1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

PirateReports revokes vBulletin license of HongFire.com for "moral reasons"

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Sparrowhawk, 24 Dec 2006.

  1. Sparrowhawk

    Sparrowhawk Wetsander

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    584
    Likes Received:
    1
    Last edited by a moderator: 24 Dec 2006
  2. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,594
    Likes Received:
    41
    Link to the actual article next time.
     
  3. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Well imo it's stupid. Whole "I don't like what you gotta say but I defend to the death your right to say it" type principal stands here for me. People aren't so into that anymore these days though. Shame.
     
  4. Techno-Dann

    Techno-Dann Disgruntled kumquat

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    27
    QFT. For that matter, the site is hardly objectionable. I think the internet company (and specifically the lawyer involved) has stepped way over the line with this one.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Tough one, this. Although in principle I agree wide the whole freedom of speech argument, I think that in this case in particular we hind to remember that "freedom of speech" means the freedom to discuss any topic, not necessarily the freedom to say anything you want.

    The "moral reasons" in this case refer to the site being about "Lolita" anime, Japanese child sexual cartoon images.

    Arguably if the site had racist/fascist or supremacist content or blatant terrorist material, we would now applaud this move, or at least shrug indifferently. We would certainly moderate to delete any posted links on this forum.
     
    Last edited: 24 Dec 2006
  6. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    You might, I wouldn't. Nothing should be disallowed on the internet when it comes to speech, and actions which directly harm no others. Freedom of speech means giving people the freedom to be wrong, or stupid, or racist - not just the freedom to be nice people.
     
  7. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    Ah jeees that site had worse then that on it Nex, but then again, it's legal in Japan because it's animated it goes under the lisence of artist interpretation and expression.

    It was a good forum for rare stuff though, which is a shame.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    I do not entirely agree. Freedom of speech is not just a right --it is also a privilige. And with power comes responsibility, and all that. Otherwise that guy burning a cross in front of your house is just exercising his "freedom of speech"...

    These forums have some limits imposed on freedom of speech. If we did not do that, it would quickly descend into spamming and flaming hell. This is because some people are simply not mature enough to handle that freedom responsibly, or will outright abuse it, or will misinterpret it.

    "Freedom of speech" is often misinterpreted as: "Freedom to say and do whatever I want, regardless of how it affects others", or as: "If nobody can challenge my saying it, that means nobody can challenge what I say (hence, nobody can say I am wrong)". This means that those who most indulge in their "freedom of speech" are typically the first to deny it to others.

    Of course we can now explore what is: "directly harm no others". Is the display of cartoons of child pr0n harmful? After all, no children were harmed in the making of this picture, right? But it is known that paedophiles will "work up" to their abuse by stimulating themselves with such material. Arguably, they can find plenty of adult pr0n or non-sexual imagery of children to do the trick. But that does not mean websites have to collude... and if a software manufacturer decides that it doesn't want to collude, well, perhaps it is just exercising its freedom of speech.
     
    Last edited: 24 Dec 2006
  9. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    Freedom to behave according to your personal moral beliefs is far more important than "freedom of speech". Without the former, the latter is a worthless catch-phrase. If I refuse to do business with someone whose morals I despise, that's my business.
     
  10. DougEdey

    DougEdey I pwn all your storage

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    13,933
    Likes Received:
    33
    I agree with Nexxo, it is a very borderline case. The way I interpret it is that the person who makes a piece of software has the say as to how it can be used, products reflect on the producers.

    Thats why manufacturers go for product placement, if they feel someone is a bad role model they will remove the sponsorship from a person aswell.

    The terms of the license agreement for the software were most likely to be broken.

    And Spec: If you say that someone can say anything on the internet, do you therefore support child pornography sites?
     
  11. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,594
    Likes Received:
    41
    I love my freedom of speech. I reserve the right to say whatever the **** I want to anyone, but I'm also well aware that with what I say comes the responsibility to own up to it.
     
  12. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    I qualified that statement with "that directly harms no others" - so no.

    You made good points in that post, but I strongly disagree with the above. If free speech were earned or given then it could be taken away, or denied to those who have the wrong opinion. It must be an inalienable right not given, but guarenteed for all. When we start to argue on that we may as well just give up on liberal democracy and jump straight over to a meritocracy.
     
  13. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    The whole point of "free speech" is the right to communicate information of importance to your fellow citizens without being muzzled by the government or some other party interested in keeping that knowledge under wraps. It's not a right to say what you like, and there's no reason "in the public interest" it should be. If you start spouting some bigotry at me I'll kick your teeth in without offending my own support for free speech where it matters.

    Real Life™ is a meritocracy. Get real.
     
  14. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    See, personally I see any view or opinion undefeatable in arguement as probably right. Yes, there's the odd exception where I know I'm right and they're arguing better, or they're right and I'm arguing better - but most of the time if something cannot be defeated in logical debate then it is correct, at least so I think. This is why I'm for the option of letting racists, bigots, mysoginsts et al speak loudly on any forum. Let them air their views, and let the world see their views thouroughly trashed.

    To me free speech means the right for all to express their opinions. Being right is irrelevent, that can be sorted by further communication. The important thing is that everyone should be able to communicate their beliefs, because communication is the only way that we will actually better our society and advance morally, not just technologically.

    Real life is a merticracy, you're correct basicly. However we strive for a democracy where each persons opinion is as valued as the next. Our one vote per person system shows this. I'm not a fan of democracy, I think a full meritocracy would be preferable. But while we're all living the democratic life, we should be striving to fullfill the principles it has. It seems to me that a democratic society would try hard not just to remove the maker of a problem, but to remove the problem, leaving a person with morally "corrected" views as a better person. Helping each other to become better humans. That sorta jazz. Simply removing that right just because we find their opinion small minded or stupid or highly offensive to me implies a lack of commitment to what we should all really be chasing after in a democracy.

    As has been said in SD before, just because we're never actually going to reach the goal, doesn't mean we shouln't strive for it.

    And that definately turned into a bit of a rant, sorry folks :-D
     
  15. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    You and I have crossed logical swords often enough on this forum with bigots, religious zealots, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, creationists, you name it. We even had some holocaust denial on one occasion. In the end such "discussions" usually ended with those people entrenching in their own mad little world in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic and withdrawing in logically unassailable positions and personal insults, and us feeling exasperated. Some of them end up having to be banned, and some topics declared off-limits, because it has all been said before, challenged before, and we know it is never going to end.

    With some beliefs, a nice sensible discussion is not going to do it. Way too much has been emotionally invested. It is beyond logic. Their views may get publicly thrashed, but they just come back for the next round. Because to them, it is not about establishing who is right -- they know they are right. They just like telling others how wrong they are. That is where they get their sense of superiority. Look at segregation in the US. What changed that was not logical discussion, but changing the law against vehement opposition. Sometimes the only way to change people's minds is to impose new ideas, like it or not.

    Freedom of speech may bean unassailable right, but that does not exclude a responsibility to wield it responsibly. We remove other rights from people if they demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to handle them responsibly.

    Anyway, who says that vBulletin is not simply exercising their freedom of speech? Swings and roundabouts.
     
    Last edited: 26 Dec 2006
  16. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Aye, I actually agree here dispite my earlier arguements to the contary. vBulletin are within their own rights to do this I suppose.

    At the risk of argueing with a man on a matter that I'm uneducated in and he works with every day - if we cannot change peoples minds without imposition then what hope does democracy have?

    I have always felt that communication is key in life. I've always felt that enough communication can solve, or at least minimise any problem. It's near enough my mantra. Perhaps I am wrong(I am young afterall).

    If I am wrong though, and you are right about there being occasions where the only way to change minds is to force them to change, what hope do any of us have against the principle of might makes right? Do we just have to hope that might is right? To me it seems if that is true we are left in a sorry state as a species. Whether you are correct or not I am not sure, but I rather hope you are not.
     
  17. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Psychology suggests I'm right unfortunately (it does not leave you with a high opinion of humankind...). It is often more effective to impose new rules/laws, which fait accompli people's minds will then simply accomodate, than to change those minds by logical argument.

    It has all to do with what function beliefs serve in our psychological functioning. Most of that has very little to do with logic and everything with emotion, and maintaining consistency in our (woefully oversimplified) view of the world, self and others. There is a lot of crap going on there and challenging a belief can be like opening Pandora's box.

    But isn't that how democracy (in theory) works? The majority decides on how things should be, laws are passed accordingly, and everyone accommodates to them --even the minority that disagreed.

    Doesn't mean you are wrong about communication though. It is just that there are also other powerful factors at play.
     
    Last edited: 26 Dec 2006
  18. quack

    quack Active Member

    Joined:
    6 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    5,240
    Likes Received:
    9
    Jelsoft reinstated their licence. :thumb:

    Speaking of licences, I especially like the EULAs which have a provision similar to the following:
     
  19. GiGo

    GiGo was once a nerd.....

    Joined:
    12 May 2002
    Posts:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    I love reading Nexxo's posts and I easpically love reading Nexxos and specofdusts posts when there 'battling' out there opinions.

    Freedm of speech it can be. As for the 'right' choice in freedom of speech, who says its wrong. I would say looking @ cartoons of children is better than actually looking @ the real thing.

    I see cartoons as figment of the imagination if someone wants to make a child naked in a cartoon then why not? Its NOT REAL so I think no harm. Tell me do you read/laugh at the cartoons about terrorism and recent jokes about the Ispwich Strangler? I know I do, so why can't you read/laugh at the lilota?

    Would a naked Sonic the hedghog be wrong? Or purhaps the numerous Lisa & Bart simpsons are wrong?

    Regards
    GiGo
     
  20. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    I have just considered, the interesting point you made earlier Nexxo. You said that paedophiles will work up to, or normalise, their desires through stuff like carton child porn. It does not surprise me. But does that mean we should aim to arrest people who do that?

    While it in and of itself harms nothing and no-one, the sorts of people who watch it are likely to harm in the future. But then, should we start to just keep repeat offenders(of any crime) in jail for life since they're almost certainly going to offend too? We can't be arresting people for crimes they might do, at some point in the future. It's a slippery slope and an undesirable one to go down given the current levels of paranoia about terrorism in the stupid and in the powers that be. Would we want to see people arrested just because they seemed likely to commit a crime?

    I would say no to this, albeit from a comfortable position of never having had to emotionally deal with the sorts of things paedophiles do.

    If the line in the sand is crystal and uncrossable then more people are negatively impacted by others doing selfish things because they can't be stopped before they do the negative things. But then if the line is grey and we decide on each specific thing, do we trust ourselves to make the right choices? I don't have an opinion there, just throwing my ideas out.
     

Share This Page