ARE THE FORUMS SUBJECT TO CENSORSHIP

In a recent post, I felt the need to use expletive language to amplify a particular point.

Why does it appear that these forums set up to substitute an s for a u when using the word

f s c k

and it's derivatives (please note that the software seems to have been defeated with the use of spaces - though I don't know whether the large font has anything to do with it!)

I am making the presumption that our much appreciated "root", Jeremy, is located in the US. If so, surely it is "unconstitutional" to use censorship such as this!!

There is also the point, that the great majority here, would only use such expletives when their frustration point is sorely tested by that common enigma that is LINUX!

I should venture that even the great "Torvalds" uses swear words when frustration gets the better of him!

Also, is this form of censorship only used in the english language? I have seem posts in other languages, recently in spanish, does the forum censor spanish??

I did attempt to "edit" the post concerned thinking that it might be a "typo" on my part, but on reviewing the change, it had still changed the u for an s in the text I had used.

I should point out that the "F" word is in general usage by large numbers of people in the english speaking nations and has been included in the "Oxford English Dictionary" for some decades. It's use should need to reflect the context of the post though this might be question by those obsessed with political correctness.

regards

John

p.s. I should like to point out that this post is not supposed to be a critiscm of Jeremy but to raise appropriate comment on what "appears" to be a form of censorship or maybe enforcement of someone elses moral standards (albeit unintentional - possibly!).

Also I feel that while I do not intend offence to anyone, use of that "word" must be contextually justified! I don't recall who said it but the US and UK are two nations divided by a common language.

Two questions:

Did it solve your problem?

Your point?

first of all, it doesn't matter where jeremy is located - if he's in the US, or anywhere else, then he has the right to censor anything he wants. it's his forum. whether the local goverment happens to agree is a different point, and i won't get into THAT...

BUT... to start, i absolutely believe in the freedom of speech. anytime, anywhere, in every absolute form it could ever take. TV, Radio, Internet, curbside raving lunatic, whatever.

but what you're forgetting here is that freedom works both ways. you're free to say what you want. as jeremy owns, operates, maintains, and pays for this site, he is free to censor, blacklist, or ban in any way he wishes. this is HIS domain. this is HIS site. if you freely choose to use HIS site, you will do so by HIS rules. if you disagree with him, then you're free to express yourself elsewhere.

remember, when you criticize jeremy, you are doing so on his time and his money. he is the one who is making your speech possible.

when it comes to moral standards, then i'd like you to consider that it's because of jeremy's standards that he's made the choices and rule that govern this site. it is those rules, based on his moral standards, that have made this site the best linux forum on the internet. as far as "forcing" his moral standards on others goes, i don't believe that anyone forced you to come to his site. EVERY member here is here by thier own free choice.
if you think editing out four letter words is immoral, then wouldn't it be a greater injustice to force (and you would need to use force) jeremy to accept those who would treat this site like a grafitti wall?

no one on this site works harder than jeremy does for this community. try to keep that in mind.

Well said! I agree with isajera.

First off, this should be in the Website Questions and Suggestions so its been moved if you can't tell.

One thing I want to add, yes, America, home of the Free and freedom of Speech. But you have to consider like isajera said, this is a public forum but owned/operated by one individual with the help of mods just patrolling the boards.

Its like when you went to school, if you said the word fsck or any other unappropiate word, you get in trouble and go to the principle, detention or whatever.. same rules apply here.
So your wrong, we can censor any words we want here that jeremy wants. Jeremy didn't ask people to come here to trash his site with words.

Me personally, I have a dirty mouth myself, but I treat this as a professional laidback atmosphere without the need to swear.
But there's no need to swear here, ask your question, get it answered. Or answer other members questions. If you want to go off swearing and saying nasty words, say it on a forum that allows it, I'm sure there are some that are made just for swearing.

Regards,

-trickykid

bigjohn, I believed from a number of your other posts that you were a dad from worthing having a look at linux and concerned about the music he listens to, which made me like you. Unsurprisingly i don't think that anymore. not a way to get people on your side for sure...

Surely there is no need to swear, even if you are frustrated by something? The English language is one of the richest languages, with influences ranging from almost every other language thinkable. I find it hard to believe that something cannot be expressed without resorting to swearing. Yes, you will have seen me using the word bloody from time-to-time, because I believe that it is one of the least-likely-to-offend swear words in use - it is 'mild' compared to some others (although I personally fail to see how words can claim to be 'stronger' than others). If you practice good language, you will find yourself more comfortable with it.

First of all I want to point out that I am a HUGE proponent of free speech, as are most Linux advocates. isajera is quite right though. Also, I did not add that regex (and yes, it is very easy to get around) to censor. To be honest I don't have anything against the word at all and use it outside the forums quite a bit. This is however a public forum and while it doesn't offend me I felt it was best to add it. Stephanie has pointed out a legitimate flaw and that will be fixed (URL's should not be parsed). I would like to add that if someone points out a good reason why the rule should be removed all together I would be happy to do so, but I do not think you have done so here.

--jeremy

Hey John, I got a thought to add. I feel for ya, I know when certain words just cannot be replaced. They complete or add to the sentence what no other word can. But when it comes to "help" forums, where people get frustrated obviously quite a bit, the words would seem to be less help to everyone. Because the lack of certain words, such as the one you mentioned above, would not hinder any type of person in their quest for an answer, while the use of words as the one mentioned above, could hinder their quests. The diversity of people who do any given hobby is so great, that to be able to appeal to the largest audience possible, certain "words" and common rules need to be applied. I hope you read this as I mean it, I am agreeing with you, yet showing you why it's okay to have the "autofix" applied.

One more thing, when I read a post, and I see fsck, I laugh. I think it's kinda funny, and had no idea that it was automatically replaced. I thought it was an inside joke in the Linux community.

Cool

p.s. I should like to point out that this post is not supposed to be a critiscm of Jeremy but to raise appropriate comment on what "appears" to be a form of censorship or maybe enforcement of someone elses moral standards (albeit unintentional - possibly!).

Also I feel that while I do not intend offence to anyone, use of that "word" must be contextually justified! I don't recall who said it but the US and UK are two nations divided by a common language.




Firstly, I would again like to apologise for having done the opposite to what I intended. I did not want to cause any offence though from some of the posts that is exactly what I have managed to do.

I have included the p.s. from my original post as I feel that some respondents may have taken it out of context and not necessarily followed the point that I was trying to bringing up.

It was certainly NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, an attack or slur on Jeremy. I think that he does one hell of a fine job.

The original post was brought about by frustration on my part at trying to sort my installation and failing (yet again), that particular word was used (I believe) in context of what I was originally trying to say. When the "U" was substituted by the "S" I honestly felt that I had made a typo.

When I became aware that it wasn't, I felt it unfair that what I was trying to say was being amended.

Amongst the replies one or two of the comments have "struck a cord". Hence, I am apologising for is my incredibly bad manners on this occasion (my vision was clouded with "red").

At the time I could not see any logical reasoning for the change, and while manners and common decency seem to me perfectly acceptable as reasons, I think that of the replies to my post, the relevant ones are those that HAVE read it in the sense that it was meant, while some seem rather nonsensical.

It was really about the differing ideas on the use of language and why it could be felt necessary to alter any given word.

A relative of mine works at one of the local higher education establishments. Because the name of that place has sussex in the title they have had to register domains using the abbreviation of susx as the full name has "sex" in it. Yes I know that mainly applies to software created for use under window$ in the hope that it will prevent children accessing "inappropriate websites" but it is less about that and more of a "mind set". It also highlights the point that I was asking about.

Once again, apologies all round to any of you who feel offended in any way and all your disapproval "hoisted in". I would hope that you now understand the reasoning behind my original post. And had I not been so full of ire at the time I would probably not posed the question at all (but, emotion is not always the easiest thing to ignore).

Keep up the good works, one and all

regards

John

and, in the same vein, none of what i wrote was intended as a personal attack on you. but, i can and will attack any contradictions i ever find in someone's reasoning - and few things get me pissed more than hearing someone try to justify coersion with freedom.

quite frankly, i don't care one way or the other whether or not jeremy allows profanity on his site. if he wants to open a porn dungeon forum, that's his right, but then it would be my right not to hang around anymore.

the only problem i really have with what you said is that it's the same kind of reasoning that brings people to say that America is being intolerant of Islam because we don't want to allow militants to fly planes into our buildings. no one has the right to justify murder as "personal expression" any more than you or the government would have the right to force jeremy to allow profanity on his site. in both cases, it's using the "freedom" of one group to try and justify the initiation of force against another.

it's the same flawed logic, and while what you're advocating is harmless, some idiots WILL take it to disastrous extremes. it scares me sometimes to see how few people seem to understand that.

I have to say that I am still unapologetic about having asked the question, and while I feel with hindsight that I might, no, should have put considerably more thought into the wording of the question, it still persists. Why can't I etc etc etc.....

MasterC did raise a very valid point that sometimes you just cannot find a suitable alternative for an expletive, and as I already said that after yet another failure of trying to do something unsuccessful under linux bringing about another distaster I was still in a very angry state of mind....(a definite mistake - to type a post when the balance of the mind is disturbed!!!)

But, and quite a big but?? at that,

I still don't follow Isajera's arguement. I should in not way condone something as heinous as sept 11 with any kind of justification. Its the little "infringements" on very small freedoms that I feel should be questioned, because if they go unquestioned can lead to become "big infringements.

At a time when government both sides of the atlantic are using 11/9 for an excuse to curtail all sorts of civil rights (in the name of "security"), questions such as mine should be asked because it would be churlish to bury our heads in the sand and try to pretend that "it didn't happen" (whatever the "it" might be). Though I would say that Isajera has pointed out that priceless quote from whoever it was (don't recall whether it was Marx/Lenin or Mao) that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. And at the same time offers a genuine reason for the banning of all religion. Which, lets face it, has caused more deaths throughout history than all the wars put together.


To conclude, while I quite understand that as "root" jeremy undoubtedly runs the "show", I am also entitled to ask why a word is proscribed. Perhaps there should either be a list or a rule should be include expressly forbiding the use of "expletive language" in any form or language. Otherwise, the same or a similiar question could arise, while I find no offence from the language, the similar situation could arise with a question of a racial nature which I would find extremely offensive???

My earlier comments relating to two nations divided by a common language still stand, the word fanny in the US has differing meaning to in the UK. The word "fag" likewise. Though the "c" word seems to draw offence from women on both sides of the pond.

I feel that I and one or two other contributors to this thread should all hang our heads in shame for trying to use such serious and "heavy" analogies to illuminate the points that we have been trying to make i.e. using a very large linguistic sledge hammer to crack a somewhat insignificant nut!

And agree to disagree on the rights and wrongs as to whether it is correct to use expletive words either in the "real world" or in cyberspace.

Regards

John

p.s. perhaps jeremy could just arrange to apply asterisks ***** like they do in the news press media for the most commonly used "cuss" words to prevent accidental though equally upsetting transgressions.

I, for one, will not answer ANY question where the poster has used a sexual expletive. There is simply no need to use them on a forum like this.

Regards

have you ever heard of godwin's law? i think, in a while, it will probably apply to sept. 11 as well as the nazi's...

i'm glad you didn't think i was trying to call you a terrorist... ninety percent of the time when i get into a discussion of this type, whoever i'm talking/arguing gets huffy because of something like that.

the one point i was trying to get across is that one person's freedom can never come at the expense of another person's freedom. that's part of the whole problem behind the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter..." thinking. if you happened to unfortunately see the monumentally bad movie "american outlaws" - then it's a great example of how that thinking is still alive. assuming you haven't seen it, then the basic sum is this : they glamorize jesse james as a noble hero fighting for the innocent masses being terrorized by the big bad railroads who are trying to get people to move off land that the railroad already owns... god forbid someone would try to use something they OWN to produce something useful ... imagine the horror.

rights and freedoms don't overlap. that's a very common misconception. but when stuff like "freedom from hunger" gets spouted from some politician's lips, it sounds good, but it's not a freedom. no political decree will feed a starving populace. look at cuba - i was reading the other day about how castro was saying that the enron/worldcom scandals proved that capitalism couldn't provide people freedom- in this case, "freedom from bad investments". it may sound good, but it's not a freedom. (unfortunately, we have some congressmen not to far from fidel on this one )

when one person tries to claim a false freedom, they end up trampling on the freedom of another - inevitably and absolutely. in most cases, esp. involving govt's, the extortion is so spread out it's hard or damn near impossible to pinpoint how much it costs any one person. but on the whole - the results are fairly obvious. the US did a pretty good job protecting true freedoms for a while. it's not doing quite so good now. compared to cuba, china, or the former ussr, it's still way ahead.

here on the forums tho, i think it's pretty obvious. jeremy owns this place, and property ownership trumps just about every right except right to life. so... unless he holds a gun to your head anytime soon, it's your, my (and everyone else on here) responsibility to respect his decisions, try to peacefully change his mind if we disagree, or leave. that's all there is to it.

p.s. - and, before you point out that you didn't try to violently change his mind, let me remind you that you brought "unconstitutional" into this discussion in the first place - which means government intervention, which means threat of force ...

p.s.s - as the other "heavy contributor" to this thread - no, i'm not hanging my head over this. i enjoy this more than people reading this would probably guess. if i thought you were hopelessly deluded, i wouldn't have bothered responding beyond just getting another mod to close the thread. i think you're wrong, but you're not too far off, imho. it makes it worth talking about. you're definitely right about both sides of the atlantic curtailing civil rights haphazardly...

Whoa some fair points there isajera,

perception is all in a debate/discussion like this. The level of so called "rudeness" is more about perception than a lot of things. The post before your last one quotes

"I, for one, will not answer ANY question where the poster has used a sexual expletive. There is simply no need to use them on a forum like this." by MartBrooks, is I feel, a good example of "out of context".

While the "F" word in it's literal sense, is sexual, in a contextural manner it was the obvious choice by me for the harsh way in which I was trying to convey anger/dissappointment/frustration.

The perception bit comes in were I don't find that particular word offensive, some people within these forums do.

I could go off on a tangent for hours about "ivory towers", "moral highground", etc etc. But I won't because I feel that it would be totally irrelevant. MasterC was correct in saying the bit about while it can be impossible to find another word to sum up how one is feeling at any given moment, good manners should prevail in a scenario such as this forum.

If I have learned nothing else during this discourse, it is that what ever else I do, I shall, hereafter, not post when the "red rage" is upon me (I shall just quietly fume in the corner!).

I still maintain, that whilst the replies explain to me why I shouldn't use that (an other) word(s), they don't actually say why I can't.

I should also say that I now feel that the "why can't I" question is probably fatuous. It reminds too much me of the comments of ROBERT M. PIRSIG in "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" about the true "undefineability" of the word "quality". That being, that I can, because I'm me, and I can't because Jeremy (I presume) doesn't want such language being used (plus I end up getting an "ear bashing" from the rest of you lot!!!). In other words, because of the multitude of factors involved in the usage of the "F" word (and other forms of expletives), it will always result in stalemate (again - perception i.e. time and place for everything).

Oh, and the use of the "unconstitutional" wording that I used in earlier posts was used to highlight my point from a "can't" standpoint, rather than from the "shouldn't" position. Yes, I agree, that it was unfairly harsh (hindsight - again).

I have to admit that while my humble background can often bring me into confrontation in many forms, I should hope that I won't be treated as the "proverbial leper" just for asking an honest and genuine (if a little pointed/inappropriate) question.

Regards

John

p.s. my legal education was rather rudimentary (stopped at 18 years old - A level) remind me of "godwins law" or is it the same as "sod's" and "murphy's" ????

I, too, am quite enjoying the "linguistic table tennis"