Thanks to Cornflower

For telling me what this thread

I started's about

Shintaro,

Your opening post contained but 12 words, if the non-functioning link you posted is counted as a word.

That left you 338 words remaining under the word limit with which you could have more fully explained what aspect of freedom of speech on OLO it was that was of concern to you. Instead you concluded your brief post with the peremptory single word sentence "Discuss".

Twenty-two other posters engaged with your topic, and in the absence of a working link that may have otherwise amplified your own concerns, effectively discussed, with the knowledge provided in the link in the second post to your topic that indeed the whole OLO site stands in danger of having to shut down because its revenue has been dried up because of the invocation of a private 'hate speech' advertising code by some gay-rights activists, your assertion that "... anti-gay rhetoric has been silenced [on OLO]".

What is your complaint?

Brevity may indeed be the soul of wit, but only if the brief exchanged is indeed witty. Absent such wittiness, and the haiku art-form you have chosen can become little more than a cloak for quick cheap smart-arsed remarks destructive of the Forum in general. Its up to you how you want to be seen as a Forum participant.

If you click the 'Legals' button at the bottom of any page you will see, under the heading 'Monitoring site content':

".... However, [OLO does] not assume any obligation to monitor or censor materials.

[OLO] reserve[s] the right to host moderated or unmoderated forums or other web pages to which site users can post materials ("Forums"). [OLO is] not responsible for:

* materials posted to Forums by third parties, whether or not [OLO] moderate those Forums;
* materials altered by [OLO] in moderating Forums; or
* [OLO's] removal of, or failure to remove, all or any part of those materials."

My point, dear Forrest

Is that 'freedom of speech' has

Not been truncated

Forrest Gumpp,

If there wasn't irony before there is now that, in conjunction with my response, removing posts presumably for the purpose of preventing disruption has fired the thread up.

I agree that the posts didn't contain any objectionable or controversial content but don't also jump to the conclusion that they would be as disruptive as you assume. In the space of 4 posts it appeared to be very finalised. I have seen some very derailed threads in my day some of which recover. I admitted within the first post that it was irrelevant but not the second for the little that is worth because they were both irrelevant. I also also admitted to Graham in an email that the post you pointed to was disingenous in that the first line was just there to get a foot in.

You could also use Lexi's subsequent post to get some indication of the content particularly as my first paragraph in the first deleted post was an expanded thank you to that.

There was no attempt to be disingenous. It was an ill considered emotional reaction. While in a certain state of mind I did smirk and consider it ironic immediately before typing it. I was very disappointed that the second deleted one was gone because it let someone get away with something. Adding to this was the fact that I have seen so many off topic comments not actioned. With hindsight it makes sense that Graham would be watching this one more closely and feel more strongly about it. You have already explained the significance of the thread which is obviously close to his heart. Indeed in my email to him included an apology.

I'm open to the biting the hand that feeds ego comment but hope some day you will walk in my moccassins since you put your condemnation so forcefully.

Shintaro,

Could you unpack things a little? You haven't been very expansive in your comments. You seem to be saying that the article should not be published because you don't believe it was not about gay marriage but rather the theme was a vilification of gays and that mistreatment should trump freedom of speech. I took your equation of the two as being sarcastic.

One possible take on vilification is the thing prohibited by this:

A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their (in this case sexual preference) by threatening or inciting others to threaten physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group.

I agree that it looks poorly drafted but I grabbed it as a starting point. Is that what you were saying and does that approach to vilification accord with your take on it.

Still waters run deep. Your hesitation to say too much may indicate strong feelings and you have every right to contribute. I can appreciate that you were bombarded with a defence of freedom of speech comments and may not thought you would be heard. I'm listening (reading).

mjpb, I have not seen

Any complaints about the dumb

Article. Comments,

On the other hand,

Seem to be subjected to

Selective freedom