Censorship on LinuxQuestions.org?
 

removed

I think that some of the posts and posters in that thread ran afoul of the LQ Rules both in content and in tone.

Of course, I'm not the decision-maker here, but that's how I interpreted it.

removed

Linux Questions is not society. It's privately-run public-access forum with rules.

At least from the standpoint of U. S. Constitutional Law, "freedom of speech" means that "Congress shall make no law" restricting speech, and even that has limits, as the famous "shout fire in a crowded theater" ruling made clear.

Furthermore, "freedom of speech" does not mean that anyone, especially a private anyone, is obligated to provide a speaker (screecher?) with a platform or with an audience, nor does it mean that anyone is required to listen to said speech.

Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but I trained as an historian, I've read the U. S. Constitution (it's short), and I pay attention to stuff. (I intended to become a lawyer when I entered college. Then I met some law students and decided that nothing was worth being that uptight.)

Yup. Don’t follow the rules, and you’re lucky that the thread only gets locked.

I appreciate that “management” stopped the inane rambling in that thread.

I do not appreciate...never mind.

removed

My guess, and I repeat guess, would be that Jeremy felt the thread had gone off-topic, rather than the topic itself being the problem. That would be my take on it. So not sure you can call that opposing "free speech". But that said, I'm obviously not Jeremy either. So I'd suggest you ask Jeremy directly why he closed it.

As a side note: I operate under the assumption that this is still Jeremy's site and therefore forum, so he's the one that decides what's on and what isn't. So I'm not sure that "free speech" applies here in the same way it would apply outside of LQ.

@RSH there was no legitimate reason for locking that thread, regardless of claims otherwise. agree with the below 1,000,000%

No, the absolute last action is that the poster is BANNED totally from posting on LQ. That has happened before too.

To both of those unhappy with it, I have to point out that we are guests in his living room. What we think or believe has little weight and it SHOULD HAVE LITTLE WEIGHT! As guests here, we should be happy to abide the rules of the house and be polite. Our host puts up with a great deal already, and we should not make it more difficult.

If we are really unhappy, we can always leave and start our own forum site elsewhere. I, for one, choose to stay. I greatly appreciate the company here, and the utility this provides. I do hope that you will come to agree.

Locking a thread is not against free speech.

No-one has been banned from here (at least not for contributing to said thread), and to my knowledge not even received an infraction.

The rules say that it's enough for a thread to go off topic to lock it.
That thread had very clearly gone off topic, objectively.

And that has nothing to do with quoting murderers, which I personally would also find reason enough to lock a thread.

Also, everything is still there to read - you just cannot add anything anymore. It's not censored.

Freedom of speech is a principle that always has some limits in any legal system, more or less.

Would you say it's against free speech when your neighbor calls the police because you're screaming at 3am?
Would you say it's against free speech that you're not allowed to incite violence through speech?
...

We can discuss this 'til we're blue in the face. I can think of a dozen comparisons. But it always comes down to this: LQ is not the real world. Or would you want it to be?

PS:
erm. We're not guests in jeremy's living room. That is silly. More like guests in his pub.

if the thead is designed to invite open conversation then it IS wrong to close it IF it goes a little sideways.

Well, I cannot claim to be the objective judge, but it looked to me as if it had gone more than a little sideways, spun out, tumbled a couple of times, and was headed over a cliff. Better to have a guardrail and stop it short than have it crash and burn.

Listen, if you really want to discuss multiple subjects why not just open multiple threads: one per subject? It is not like we do not have that option!

removed

Personally, I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. I also think Jeremy's response was quite proportional and reasonable if he felt multiple members went off-topic (which is the sense I get). Rather than issuing multiple warnings or infractions to multiple members, or worse and banning people from either just the non-technical General forum or from LQ altogether.

The non-technical General forum isn't the same as the technical forum's here. People aren't likely to goto the non-technical General forum to look for answers to technical questions. This site is primarily for technical discussion.

The mods for the non-technical forum aren't logged in to LQ as much as the mods for the technical forum's here. So it looks like to me that Jeremy felt the thread in question had gone too far off-topic to be "rescued" - so in that case it's better to just close it instead.

Once again, this is still Jeremy's place, you like anyone else are guests here. Jeremy has every right to take action if he thinks people are breaking the rules.

Do you prefer Jeremy issues warnings and/or infractions to multiple members instead ?