Re: Let's talk moderation

["M H" <kmhowe@moscow.com>]

I feel strongly against moderation.  As much as I don't like some of the
recent lines of postings, I am for free speech.  Just as if we were meeting
in public, I would not enjoy hearing some of this, but allowing people to
voice their opinions (despite your personal agreement or liking of the
opinion) is what free speech is all about.

Didn't someone famous say that free speech is "I don't agree with what you
are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"


----- Original Message -----
From: Priscilla Salant <psalant@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 9:03 PM
Subject: Let's talk moderation


> Visionaries,
>
> About two years ago, a series of possibly libelous statements on this
> listserv prompted calls for an official moderator.  His or her job would
be
> to act as a gatekeeper for all posts on the list.  It was suggested that
> members of the 2020 steering committee would screen each and every post
> according to some mutually acceptable criteria.
>
> At the time, I argued strongly against the idea.  I wanted no part in
> deciding which were "appropriate" posts suitable for everyone's
> consumption.
>
> Now I'm no longer so certain.  I have found many recent posts to be rude,
> petty, rambling, and today, clearly inappropriate.  The one today from
> someone using Timothy Egan's name (or so it appears) definitely crossed
the
> line for me.
>
> While I still don't like the idea of there being an all-judge of what's ok
> to post, I think the list has gotten out of control.  I'm ready to talk
> moderation again.  Possible criteria for posting *might be* no personal
> attacks; only two posts per day; and some limits on length.
>
> What do others think?  And please, no personal attacks on this one, folks
> .. let's just talk about whether moderation is or is not worth pursuing.
>
> --Priscilla Salant
>
>