08-30-2009, 11:42 AM
This raises some interesting points. When is it just us being good guys and when is it caving to bluster and bullshit? When is it constitutionally protected opinion and satire and when is it something actionable?
True, the crazier the post the less likely anyone is to take it seriously. But if nobody does a double-take when they read it, is it really making the political point and hence effective satire??
Public forums discussing political issues (such as we have here) are very consistently protected by the US courts on free speech grounds. You rarely have problems unless you are doing things that result in real harm, such as advocating violence and then some idiot does something stupid in response. For example, the well-publicized case of the unstable girl who committed suicide after her fake MySpace boyfriend dumped her. And even that was a personal dispute between nitwits over nonsense, not public commentary on political issues, political speech or political conduct like we have here.
So if we have reason to think people are being incited to commit acts of violence against Gollum or his family (which we do not), then we might want to dial things back a notch or two. Otherwise, unless George is being rendered incontinent and suicidal by all the witty comments here (and we have no reason to suspect that he is) then we should carry on at full speed.
What I do object to is somebody using a handle that is somebody's real name (as opposed to an obviously fake name like "George Loots-Gollin?"or "GG's Oberlin Dyke") to make a point. Not because I think it's not satirical, etc., but just because it's bad policy. It undermines the credibility of the site. People can then just dismiss all our stuff as fake, when in fact it's consistently well-researched, properly attributed, and often cross-checked as well. We don't make 'em up, and we shouldn't allow hit-and-run posters to do that either. I don't think banning that kind of poster is remotely "cavin"? to anyone, and if anything it increases the site's integrity (although it does reduce its fun quotient).
I just don't like being in a position of promoting things here that aren't literally true. Since the real poster apparently is not really George Gollin, banning the bogus handle is consistent with preserving the site's integrity.? Personally I liked how this shook out. Gollin does seem to demonstrate ethnic and religious biases, as well as an annoying and thoroughly unmerited haughtiness and pretentiousness that the post author captured in the posts. I probably would not have made the points in quite the way the post author did, but we all express ourselves differently. But in fact the real Gollin did not make the posts. It was good work, in my view, to leave the content (and point) of the post intact, but still make it clear that it was (presumably, as intended) satire and not an actual post.
True, the crazier the post the less likely anyone is to take it seriously. But if nobody does a double-take when they read it, is it really making the political point and hence effective satire??
Public forums discussing political issues (such as we have here) are very consistently protected by the US courts on free speech grounds. You rarely have problems unless you are doing things that result in real harm, such as advocating violence and then some idiot does something stupid in response. For example, the well-publicized case of the unstable girl who committed suicide after her fake MySpace boyfriend dumped her. And even that was a personal dispute between nitwits over nonsense, not public commentary on political issues, political speech or political conduct like we have here.
So if we have reason to think people are being incited to commit acts of violence against Gollum or his family (which we do not), then we might want to dial things back a notch or two. Otherwise, unless George is being rendered incontinent and suicidal by all the witty comments here (and we have no reason to suspect that he is) then we should carry on at full speed.
What I do object to is somebody using a handle that is somebody's real name (as opposed to an obviously fake name like "George Loots-Gollin?"or "GG's Oberlin Dyke") to make a point. Not because I think it's not satirical, etc., but just because it's bad policy. It undermines the credibility of the site. People can then just dismiss all our stuff as fake, when in fact it's consistently well-researched, properly attributed, and often cross-checked as well. We don't make 'em up, and we shouldn't allow hit-and-run posters to do that either. I don't think banning that kind of poster is remotely "cavin"? to anyone, and if anything it increases the site's integrity (although it does reduce its fun quotient).
I just don't like being in a position of promoting things here that aren't literally true. Since the real poster apparently is not really George Gollin, banning the bogus handle is consistent with preserving the site's integrity.? Personally I liked how this shook out. Gollin does seem to demonstrate ethnic and religious biases, as well as an annoying and thoroughly unmerited haughtiness and pretentiousness that the post author captured in the posts. I probably would not have made the points in quite the way the post author did, but we all express ourselves differently. But in fact the real Gollin did not make the posts. It was good work, in my view, to leave the content (and point) of the post intact, but still make it clear that it was (presumably, as intended) satire and not an actual post.
