LJ Advisory Board: can you help with community access?

[rm]

Do you run an LJ community that has been or could be directly affected by unclear TOS on freedom of speech issues (think: political, religious, abuse survivors, creative, academic, fannish, queer, kink, poly, adult lifestyle)?

Do you run an LJ community that has been or could be affected by sloppy attempts on LJ/SUPs part to massage LJ's image (think: mental health/illness, abuse survivors, fannish, queer, kink, poly, adult lifestyle)?

Do you run an LJ community whose users have accessibility issues with the site (those with vision impairments, etc.)?

Do you run a community on any topic whatsoever whose users would be interested in discussion the LJ Advisory Board elections?

If so, I'd like the opportunity to hear the concerns of your users and talk a bit about where I stand on those issues. I promise to make only a single post to talk about the election (unless invited to do otherwise) and my candidacy and not spam the community or its users in any way.

If you'd be willing to let me post in those communities please let me know here or email me at racheline @ gmail dot com. If you're not a community maintainer, but have ties to a community maintainer and want to broach this issue with them, I'd appreciate it.

Comments

Re: Ban/Block

[magyarok-saman.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's free speech alright, but the responsibility comes in with accepting the consequences of exercising your free speech. If you are offending others, they reserve the right to exclude you. You can be as freely offensive as you want but others may choose not to support your actions.

THAT is where responsibility comes in. Basic respect and consideration are the oils of a well-working society.

I would not permit you, as an example, to come into my living room and call me names, make baseless accusations, or generally be disrespectful.

Our blogs are our virtual living rooms and we have every right to put restrictions on what we believe is acceptable behaviour.

The only place "free speech" really matters is in terms of the government not restricting it. Individuals have always had the right to limit what they are exposed to - just like businesses have always reserved the right to place limits on content.

Whether any of you like it or not, there are real people with real feelings behind the words read on any blog. They have every right to ostracize those who would seek to harm them or hurt them with their words.

When people stand up and enforce their boundaries, they cease to pander to an antagonist's ego. We all know what happens when that happens - all of us have seen how the antagonists react. They react like victims, because their only goal in life is to have their egos stoked and to be instantly gratified. When a person refuses to do that, they become "bad".

I will repeat: The ONLY time the First Amendment is a concern is when the government takes action. Personal choices have always been that: Personal. "Free speech" is not something another person has to grant you. It's something the government has to grant you.

EDIT: You may wish to peruse this article I found in the Harvard Crimson. While it is an opinion piece, I think it illustrates my point quite nicely:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255821