
usually not used in polite conversation. These words are generally found
offensive by the majority of people. In forums like the AmigaForums, whose
charter is the discussion of a specific area of interest, the usage of
these words are not, in my opinion, needed or wanted (unless the forum in
question is HSX where those words _may_ be acceptable in the context in
which they are used).
Okay, enough of trying to explain the general situation while walking a
tightrope so as not to offend anyone. How do I play language censor? In
99.99% of the cases, I don't. If one user were to launch a (verbally)
offensive attack against someone else, I'd move the message out of the
public area, but the intended receipient (victim?) would still received the
message. Should someone leave a message directed at no one in particular
which contained nothing more than a rambling recitation of (what some would
consider) obscenities, I'd delete the message.
-sja
Steve,
Since I'm not sure if my earlier message got to you (what happens when I
REPLY to message sent by Person A to Person B? Who gets my message -A or
B?) let me reiterate that the email I got certainly appeared official to
me, as it contained reference to Betty's ability to enforce a code by
deleting messages. I wish I'd kept it. If I misinterpreted it then I've
sparked an unnecessary — if interesting — discussion.
If I'd thought it was a private message from one user to another I would
have replied to it as one user to another.
– Mark
While it's interesting to discuss personal preferences and standards for
business, there's an aspect about language that you may be forgetting. The
FCC holds sway over obscenity, profanity or vulgarity that's communicated
via the national telecom networks. Therefore, it's not just a local whim
but a mandate of the U.S. government. 'Sides, as you said, it's CIS policy.
=Tom=
Tom,
The FCC rules normally don't apply to private networks, add that to
the court decisions on what is/isn't obscenity and the FCC is pretty much
out of the picture.
Yes, there are exceptions…such as soliciting for, or pandering
child pornography.
Don
CIS and other networks of its kind are _not_ classified as "public
utilities". This may happen in the future, but is not the case now.
-sja
Steve,
yes…I know that's why I said the FCC rules don't apply to private
networks…since CIS is a private network.
However, the FCC does have some control over all interstate
electronic communications…witness their attempts a few years ago to
impose a fee for their use. That proposal was defeated because of public
opinion, not because the network is a private network.
Don
Don:
CIS might be a private network, BUT the phone system (used to access that
private network) isn't, and as technically everything entered onto the
private system had to pass through the phone system, a public network, I'd
say the FCC (AKA Friendly Candy Company??) if they really wanted to could
possibly try and control the access to the private network!
(Not that I agree with that attempt!)
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Steve,
Absolutely not! If it had been as one user to another do you think I would
have burned up this much disk space by sparking the discussion?? <grin>
I wish I had saved the message. But there was a clear statement in it that
Betty had the ability to delete my messages. I assumed from the tone, and
that statement, that she was communicating in some kind of 'official'
capacity.
– Mark
Mark,
All of my assistants have the ability to delete any message. However,
none of them have permission (in general) to do so. They do have
permission to move any message they deem inappropriate, for whatever
reason, into a non-public area. In which case I am informed and I make the
decision to delete it, move it back to a public section, or leave it in a
private section so the addressee may receive it, or forward it to email.
They have the ability to delete any message because there are exceptions to
the permission limitation above. Should someone leave a repetitive message
in all message sections the first sysop to see it will delete all
occurances of it except one. Or, as has happened in the past, someone may
leave multiple messages (the case I'm thinking the person left over 200
identical messages). Any sysop here is expected to delete them.
-sja
John,
An interesting idea, but it still runs afoul of offending my own
sensibilities! (For what I mean, see my responses to Don and Steve).
– Mark
Community standards and censorship really don't apply to private forums
such as this. It is up to the owners and their administrators to determine
what language is acceptable and what is not. That decision has apparently
been made.
Speaking personally, Craig
Craig,
I'm not sure about the private nature of the forums applying here, although
I admit I ain't a legal scholar. The reason I would doubt it is it would
seem to me such an approach would run afoul of the constitutional right of
free speech. Put another way, the phone company does NOT have the right to
terminate certain phone calls because of offensive content. Why should a
communications network be any different? And yes, the phone system is a
quasi-public entity (hence it being subject to regulation), but I think the
principle still applies. And besides, they're getting more and more
private all the time with MCI, US Sprint, etc.
Also, I'd be interested in your reaction to my replies to Don and Steve. If
'offensiveness' is the standard for CS, then they MUST allow me to
communicate in the way I did because suppression (which did not take place,
but could in the future) would be offensive to me and other people who feel
as I do about religion.
– Mark
You misunderstand, Mark. Freedom of speech is just that — about SPEECH.
In a medium like this, you're looking more at freedom of the press. And
freedom of the press doesn't give us a blanket license to use CompuServe's
press. <grin> All of us signed an agreement to get on here which included
a reference to language.
By the way — the phone company indeed DOES reserve the right to
terminate calls based on content! Ask the FCC about that one since they're
the agency that controls what can be communicated over the phone.
=Tom=
Tom,
Fascinating. I didn't know that about the phone company and the FCC. Then
how are all those 900 number 'adult' (I always thought they were kind of
childish myself…) services? I'm confused — or is it that the content of
those services is not (yet?) established as obscene and hence subject to
termination?
I'll have to think over your analogy of CIS to the press/a press. I
suspect you may be right, though.
– Mark
Hi Mark,
Personally, I agree that people are sometimes too sensitive about words.
However, commercial networks are not democracies, even if it may appear
that way because of most sysops bending over backwards to avoid using the
selection powers they have as contractors… powers used far rarer on CIS
than most places, I think. I know *I* should've been censored once or
twice <grin>.
In any case, your phone conversation analogy doesn't hold… a private talk
is quite different from speaking in public, as we're doing here.
A better analogy might be something like this: Someone joins a huge Amiga
club where there are thousands of paid members of all ages. He gets up
before a microphone and happens to throw in some minor swear word while
describing his current problems. Some people ignore it, others slightly
raise an eyebrow. An official (or anyone) might even later take him aside
and make a well-intentioned suggestion, to prevent the possibility of his
offending other members in the future (which could also be bad for
membership).
I don't think anyone would consider this a matter of "free speech
rights"… but only the usage of common sense, taste, and public manners.
Here, as in real life, what "goes" depends on the group and the audience.
Use of the club microphone in the future has no Constitutional guarantee,
and is not subject to your personal tastes, no matter how paid up your dues
are <grin>. Either official or membership tastes decide all. best – Kevin
Kevin,
Thanx for jarring my memory! You may have given me a rebuttal to both your
point and Tom's (see other reply).
There IS precedent for 'private' organizations having to follow pay
attention to? constitutional issues. Consider private clubs (like the
Johnathon Club here in LA) which for years excluded women, Jews, blacks
and/or other minorities as a matter of policy. Various court decisions
have required those private organizations to change their policies. I
don't recall exactly the basis of these decisions — but my wife tells me
she thinks it had something to do with those groups (pardon me,
organizations) letting their facilities be used by the public. I'm a
little hazy on this. I'll look into it.
Another example would be the hiring practices of private companies. I
think the logic there was based on their operating in public environments
or some such. Yet another example, probably less applicable, would be the
prohibitions on private universities from discriminating on the basis of
race and sex (i.e., not only in admissions but also in their funding of
male versus female athletics, prohibiting females from joining 'male'
sports teams, etc.). There the rulings were derived, I think, from the
schools getting federal funding — although maybe the rulings were broader.
I'll look into that, too.
Does CIS get any federal funding? In any event, there may be precedents
for applying constitutional tests to actions taken in a 'private'
environment like CIS's network.
– Mark
Mark,
I agree with others that swear words are a silly concept (altho it has been
put forth that we'd be in bad shape without them – what then could you
mutter when the hammer hits your thumb without them?? ;-).
But if you were inside a store, museum, office, or any other place, and the
owners or other visitors asked you to tone down your language, would you
expect _anybody_ at all to support your claim that you had a "right to
speak anyway I wished"? Nah, no way.
So, no, I can't see any connection between polite speech and
"Constitutional" rights in this case, sorry. It has nothing to do with
being refused entrance on racial/sexual/religious grounds. It only has to
do with manners in a public business environment. Altho if you insist on
bringing up laws which don't have any jurisdiction, then I suppose you
should also bring up the decisions covering "local standards", under which
you'd be out of luck ;-).
I do think people like talking about this subject; it comes up every few
months on one or the other forum on CIS. Heck, I was nearly banned myself
in my own favorite forum many years back on similar topics <grin>. And I
still have to watch my swearing at computer convention seminars I give. So
I understand the mistaken notions you're going through.
Sooner or later tho, you realize the fact that you're more like a paid
convention guest, and the officials have the right (and even obligation to
the other paid guests) to make up and enforce the local standard of
behavior. It's simply a matter of everyone getting along. That's all. Get
it? In other words, you use politer words when meeting new people. best –
kev
Mark,
Although this message is addressed to you (easy to hit the reply button
in Whap!), it is really meant for everyone. Perhaps the 'problem' would go
away if the English language had a general 'emphatic'. I propose that in
the future we use !! (two (2) exclamation points (using one already has
meaning before some letters as the 'click' sound used in some African
languages) immediately preceeding a word we wish to emphasize (either
positively or negatively). Examples of use:
I couldn't get the !!program to run. (I think this would have caused NO
offense to anyone, and this thread wouldn't even exist).
!!DPaint III 'hung up' on me again during a fill operation on my 3000.
The above usages are clearly negative, but positive should be allowed as
well:
I had a !!great day.
I think !!ARexx will solve your problem.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Victor,
I like the idea. It's kind of like saying "that #!%#!#@*# piece of junk
didn't work!".
On the other hand, I kind of also like this thread. I haven't had this
much fun on CIS in quite a while. I like seeing what bright and
well-educated (after all, we >>ARE<< all amigoids here <grin>!) (woops,
that should've been: "we !!are all amigoids here <grin>") have to say
about a very thorny topic that I see a lot in headlines.
Although I have to admit it ain't very technical from an Amiga sense…
– Mark
Vic,
Geeze…what a !!wonderful idea!
Don
Vic,
So now the question is what did I mean….was it a good idea, or a
bad idea?
In a brief passage, a single indicator of emphasis wouldn't necessairly
conotate good to the exclusion of bad…or vice versa.
You need a good indicator and a bad indicator to indicate clearly
what the writer intended.
Don
Maybe there's a way to adapt some of the gremlins, or whatever you call
them (e.g., :)) to the task…
– Mark
I rather like the octothorpe for a bad connotation – ##whatever was bad.
Betty
Don, I concur. Since it seems generally accepted that the use of
"profanity" is generally not neccessary, I suggest that it is used _solely_
to give emphasis to the statement. If it is not clear from context whether
the emphasis is positive or negative, then I guess the 'speaker' can't
!!communicate (a point which has been in question since this thread began)
<smmiiille>.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Vic –
Is this an !!original idea of your own? I think I'll use it. It's a
really !!fine idea and !!does work!
– Nelson …
I just got back from California and really don't want to read the 92
messages in this thread. Anyway, you aren't just using this network for
communications. You are leaving messages that are stored on equipment
owned and operated by CIS. They certainly have the right to decide what is
stored on their equipment.
Craig, personally again.
When I want to listen to harsh language, I put on a Richard Pryor album.
Patrick Henry and Sam Adams were able to incite the country to war without
cursing.
There are plenty of free private BBS where someone who wishes to describe a
module in terms of the state of its mortal soul or procreative activities
can enjoy the approval and encouragement of a self-selected audience.
This is a broadcast medium.
Thomas, you have touched on a point that is important to me – that this is
a broadcast medium. This forum is read by people from all over the world.
What might be very common in a small group with which some member
associates would be most unacceptable to people from many parts of the
world, and from other parts of this country. Standard English is a very
rich language, and anyone can use it to express himself without being
offensive to anyone. I have no desire whatever to censor or curtail
anyone's expression of opinions or ideas – but I do want all of those
expressions to be in language that will not offend anyone, from anywhere.
Betty
I agree, Betty. (not that I'm easily offended 🙂
Khalid.
> What might be very common in a small group with which some member
> associates would be most unacceptable to people from many parts of the
> world, and from other parts of this country.
I heartily agree. Kids go through these Forum areas, too. Besides,
everyone signs an agreement to get on CIS, and the agreement does cover
language and subject matter. It's easy enough to forget how wide an
audience these message areas have, but with, over 500,000 members I'd say
that it's a good idea to try to keep the conversation light. 🙂
=Tom=
Betty;
This seems to be an interesting and pretty much rational discussion of an
issue that is often heated.
In the strict definition of profane, the referenced expression was
definately profane. Now as to it also being offensive…….. I don't
personally find it so, but also prefer to not see "course language" on the
forum.
It is interesting that Amateur Radio also has such limitations imposed, is
even more world-wide than CIS and of course, has more "trouble" is this
area. Most hams that I know are quite annoyed to hear/see course language
used in Amateur Radio. The world-wide frequencies are listened to by many
people from other countries and their opinion of America and its people are
definately influenced by the conduct heard. The local frequencies are
likely heard by children, the pastor or visiting Aunt Matilda.
Of course the issue goes much further than just profane language. Abusive
language and irrational verbal assaults (regardless of form) also detract
from the general atmosphere of the forums.
If CIS forums were conducted such that profane language, abusive language
or personal assaults were the norm, I know that I would not be here. This
is too expensive and activity to waste on unpleasant experiences.
On one hand, I second Ben's comments concerning censorship. On the other,
I don't believe that any restrictions on censorship apply to this privately
owned system. Most of all though, I agree with Steve in that actually
expressing vugar or profane language does not add anything to the message.
Like most of the other comments to this thread, this discussion is really
about a great deal more of an issue than the one that Mark used for an
example. I certainly have put a few S*** or the like trying to express
extream frustration.
73, bill
Including a few s**** (I presume you meant the plural :)) doesn't fool
anyone, though, bill. I know people who find even that much offensive
A standard targeted at offending absolutely no one is not workable.
Banning communications because they offend someone would almost certainly
ban a lot of very valuable literature as well as some critical historical
documents. For example, I recall a poll years ago which showed that most
Americans found the central part of the Declaration of Independence
disturbing and offensive (I forget where the poll was held). If you've
ever read it (and if you haven't, you owe it to yourself…it's very
revolutionary) you'll see why.
– Mark
Hey, Bill, you should listen in on 20 more often! <GRIN> Even my language
gets "colorful" every now and then…
Hey, sysop's – how about moving this <bloody> thread to AMIGAUSER/RAMBLINGS
where it belongs – this is AMIGATECH, and I would hope the rambling in this
section would center around more technical topics. This topic most
definitely falls under the AMIGAUSER.
73, Kelly
No mechanism exists to permit moving a message from one forum to another.
If there was, I'd move this to HSX so we could get juicy.
THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
HSX is probably even more restrictive in this matter than we are.
Bill, K3OZM
Kelly,
Sounds like a good idea to me. It's here mostly because the original issue
revolved around a posting I made in AMIGATECH.
Besides, if this isn't rambling I don't know what is! Who cares where it
is, anyway — you can just skip the thread. 🙂
– Mark
Kelly,
Gee, are you suggesting that this thread should be removed from
AmigaTech? Hmmm, smacks of censorship to me! <grin>
-sja
Betty,
Sorry, I don't believe that's a workable standard. As I said in some
earlier messages on this subject, I can argue that forcing me (which didd
not happen) to avoid the 'g' word offends me, as I do not share religious
beliefs.
– Mark
Mark, your argument is full of holes. Either you DO believe in God or you
do not. If you do, then surely you can recognize that others might be
offended by the use of the 'g' word/phrase. You would then refrain
voluntarily. If you do not believe, then the 'g' word/phrase has no meaning
to you. Since it has been pointed out that some (many?) find it offensive,
then a civilized person would refrain from using it (unless one's intent is
to offend). Continued use, at this point, brands you either a barbarian or
a boor.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Victor,
Not at all. Please see one of my earlier replies. There is a substantial
difference between the denotative and the connotative meanings of the 'g'
word. A non-believer, like me, could quite rationally use the word to
convey its connotative meaning. Many words are like that, BTW (e.g., my
example of 'goodbye' !!originally meaning "God be with you").
Maybe my problem is I'm not civilized. On the other hand, since
civilization currently encompasses such things as Married With Children,
the S&L debacle (to name only two), maybe that's not such a bad thing
<grin>
– Mark
Mark,
In environments outside of networks, if someone, in a social situation,
asked you politely to restrain yourself from using expletives, I presume
you'd object? If you smoke, if you were in an enclosed space and were
asked politely not to smoke, would you object? (If so, let me introduce
you to Ben Williams <GRIN>). Do you value your right to use expletive
language over and above the act of courtesy to others?
-sja
Thomas,
Please see my comments to Steve and Don. I can make a good case that
making me kowtow to the religious sensibilities of other people is deeply
offensive to me, and hence such actions should be 'banned' under the
'rules'.
– Mark
I would be interested in seeing you make the case that you find it
offensive to use "hateful" or "frustrating" or "shoddy" in place of a
profanity. Let me assume someone had been maltreated by adherents of a
particular faith, who hold the name "Frobozz" to be holy. I could
sympathize with his taking delight in avenging their misdeeds by describing
a third-party's poor-quality software module as "a piece of frobozz," but I
might hold it up as an example of bad manners, even if he presented
evidence that the liklihood of an adherent ever reading the message were
vanishingly small. "If you don't like it, too bad for you," is an
ill-mannered attitude.
THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
Tom (what is the "cout<<"Sir, I exist." thing? I didn't get it…)
Hmm, having been known to be ill-mannered from time to time I have to agree
with your argument. On the other hand, that argument also cuts both ways
(i.e., coercing someone into a mode of behaviour that they find
objectionable is also ill-mannered…it just isn't as visible because it's
based on something that didn't take place, rather than something that did).
However, I would most vehemently object to barring/banning a communication
based on its being ill-mannered. 'Ill-mannered' is too much in the eye of
the beholder.
This reminds me of Voltaire's famous comment: "I do not agree with what
you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's
kind of the bottom-line on what freedom of speech means, to me at least.
And if it doesn't apply to ill-mannered communications I don't know what
does.
– Mark
I think "ill-mannered" vs "well-mannered" is a good scheme for judging
whether a message should be placed somewhere many innocents will (pay to)
download it, or sent via E-mail. It is _not_ a good scheme for judging
whether something may even be _uttered._ Senator Helms on the Chrisian
Right and Stanford University on the Atheist Left have concerned themselves
with what utterances are always and everywhere impermissible. Helms would
forbid me to send you a photograph showing a novel use of a bull-whip;
Stanford would forbid me to attempt to intimidate or hurt you by means of
racial invective. CIS would probably permit me to abuse your race and
appall your sensibilities via EMail, unless you complained.
THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
I think your language was 100% appropriate. I think censorship is a waste
of effort, and those that take offense at expletives small minded, at best.
I'm very resistant to censorship of any kind, as is probably obvious.
But you need to conform – this is not a public forum, it's a commercial one
that has a vested interest in providing a "safe" environment for it's
customers.
It's inarguable that a forum with no profanity will chase no one off, and
one with profanity will lose some people.
We'll leave the question as to the quality of the people alone. :^)
BBS->Williams.Ben[AA7AS]
Ben,
Don't get me wrong, I can understand why CS would be super sensitive to any
hint of impropriety. >>I<< would if I were them. However, I think their
approach (which, as I understand it, is based on 'offensiveness') is
unworkable. For a discussion as to why I feel that way, please see my
messages to Don and Steve.
Your comment about 'conforming' is dead on target. We all conform to
situations which we may have reservations about, in order to get along. But
I can turn that argument around and say that, in the present instance,
other people should conform to my approach. After all, in the abstract,
who decides which method of communication is the 'correct' one? And if you
go with 'conforming to the majority', you've taken the first step on the
very slippery road to tyranny…as history has shown time and again.
That's why the Supreme Court and several generations of extremely
intelligent legal minds have not yet been able to nail down a workable
definition of obscenity and a set of rules for when 'censorship' is
'justified'.
My goodness, from one word in a BBS message to global political catastrophe
in three days! Self-referencing rules make my head ache..
– Mark
p.s. — I suspect the best 'workable' definition for enterprises like CS is
that of lack of oversight couple with a fervent hope nobody crosses that
ill-defined and very subjective invisible line…
I second what he said
Michael
There isn't a rule against _inappropriate_ language. I can post "Please
remember to readjust dolphin very stiletto before bellyache transom
gentry," which is completely inappropriate.
THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
Tom,
That one completely blew by me. Or was that the intent?
– Mark
The intent was not to "blow by you," but to provide an example of an
utterance which could never be appropriate (except in the degenerate case
of within a discussion of eternal improprieties such as this one). I
believe I may be holding a fairly "existential" position, that profane,
obscene, abusive postings are to be discouraged _not_ because they are
"offensive," which leads us into the cul-de-sac of "offense is in the soul
which reads the posting," but simply because they are profane, obscene, or
abusive. This allows me to take the urban position that profanity,
obscenity, and so forth are not matters of morality, but of commerce. If
someone enjoys profaning or violating nature, that's okay, and if it turns
out such a passion is widespread, then sure, let that person prosper. There
is nothing deceptive about explicit gynecological or urological material in
a newspaper named Screw, but the same material in (say) Amiga Today is
nothing but mischief. So sure, publish "Modern Profanity," and turn the
air black with abuse. I can help you find a distributor. Just don't call
it "The Simpsons: An Inside Look," because that is misrepresentation.
THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
Tom,
Boy, that's a circular argument if I ever saw one. You say that
things are profane, obscene or abusive simply be cause they "are" profane,
obscene or abusive…not because of the reaction of others.
By definition, for a thing to be profane, obscene or abusive
requires your "cul-de-sac" since the person reading it must react to it in
a manner indicating the thing was profane, obscene or abusive.
Obviously, in my job, I get called all kinds of names, and
certainly the person saying them…intends for them to be abusive; however,
I simply ignore them…it doesn't bother me…and thus, while the intent
was to be abusive…the fact is they were nothing but words.
For a thing to be offensive someone must take offense at it, thus
if no one takes offense…nothing could be considered offensive and by
extention…profane, obscene or abusive.
Don
p.s. BTW, with my attitude, it is really kind of fun being called names,
it usually shuts them up when you agree with them.
Don, consider that "profane" and "abusive" are terms subject to
syntactical definition. "Frobozz on a bicycle!" is (if we posit a faith
which holds the name "Frobozz" to be holy and completely unconnected with
velocipedes) a profanation in itself, even absent any member of the faith
to take offense. Similarly, invective and Billingsgate are simply another
type of speech, like metaphore and simile. It would be straightforward to
implement the rule "no similes allowed in technical messages," and thus
forbid postings such as "This module reeks like year-old Limbourger." No
need to determine whether anyone is offended. This is not a circular
argument.
Tom,
But that's where you're wrong. If "Frobozz" were a holy word to
someone….then it's only profane to that person. To me, it would mean
nothing.
Let's take a real life example: Fraternities and Masonic societies
have secret rituals. Amongst these rituals are signals or gestures that
have special meanings. They are to be known only by members of those
organizations. Let's also presume that one of those gestures is so special
that to use it anywhere but in the "temple" is an abomination.
Now, I am not a member of one of those societies, I know nothing of
their rituals or signs. By chance, I happen to make that one holiest of
holy gestures…simply a quirk. There are no members of the society around
to see the gesture. Am I being profane?
Now, one of the members is around, and I just happen to make that
gesture again. The member sees it and rushes to me, yelling and screaming
that I've committed an abomination. Was I profane then?
Profanity is in the implication and application. Both the "giver"
and the "receiver" must understand that it is profane for it to be so else
it's simply word/phrase/gesture/whatever that has no special meaning.
Don
Don, I disagree with you. "Profanity" has nothing to do with belief
systems or offended sensibilities, or as little to do with them as "Noun"
or "Gerund" does. Whether you find a given example of profane speech
offensive _is_ p personal, and in the same sense that one may be offended
by misuse of the word "hopefully" or a split infinitive. If you are
ignorant of a particular grammatical rul and (say) end a sentence with a
preposition, and a more learned person rushes to you yelling and screaming
that you've committed a solecism, then you are certainly innocent of
_intent_ to offend, but you have nonetheless violated the rule. Attempts
to make "profane" be some function of community standard or reasonable-man
test result in a big mess. Far better to have a list of profane terms
which can be examined mechanically.
Ah, but Don – should someone you care about use those words, you would feel
very, very differently about the very same words, I suspect.
Betty
Betty,
Exactly…should someone I care about call me the names that
prisoners call me…I would feel different.
But I wouldn't feel different because of the words themselves, it
would be the anger or hurt … expressed by the use of those words, that
would concern me.
I would feel just as bad if they had said I had hurt them or caused
them to get angry…without using profanity.
"You know, you really are an ##$@%^$#!"
"You know, you really are a jerk!"
Both would effect me the same if from someone I cared about.
The implication, not the cussing would bother me.
I also realize that not everyone feels as I do.
Don
Don:
When I get called names, I usually thank the name caller, boy does that
throw them for a loop!! Once, I was called a name commonly used as a
derogetory name for black people just because I was working for a black
owned & operated Taxi company (was I there token white?), and I stopped,
looked in the mirror, looked shocked, and thanked the person that called me
that, as I obviously had made a big mistake in assuming that I was white!
(when the name caller left, he was terribly shaken up, as I did all this
with a stone serious face).
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
Yes…it's amazing how it shuts people up when they're trying to
goad you…and you agree with them.
Don
Mark:
I guess it really has to do with respecting other peoples' sensibilities
when to do so is not especially problematic for you.
In this instance, for a strongly religious person the use of the Lord's
name in vain is a direct violation of the ten commandments. Now, I myself
do use the phrase your used in normal conversation, and indeed use much
stronger language. I do, however, try to be aware of who is around me.
For example, my grandmother and many other family members in rural
Mississippi would be very upset to hear me say that. So, I don't say that
sort of thing around them.
CI$ attracts a lot of folks with extremely varied points of view, attracted
together by the common ground of computing. Some are punk rockers. Some
are fundamentalist [insert — Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc.]. Some are
radical environmentalists. Some are staunch Republicans, others Democrats,
some devout Socialists, others true Anarchists etc. When we are discussing
computers, why let these other differences get in the way in a _gratuitous_
manner? By that I mean, for no particular reason, as opposed to a
discussion about the use of language, or an investigation of a particular
religious or political point of view. In the latter cases, within limits,
ruffling feathers is OK IMHO (the limits being ones of respect and decent,
civilized behavior in the course of supporting one's own opinion while
critiqueing that of someone else). However, in the former case, why muddy
the water for no reason? Finally, this is a public forum where children
may easily read the messages. I don't think it's within my rights to
ignore that fact. Your milage may differ :).
?|^] Ray Lewis