Freedom of speech and moderation

[Ade]

ECHR

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

I do sometimes wonder how ECHR and this forum complies.

For example, if I have a truth about Shorinji kempo that I wish to impart and share with kenshi (who practise and belong to that organisation) for discussion how can the moderators stop this passage of information by deleting posts?

Is that lawful?

Is it legal?

Theoretically can the moderators apply Shorinji Kempo (wsko) instructions over and above the European convention on human rights?

I don't think so.

What do you think?

[Panu Suominen]

The problem with internet is that the laws applying the sites depend on the location where the actual servers reside. This causes quite problems when considering which is lawfull and which is not...

In general hiding things will only make them worse. Secrecy will only create more opportunities for misbehaving. And things will eventually be found out anyways and then the outcome is usually much more worse...

Theoretically can the moderators apply Shorinji Kempo (wsko) instructions over and above the European convention on human rights?

Of course they can, but I don't think it would be wise nor they should do it. There is not much room for creating better world if we start ignoring human rights.

[JL.]

Gassho!

Both moderators are Shorinjikempo sensei and therefore bound to a certain degree by the rules of WSKO. But first and foremost on this private(= as in property of a private individual, not as in not publicly readable) forum they're bound by the rules of the forum and of course by the laws applicable, which are determined by the country of residence of the site, as Panu-san pointed out.
More to the point the rules of the forum forbid swearing, advertising, "rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts". Unless one of these applies I have a hard time seeing why any post would summarily be deleted, without so much as an explanation (as happened yesterday, IIRC).

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

[yoj]

Website owners are responsible for the contents, regardless of the fact that such posts are made by an individual. It's entirely up to the owners to retain or delete content as they see fit, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech or human rights or anything. It's their right as owners.

[Steve Williams]

This forum is not the local high street, it is a forum to which you must apply to be part of.

It is a little bit between public and private......
Public in that people can see what has been written, but private in that not everyone can post here.

There are rules, and they must be followed.

They are clearly at the top of every sub-forum (look at the top of the ShorinjiKempo forum and you will see the thread).

As such you were deemed to have broken a rule Ade, it was rule 1 on the list.

We know you and your posting style, you will deliberately post something to which you know all the information about, but not necessarily post the exact information. This is so people will ask "whats all that about then?"..... then it gets deeper and deeper.

It is a schoolboy tactic designed to provoke a response, as you well know.

Anders has sent you a private message explaining why your previous threads were deleted.

If you do not like the rules on this forum then feel free to take yourself to another forum, they may be more happy about your posts.

I agree with Panu that secrecy is not a good state, and if anyone wants to find out any information about any situation that you allude to then I am sure that myself or Anders can give them more information, but we have been given a directive by our "bosses" (WSKO) and we will still keep to that directive.

By the way, this is not denying any human rights, and talking of human rights no one country is spotless white about this issue....... the UK police force will move on or arrest anyone who even wears a t-shirt with a slogan which they "dislike" within 100 yards of parliament........ (something they "dislike" may be anti-war, or anti-government, or anti-anything the government is supporting at that time......). Other countries have appalling human rights issues...... so I think that a little bit of adjusting posts when they are of the inflammitory variety is not invading your or anyone elses human rights.......

[Ade]

Rules....what if the rules are wrong?

What about the truth?

What happens when we tell the truth here?

What happens when that truth is unpallatable for those in charge?

What happens to you when you toe the party line even when you don't agree with it?

You're just "enforcing the directive by our "bosses" (WSKO) and we will still keep to that directive".............directives - eh?

What if someone in charge says this person can't train at Shorinji any more because I say so?

What happens when someone in charge does what they want for their own best interests rather than the best interests of those who they're meant to serve?

Let's look at dislocution and Alport's scale, Nazi is a word not used often these days but if you look at the lessons of the British empire in India in the 20's and 30's - how do you think it started?

The very first move was the supression of the truth.

The second move was denial of a public voice - disempowerment.

The third was dislocution - bad mouthing a person or group in public.

It ends with extermination - getting rid of them.

So that's ok is it? just keep following that directive given by the "bosses" (WSKO) and we'll all be ok?

Perhaps under the directives this new order will last a 1000 years just as long as you supress the truth and enforce the directives - as issued by your bosses.

And if it goes wrong you can always claim that you were :

"Only following directives" - and adopt a modern version of the Nuremberg defence.

After all "Befehl ist Befehl".

Doshin So must be so proud of us right now.

[Kari MakiKuutti]

I agree with Panu that secrecy is not a good state, and if anyone wants to find out any information about any situation that you allude to then I am sure that myself or Anders can give them more information, but we have been given a directive by our "bosses" (WSKO) and we will still keep to that directive.

Can you then give us more information on the situation of Mr. Mizuno?

[judepeel]

Sorry I've decided to remove my message - it wasn't offensive, I've just decided not to get involved

[Ewok]

I said it last time as well, but WSKO directives, desires or instructions have no place in a private forum. If they want to control our online discussions they can make their own little forum and censor to their hearts delight.

[Panu Suominen]

By the way, this is not denying any human rights

You are right in the fact that site owner has right to remove messages from the forum (or to do what else pleases him). However in general this kind of right should be used very moderately. If the right is used for some other reason than keeping the discussion civilised then, I think, things are going to wrong way. Discussion forums only work if people are allowed freely to discuss.

and talking of human rights no one country is spotless white about this issue.......

Existing examples of bad policy or decissions should not be execuse of making them again.

I agree with Panu that secrecy is not a good state, and if anyone wants to find out any information about any situation that you allude to then I am sure that myself or Anders can give them more information, but we have been given a directive by our "bosses" (WSKO) and we will still keep to that directive.

You moderators are puting yourself in very hard place. On the one hand we should be able to express our views and if on the other hand you are enforcing WSKO policy. If you decide to censure things you probably will let us down and render this forum quite useless. If you decide not to censure you put your Shorinji Kempo career in danger.

If the idea is to keep up the good image of Shorinji Kempo, we have little problem. I don't think it will look very good for outsiders if we are only allowed to discuss things approved by WSKO. It is much worse situation than reveling any dark secrets we have, because it makes us look like some kind of cult.

However I do agree that Adrian senseis post were quite agressive by their nature and thus removal might have been in order. But I hope that messages will never be removed just because the offical WSKO policy dictates so. I don't think they are very famous for good decissions.

[Juan]

All the views and opinions expressed within this forum are the views of the individual posters, and as such are not always consistant [sic] with the views and opinions of the World Shorinji Kempo Organisation or any of its affilliated federations.

This poses several questions.

If someone posts something that abides by forum rules but it is not sanctioned by the World Shorinji Kempo Organisation, will the moderators suppress the post?

Is it possible to create a new e-Budo forum, say 'Shorinji Kempo Not WSKO Moderated', so that matters that WSKO may not want to be discussed are presented (in the spirit of e-Budo)? Note this does NOT imply an anti-WSKO forum, just a forum where moderators are not tied by their official standing within the Organization.

I understand that the positions of Sensei Anders and Sensei Steve are difficult in this regard, and I thank them for their effort in maintaining this Shorinji Kempo discussion forum for so many years.

My view (and a Shorinji Kempo teaching) is that we are individually responsible for our actions, thus I assume that this post may not be beneficial in my standing within WSKO. That is my problem, but if this post were to be moderated out then I believe it is a problem for the whole e-Budo community.

[paul browne]

Gassho,

ECHR

I do sometimes wonder how ECHR and this forum complies.

Is that lawful?

Is it legal?

The short answer is it doesn't. Nor does it have to. As Ade well knows the European Convention on Human Rights applies to States, and those acting for them. That's why it cannot be used against individuals who deny your right to life (unless they are instruments of the state...good luck with that ).
So is it lawful? is it legal? Neither, it's simply not relevant.

Regards
Paul
Kesshu.

[Joseph Svinth]

You also need to consider whether this is the correct part of the forum. If you have something to say, then try your discussion in Baffling Budo -- or for that matter, the Mud Pit.

Different standards of decorum apply in different places...

[John Ryan]

Even moderated, e-budo is not a hindrance to freedom of speech, it's an enhancement. But for the efforts of the forum owner and its moderators, the forum would not exist at all, and there would be no opportunity to use it to communicate. I can count on the fingers of one hand the ways I have of communicating with people in Australia, Japan, Finland, US, France, etc. This is one of those ways.

And this is not even about freedom of speech. No one is being prevented from speaking freely. The point is that there are consequences of speaking freely - you have the right to do so, but the responsibility to face up the the consequences. If you choose to belong to an organisation then you choose to abide by its rules and decisions. It's all voluntary, and you can leave at any time. And if you value the freedom to speak about certain matters more highly than the benefits of being a member of a certain organisation, then the free choice is there to be made.

[Ewok]

This poses several questions.

If someone posts something that abides by forum rules but it is not sanctioned by the World Shorinji Kempo Organisation, will the moderators suppress the post?

That is the only question we should be concerned about. If the moderators cannot be neutral and fair in their moderation then they should consider stepping down, or (as I have done in similar situations) we should take the discussions elsewhere.

If this isn't an issue then... well then it isn't an issue

Even moderated, e-budo is not a hindrance to freedom of speech, it's an enhancement.

But that is true about any "freedom of speech" situation - in the real world "freedom of speech" is not truly free - slander and hate speech is still controlled and illegal. Any conduit of public (and E-budo is public) opinion is going to have certain conditions applied to it, the problem is where the lines are drawn. Are they drawn at where the forums rules set them? Are they drawn at where the moderators interpret the rules to set them? Or is it in the more disturbing area of simply where the moderators want the lines to be?

To be honest if this discussion is here its fair proof that the forum is being run in a fair manner - usually if there is a problem with moderation any sort of discussion like this gets bottled up and spirited away before you can blink.

And if you value the freedom to speak about certain matters more highly than the benefits of being a member of a certain organisation, then the free choice is there to be made.

Hmm, you have the option of speaking freely, or you can sod off?