Forum Censorship

Last night I sent Mulfish this short email:
I posted right after your post Michael and they blocked out the word BITCH!!! My God, man, it’s on the cover of Jen’s book!!! Bacon

And received this in reply: Mike,

If you’re arguing that the system banned word list has way too many words in it, I don’t think you’ll find very many people who would disagree with you. But in the grand scheme of things the USCF needs Mike Nolan to work on, I don’t think this will hit the top of the list any time soon!

Mike
This is an open letter to Mulfish and his Big Brothers…

Mulfish, I submit to you and your Brothers, Large though they may be, that there is nothing more important that Mr Nolan, or anyone else working for USCF, should be working on at this very moment.
There is something gravely wrong with any organization that limits free speech. Free expression is one of the cornerstones which make this country different from all others that have come before US. It is a right given to US by the very first Admendment to the Constitution. The Admendment reads: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Jennifer Shahade, who works for the USCF, has written an interesting book, which I enjoyed immensely. It is extremely unfortunate that I am unable to post the title of her book, CHESS BITCH, on the forum without a ‘puter program blocking out the latter word. The program, though, cannot be blamed, for it was written by a HUMAN. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say…
Freedom is not lost all at one time, but eroded over time. The foundation begins to weaken when people begin to abridge the freedoms we take for granted. It crumbles when WE THE PEOPLE stand by and do nothing. All of you Big Brothers should take the time to read Naomi Wolf’s excellent book: The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, before you write, say, or do anything else!
Im sure the Big Brothers who control the USCF Forum have their reasons for what Richard DeCredico says is the “draconian attitude of the people writing & enforcing silly forum rules.” But so did the Nazi Party; and so do the Communist Party…

Michael Bacon

baconlog.blogspot.com/

There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke

Gracious Heavens, what IS the world coming to, when a computer program blots out a perceived profanity?
Yes indeed, this most definitely indicates that there is outrageous censorship here on these forums!!

gag me…

That sounds like sarcasm, Mr Sawmiller…You pulled one of my posts because you found it sarcastic!
Profanity is in the ear of the beholder…
The title of Jennifer’s book, CHESS BITCH, is most definitely NOT profanity! What is profane is that your program blocks out the title of her fine book!
It is a shame that you, and your other Large Brothers, cannot understand something so simple.

There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke

While I agree that the forum probably over-censors words that it doesn’t need to, I do think you’re overreacting in quoting the First Amendment and worrying about the erosion of freedoms.

Freedom of speech protects people’s right to say anything they want in public. This forum isn’t “public”. It’s owned by USCF, and the owners have the right to enforce any standards they want in their establishment. This is similar to restaurants and stores having a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” policy. If you enter their establishment, you have to follow their rules. You certainly have the right to walk around without shoes and shirts (if you’re male) outdoors, just not in their place of business.

–Fromper

Wrong. Your posts were pulled for being off-topic and using sarcastic names, both clearly stated AUG violations.

Owning something does not give one the right to violate the US Constitution, Fromper; or has the Supreme Court made a ruling of which I am unaware?

There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke

I believe the Supreme Court has made numerous rulings which affirm the right of property owners to control or limit what happens on their private property. If you violate those restrictions, the property owner has the right to insist you desist and to have you removed if you fail to comply.

Since you already quoted the 1st Amendment above, it should hardly be necessary to remind you of what it says: “Congress shall make no law …” This has since been extended to the states via the 14th Amendment (though I’m pretty sure all state constitutions include such a provision independently). It says nothing about individuals, corporations or property owners. If you think otherwise, I’ll go to your home and cover the walls with placards for my preferred candidates, then go inside and make you listen to a political speech. By your theory, the Constitution wouldn’t allow you to make me leave.

Dropping the sarcasm: There is statute law (47 USC 230) giving an “interactive service provider” broad discretion and immunity for deleting any third-party post. This has been upheld by every Federal circuit (and SCOTUS always denied cert). If there were a Constitutional problem with it, I think we’d know by now.

First, the members of the USCF own it, for without those members, there would be no forum.
For many years I worked at the Oxford bookstore. The owner, an enlightened man, was against censorship in any form, as were all his employees. If you owned a bookstore, you would put tape over the part of the title of Jennifer’s book, CHESS BITCH, that you deemed offensive, if you even sold it at all!
There is a radio station here, WREK, the Georgia Tech student station, that used to run a promo whereby one bird would sing; then another bird would join the first one, and then another and another, until there were many birds singing. Then a voice would say, “Here at WREK we give all the birds a chance to sing.” Need I remind you that former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov is waging a battle at this very moment to let ALL the voices be heard against an imperialistic government that would like nothing better than to have only ONE voice?
What it boils down too is that you pooh-bahs prefer vanilla ice cream and expect everyone else to eat vanilla also. I much prefer CHERRY GARCIA!

baconlog.blogspot.com/

There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke

I said nothing about whether I was for or against the current moderation policy. What I wrote was that your legal argument is completely baseless. The fact that you don’t like something doesn’t mean that there’s a law against it.

Getting back to the matter which started this thread: The “blocked words” list is a hangover from an early stage of the Forums. Deleting it completely would allow childish wall-scrawling of obscenities, and unfortunately we have a few immature types who would probably do so. On the other hand, the manner in which it is currently implemented is silly – e.g., blocking the name of element 33 because of its first four letters. There are probably two reasons nothing has been done about it: 1) It’s a minor matter that affects very few people, and 2) No one really wants to take the heat that would come down – from left, right, or both – for changing it.

If you really want it changed, you should lobby the EB members. Perhaps when they get tired of internecine feuds, one of them will introduce a motion about it.

Thank you for today’s vocabulary builder (internecine). By the way, there is
an interesting note on how the meaning of this word has changed over time
in this dictionary entry:
education.yahoo.com/reference/di … nternecine

Jim

Heaven forbid the Elizabethan meaning:( fought to the death) were to be used, although I might think some contemplate that meaning at times.

You mean there are people who don’t use it in everyday conversation? I suppose I should get out more.

I’ve seen many forums that censor way too many words. I think alot of forums use a standard dictionary for word censorship. (prolly whoever sets up the forum just checks a box for the prefered level of censorship). Most if not all the forums with excessive censorship are ones that are expected to have a wide audience rangeing from the age from under 10 to over 80.

To manually go through and handpick various words to uncensor is probably not worth the effort when you know in advance your target audience can have young, old, and easily offended people reading it.

What you think is not offensive to 99pct of the readers might just be very offensive to some parent who’s kid might be reading a particular forum. So to err on the side of caution, the dictionary of offensible words is pretty large. I don’t know offhand which program USCF used to set up thier forum, but I’d imagine the dictionary they use probable is close to the same regardless of which company crafted the forum interface. In other words, different companies use the same dictionary, or close to the same dictionary.

Well this is issue is once again good for a laugh.

A private organization or property owner can censor anything they want for any reason or no reason at all. Anyone arguing a 1st amendment right to post on an Internet message board, take out an ad, or protest on private property simply does not understand what the 1st Amendment means.

Any message board operator could exclude anyone for any reason at all and have every right to do so.

One can argue as to the wisdom of such an approach, but one cannot argue as to the legality of such an action.

I recommend remedial civics 101.

I for one am in full agreement with the board and its removal of this word. You may not think it offensive, but I do. I would not appreciate the site of it nor would I appreciate my children seeing it if they were to visit. As has been noted before, first of all this is a private site that means they have the right to prevent any words they wish. Second, it is usually safer to err on the side of caution just in case you do come across and ultra protective Christian parent like me. Third, is it really that important in the scheme of things that we be allowed to use the term meant to denote a female dog that you would send letters and lobby the USCF. I would think that those in charge of the site have far better things to do then try and find a way for that term to be acceptable.

I am not offended by simple profanity. I’ve heard it all before. Still, not everyone is so desensitized to it as I am.
If it would not be too much trouble, I would suggest they add a feature that allows each user to pick how strong a filter they want (none, weak, strong, whatever).
I am aware the USCF probably has bigger fish to fry and I will be neither surprised nor disappointed if they decide that isn’t worth the effort.
The current system is imperfect but I’m perfectly happy leaving good enough alone.

Unless the phpBB3 folks implement such a variable filter, you won’t see one offered here, because we are not planning to make any custom mods to this version of phpBB. (We are planning to move up to the latest release of phpBB3 as part of the transition to a new web server system.)

Since an upgrade is in the works, it would be quite helpful to be able to click on “Prev. thread” or “Next thread” instead of having to return to the forum index each time to view a new topic. This round robin forum is one example.

It is not an upgrade that USCF is writing - this is a canned BB package that will get the canned upgrade.