The case against a curse filter

[EyeKhan]

In the most simple terms; the curse filter supports unnecessary censorship. Censorship in itself is something worth fighting, unnecessary censorship is so even more.

It is irrelevant that people can turn it on or off, it encourages the idea that unnecessary censorship is an acceptable norm.

Pshaw. Idealistic flimflam.

If people want what they read censored of bad words, it's their choice. It's stupid to force everyone to partake of the most vulgar of words for some stupid ideal of censorship free communication. As if we don't censor ourselves more or less all the time anyway according to our own personal sensitivties. The filter just respects that we are all different in those sensitivities and that the more sensitive shouldn't have to live by the standard of the less. Besides, some of us have children that might look over our shoulders on occasion; children that we don't want going around saying fuck and cunt all the time.

[earthJoker]

I'm against any automatic filter. Loki is right about people having more self-control when they are not anonymous, but those filter don't see in what context you use the word.

But you're free to not use the filter and see those words...

Yes, but I am not free to get my own opinion and words be read in the way I wrote them.
If you want to have an optional filter I would think of a better way than just filtering single words. Just hide the whole post if there are any offensive words in it and replace it by a link that says "This post contains offensive words, click here if you still want to read it". When you click the link, the post appears.
Don't know if such a plug in already excists for phpBB.

[Hazir]

]
Pshaw. Idealistic flimflam.

If people want what they read censored of bad words, it's their choice. It's stupid to force everyone to partake of the most vulgar of words for some stupid ideal of censorship free communication. As if we don't censor ourselves more or less all the time anyway according to our own personal sensitivties. The filter just respects that we are all different in those sensitivities and that the more sensitive shouldn't have to live by the standard of the less. Besides, some of us have children that might look over our shoulders on occasion; children that we don't want going around saying **** and cunt all the time.

Idealistic flimflam? I am flabberghasted really.

The filter is like somebody telling you 'you can't say that' every time you utter a profanity in a conversation rather than asking you not to use them. The sensitive are dropping all semblance of civil behaviour by their heavy handed approach; they don't ask for respect, they demand it.

As for your 'oh the children' argument;

1. this forum will contain 'adult' themes, it will be your task as a parent to police that as you should monitor their other internet behaviour. If they take home things from this forum you don't want them to take home, you have failed, not the forum.
2. children are virtually hard-wired to start using profanities at a certain age, the only way you can keep them from running around shouting them is do your educational task, a filter in this or any other internet location is not going to fix that problem.

[earthJoker]

I think you're missing a not in your last sentence.

[Hazir]

I think you're missing a not in your last sentence.

You're right. That was a bit strange though, because I had seen and edited it already.

[RandBlade]

Given the poll is 50-50 between "No" and "optional opt-out" for the censor, with zero votes for "yes", I'd be very curious to see had the questions been "yes", "no", "opt-out" and "opt-in".

[Hazir]

Given the poll is 50-50 between "No" and "optional opt-out" for the censor, with zero votes for "yes", I'd be very curious to see had the questions been "yes", "no", "opt-out" and "opt-in".

I heartens me to see it just changed to 52-48.

I would have no problems with a change of the poll in that way; I can't do it though, if a MOD/ADMIN can I say; go ahead. People are allowed to change their vote anyway. I must also say that I only see a marginal difference between an opt-in and an opt-out.

This thread made me think about a political uproar we had in Holland a couple of years ago when a leading politician in Amsterdam used the word 'kutmarokkanen'. That's a combination of the dutch slang word for the female organ and moroccan. As you can imagine that caused quite a stir. For days after that you could hear the word on tv and radio and read it in newspapers and online. The debate about whether or not it was acceptable to use this word was never marred by the stupid things you see around the word 'nigger' in the US. Nobody referred to it as the 'n-word' and nobody would have thought of beeping it out. A lot of people railed against it though, not because of the word itself, but because the way of thinking they saw behind it.

[earthJoker]

Hazir, you're equating censorship with a person willingly plugging his ears...Free speech means the right to say whatever you want. It does not mean the right to have other people listen to you.

The thing is also cultural. While there is freedom of speech, there are also authors rights. The thing called Moral rights in German Urheberrecht.

They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation.

In Germany or Switzerland the Urheberecht is more important than in the US. You have a stronger right that your work is not being altered.

In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign their moral rights (unlike the copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which can be sold, licensed, lent, mortgaged or given like any other property).

Which mean, in Europe if you post on board like this, you will always hold the ,oral rights on that post.

[Hazir]

Interesting that Earthjoker; it means that either the message has to go through unchanged or I have the right to demand my name is not shown to anybody whose curse-filter distorts my message?

[EyeKhan]

Idealistic flimflam? I am flabberghasted really.

Wonderful word!

The filter is like somebody telling you 'you can't say that' every time you utter a profanity in a conversation

The filter is like saying "please, speak your mind as you see fit be comforted that I will not take offense at your vulgar taste in words as I have protected myself" or its like saying "I am a sensitive person, vulgarity causes me much difficulty, but I can participate here with calm and ease as I have the filter to soften any offense."

The sensitive are dropping all semblance of civil behaviour by their heavy handed approach; they don't ask for respect, they demand it.

No, the community is offering it to them by default, silly. It's the height of courtesy.

1. this forum will contain 'adult' themes, it will be your task as a parent to police that as you should monitor their other internet behaviour. If they take home things from this forum you don't want them to take home, you have failed, not the forum.
2. children are virtually hard-wired to start using profanities at a certain age, the only way you can keep them from running around shouting them is do your educational task, a filter in this or any other internet location is not going to fix that problem.

The filter will do the job of preventing the child from learning new words before its time. I see no problem with that.

Nothing will be lost from a discussion by replacing the most vulgar of words with ***. If your discussing depends upon others seeing your vulgarity to its fullest extent, then you will not be able to have that discussion with the sensitive few regardless if there are ***. They will not have lost anything and you will be saved from being the arse for offending someone inadvertantly.

Choice is the key. Freedom to choose to protect yourself by default is a no brainer.

[Timbuk2]

The fact that not one single person has (as yet) voted Yes to a curse filter tells us all we need to know really. :shrug:

Lotsa people are just being nice and fluffy by saying we should allow the option just in case some pink and sensitive bunny rabbit should escape its hutch and end up in our bright headlights, frozen in fear at the impending profanity.

[Nessus]

The fact that not one single person has (as yet) voted Yes to a curse filter tells us all we need to know really. :shrug:

Lotsa people are just being nice and fluffy by saying we should allow the option just in case some pink and sensitive bunny rabbit should escape its hutch and end up in our bright headlights, frozen in fear at the impending profanity.

I voted to keep the optional filter since I swear like a Turk and I don't want to get in trouble with the New World Order

[Loki]

Yes, but I am not free to get my own opinion and words be read in the way I wrote them.
If you want to have an optional filter I would think of a better way than just filtering single words. Just hide the whole post if there are any offensive words in it and replace it by a link that says "This post contains offensive words, click here if you still want to read it". When you click the link, the post appears.
Don't know if such a plug in already excists for phpBB.

Um, no one has the right to be listened to...Seriously, some people need to look up what freedom of speech means. You seem to think that it entails others being forced to see what you write.

[littlelolligagged]

The filter will do the job of preventing the child from learning new words before its time. I see no problem with that.

Chacha, Buddy Boy came home from kindergarten his first day having learned a great new vocabulary.

That argument has no merit at all.

I don't care if the filter is optional, but your making a "think of the children" argument is bullshit.

[Timbuk2]

EyeKhan = Chaboobies?

Just so I know ...

[littlelolligagged]

Yes. He decided he'd be all cool and change his username. I think he ought to be flogged for that.

[EyeKhan]

The filter will do the job of preventing the child from learning new words before its time. I see no problem with that.

Chacha, Buddy Boy came home from kindergarten his first day having learned a great new vocabulary.

That argument has no merit at all.

For you, clearly. But not necessarily for others. I'm not interested in it personally, indeed I have the filter turned off, but I can see how others might want it. Empathy my dear. It's not always about our own selves.

[EyeKhan]

Yes. He decided he'd be all cool and change his username. I think he ought to be flogged for that.

Just trying on some new clothes. No harm in that. Variety is the spice of life. Sour though it can be, 'tis better than bland old predictable monotony.

[earthJoker]

Interesting that Earthjoker; it means that either the message has to go through unchanged or I have the right to demand my name is not shown to anybody whose curse-filter distorts my message?

Actually you have the right (we talk about the law of many European countries here) that your post is not mutated, for quotation there are rules how to do them, for example if you left something out you have to put a (...) in there, or make it clear that this is not a quotation but actually your own words describing what the other one said.

Um, no one has the right to be listened to...Seriously, some people need to look up what freedom of speech means. You seem to think that it entails others being forced to see what you write.

Loki, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech but with "Urheberrecht"/Moral rights, you can hide entire post or delete them, one can not alter or mutate post, which most filter do.

There has been a very similar case with DVD players:

Legal battles from Hollywood
Hollywood studios are not covering their eyes — or holding their tongues.

"ClearPlay software edits movies to conform to ClearPlay's vision of a movie instead of letting audiences see, and judge for themselves, what writers wrote, what actors said and what directors envisioned," The Directors Guild of America said in a statement.

"Ultimately, it is a violation of law and just wrong to profit from selling software that changes the intent of movies you didn't create and don't own," the statement said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4780312

Well, on the other hand, I don't even know under which countries law my post here are under. Is a post here something like an export?

[Loki]

Good thing no one is making money from your posts. The case in question only applies to copyrighted material that's being used for commercial purposes. Good try. Now please tell me what laws in any sane country force people to listen to what others have to say.

[Nessus]

Did we just have our first rolleyes in an argument? Sweet!

[Hazir]

Well, on the other hand, I don't even know under which countries law my post here are under. Is a post here something like an export?

Tough question to answer really. You could say it depends on the geographical location of the server. But then again, you could also say it depends on the location where the service is used.

Just look at how Amazon.com is charging VAT on purchases by people who want their books delivered in the EU. I am 100% certain there is no VAT in the US, yet they follow EU tax-rules.

@ Loki; nobody said you have an obligation to listen. But not wanting to listen doesn't give you the right to change the message.

I think I just broke the law by snipping Earthjoker's mail without asking for permission

[earthJoker]

Good thing no one is making money from your posts. The case in question only applies to copyrighted material that's being used for commercial purposes. Good try. Now please tell me what laws in any sane country force people to listen to what others have to say.

But by Swiss right (German too) it doesn't matter if you want to make profit from it or not. You always have the Urheberrecht on any work you did. The thing that is more important is, that the average post made is worthy of protection, probably it isn't. But for example larger post that is more like an essay, or blog entries would definitely fall under this right (if Swiss law was applied).

And just to add, this law doesn't force anyone to listen to my stuff. It just states that my post should stay the way they are or getting deleted all the way.

[Loki]

But by Swiss right (German too) it doesn't matter if you want to make profit from it or not. You always have the Urheberrecht on any work you did. The thing that is more important is, that the average post made is worthy of protection, probably it isn't. But for example larger post that is more like an essay, or blog entries would definitely fall under this right (if Swiss law was applied).

And just to add, this law doesn't force anyone to listen to my stuff. It just states that my post should stay the way they are or getting deleted all the way.

According to this logic, the moderators here should be unable to edit anyone's posts. Is that what you want?

[earthJoker]

According to this logic, the moderators here should be unable to edit anyone's posts. Is that what you want?

Actually if you ask me personally, I think any changes a moderator makes to a post must be clearly visible. If it looks like I have written something which I didn't I have a problem with that.

[EyeKhan]

@ Loki; nobody said you have an obligation to listen. But not wanting to listen doesn't give you the right to change the message.

But you'r NOT changing it, you're only masking the very offensive words and only for yourself. And its not even permanent in any way - if you turn the filter off, the message is back in its original state. How is that harmful to the author in any meaningful way???

[Flixy]

Actually if you ask me personally, I think any changes a moderator makes to a post must be clearly visible. If it looks like I have written something which I didn't I have a problem with that.

It says at the bottom 'edited by', and if the filter is applied it says ****, which is much like the [...] in a quotation. It is obvious that it has been changed.

And like Chaloobi says, it isn't changed permanently.

[littlelolligagged]

I'm curious. Who is actually using the curse filter?

I still think it should be available for those who want it.

[earthJoker]

Let's get one thing clear, I don't think the filter is against this law, even in Switzerland. But I think you can use the philosophy of this law as argument against a filter. That's all. The only reason I keep posting about this, is to clarify my point, I don't really care that much about the filter, as anyone that really wants to filter stuff, can easily do it by a browser add-on even if this board has no filter.

http://procon.mozdev.org/

[LittleFuzzy]

Are you really this much of a pompous ass?

Of course he is. And because he's also an intensely nationalistic one, he's instantly framed it as a matter of evil US hegemony.

Loki, you're right. I still can't get a vote in with my presently selected style and I don't feel a need to change styles just so I can vote, but as I said earlier, an opt-in filter should provide the maximum amount of satisfaction for the maximum amount of people. That there is MY principle Hazir, not that over-rationalized "One True Way" swill you're pushing.