City of IF

[D-Lotus]

I know it's a bit late, but there's something I'd like to know about the candidates.

If somebody posted something controversial on the City of IF, how much would you be willing to compromise free speech? Would you supress and delete said controversial post in order to preserve the calm, or would you allow it to exist in sake of free speech?

In response to Chinaren's post below:

Please elaborate, candidates, on how far you are willing to go in order to preserve the status quo. What are your limits? Say, for example, that secret council info leaks out concerning corruption. Would you squelch this offense?

Or, if somebody were writing a storygame which employs graphic images, and various people raised complaints about it, despite warning signs at the beginning of the story- what would you do?

[Chinaren]

I don't think this is an open and shut case D. It depends upon the comment.

Generally, if it's deemed offensive, then it's a candidate for rulthless crushing, as per site policy.

[LordoftheNight]

I think it depends on the post. There are a lot of different things that could be said. After all, we don’t live in a ‘free speech’ society as it is. You can’t simply go around and openly insult members of the public whenever you want for instance. I know Britain has the ‘Official Secrets Act’, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if America had something along the similar lines.

If there is no Free Speech at all, then obviously there cannot be any form of democracy. The ruling power could simply remove all parties apart from themselves, making any election useless. And yet, if there is no limit on Free Speech, then society cannot exist. People can’t go around saying whatever they want – there’d be no end to bullying, racist, religious intolerance and more. In the end a compromise must be reached. Blatantly offensive posts are clearly not suitable, and it’s easy enough to delete/edit them outright. As for more subtle posts, a judgement call must be made.

As for the example in the original post, it still depends on the information in specific. For instance, if the data in question is someone’s personal information – and of no importance or relevance to the city – then I would do my best to conceal it. There’s no need for the entire internet to know. Of course, if the information is relevant to the occasion – a depressant running for the position of Mayor for instance – then it could well be important for the voters to have knowledge of this, and consider when placing their vote.

Personally, I think it is best to spare individual members from humiliation. If someone is caught doing something wrong and warned about it (in private) then it should stay private. However, if information about a repeat offender is leaked, then in my opinion there’s no reason people shouldn’t be told.

As to the graphic images question – well, while this is a family site – the City does have a policy on offensive material. So long as suitable warnings are posted, and no-one could stumble upon the post by mistake, I see no reason for complaint. Citizens are free to do so, but no-one is forced to view the story game in question, so I would take no action beyond ensuring sufficient warnings are posted.

I’m not going to vote in the poll, as I believe neither option is always correct. It’s all situational.

[Crossfire]

There isn't really an answer that can be applied to every situation. If a post is directly offensive to majority of IF's Citizens, it should be removed, but quietly.

Punishment should be given that is as severe as the action merits, modified by extenuating circumstances.