Posted by Honore on February 5, 2007, at 22:11:46
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 20:04:00
>>> There also is a role for spontaneity and the safety valve of blowing off steam and seeing if you get blocked. ... you have the right to say something angry or unkind
>>Well, people have that right until they're blocked. Your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
Of course-- but I don't know how that relates to what I said. I meant that, assuming a context in which what's being discussed is how I (as theoretically like some other people) might feel about being in the position of controlling someone else's access to a board where the line isn't a bright line.
There are lots of posts on or around the line-- As you presented it, I (or anyone in that position) would be imposing my self-protective idea of where the line might be on someone else. My idea could (perhaps likely would) presumably be pretty much more self-protective, because I had no investment in the things being posted-- ie would get no personal payoff from them--
My point was not to object to your blocking people who were (possibly) unkind or uncivil-- it was to suggest that one person would have no spontaneity or expression value in a post-- but would be blocked-- on your account-- if they weren't quite self-protective against the potential interest of someone who did have spontaneity or self-expression interests in posting the thing.
That seemed to me like a very problematic conflict of interest for the mandatory civility buddy.
Honore
poster:Honore
thread:596575
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/730202.html