Controversy
HS
923 Posts
I have noticed what seems to be a decline in posting of late. Is this all due to the controversy of what does or does not get deleted? I have stayed back from the debate, mostly because work has been keeping me busier than usual. Bottom line: M. Lee Smith and the site they own have every right to censor whom they wish, when they wish. It is their site after all, regardless of who made it what it is today. Do I agree with it? Not exactly. As someone who missed most of the offensive posts on a few of the more “controversial threads”, I find it hard to follow the discussion, or understand what is going on. Should the entire thread have been deleted? Probably, especially since the original poster (the customer) wanted it that way. Again though, it is the right of M. Lee Smith to decide.
IMHO, the discussion did have some strong merits regarding the HR side of what happens if gay marriage is legalized. I for one do not think it requires much extra effort. As a matter of fact, our company has a provision for “domestic partner” in our health plans. But where does it end? Some would say that marriage is solely for procreation. How narrow-minded is that? There is so much more to marriage as an institution. A family can be many different things. There are many people who find that special someone and want to share their life with that person. Right now, it is not legal in some places if those two people happen to be of the same sex, nor is it recognized in the church. Should it be? I don’t know. But what about those who are of the opposite sex but choose to live a childfree life? Should they be seen as “different” or “unacceptable” by society because they have married for something other than procreation? What if their “children” are their pets? Should then not their pets be covered under their health plan? Like I said, where does it end?
We as citizens of this great nation have the right to our own opinions. When you break the law, you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. The fabric of our society will not crumble because the government decides to legalize gay or lesbian marriages. Perhaps the government should put out a “survey” of sorts to see what percentage of the population would want a law, but that is not how it works. We’ve elected these people into power; they have the right to change laws without consulting the people. But then we as citizens have the right to lobby the government body, be an advocate for a law, or express our negative opinion about the law to the right place. We can choose to not re-elect that official. There are avenues to take. We only see such things as gay or lesbian marriages, incestuous relationships, etc. as wrong because that is how we were brought up. Someone once posed this interesting point of view to me; if you believe that God created man and woman (Adam and Eve) and that they were the parents of us all, then wouldn’t their children and their children’s children have to have entered into an “incestuous” relationship? Gives you something to think about.
I personally would not want to see this forum’s participants decline because of censorship.
IMHO, the discussion did have some strong merits regarding the HR side of what happens if gay marriage is legalized. I for one do not think it requires much extra effort. As a matter of fact, our company has a provision for “domestic partner” in our health plans. But where does it end? Some would say that marriage is solely for procreation. How narrow-minded is that? There is so much more to marriage as an institution. A family can be many different things. There are many people who find that special someone and want to share their life with that person. Right now, it is not legal in some places if those two people happen to be of the same sex, nor is it recognized in the church. Should it be? I don’t know. But what about those who are of the opposite sex but choose to live a childfree life? Should they be seen as “different” or “unacceptable” by society because they have married for something other than procreation? What if their “children” are their pets? Should then not their pets be covered under their health plan? Like I said, where does it end?
We as citizens of this great nation have the right to our own opinions. When you break the law, you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. The fabric of our society will not crumble because the government decides to legalize gay or lesbian marriages. Perhaps the government should put out a “survey” of sorts to see what percentage of the population would want a law, but that is not how it works. We’ve elected these people into power; they have the right to change laws without consulting the people. But then we as citizens have the right to lobby the government body, be an advocate for a law, or express our negative opinion about the law to the right place. We can choose to not re-elect that official. There are avenues to take. We only see such things as gay or lesbian marriages, incestuous relationships, etc. as wrong because that is how we were brought up. Someone once posed this interesting point of view to me; if you believe that God created man and woman (Adam and Eve) and that they were the parents of us all, then wouldn’t their children and their children’s children have to have entered into an “incestuous” relationship? Gives you something to think about.
I personally would not want to see this forum’s participants decline because of censorship.
Comments
We will see what happens with this thread, but it was my opinion that part of the problem on the other thread was there were multiple issues being discussed ie the legality of the marriages, the morality of the marriages, the impact on HR and censorship. Pretty heavy for one thread with such topics.
Being a great believer in CQI or TQM or whatever the going phrase is, it would be my hope that we could somehow move forward and IMPROVE the Forum so that history does not repeat itself. I don't think rehashing these volatile topics is going to be real productive. We all have our opinions and with a group this diverse, I think there are many times when we should just agree to disagree while still respecting the opinions of others. I think we should also recognize that opinions are just that and not always facts. I have read opinions/beliefs that were presented, (in my opinion) as if they were, forgive me, the Gospel truth and not open to the opinions/beliefs of others. More than once I have been reminded of the old phrase..it's not what you say, but how you say it. I think we could probably all work on that. I digress.
What can we do, together, to improve? More consistent guidelines to censorship? Better peer feedback? Formal or informal agreement to stay away from Religion, Sex and Politics? I don't have the answers, but as one of the participants who has been around the longest, I am hoping we can find some.
I miss some the participants who appear to have dropped out because of this issue (this may very well be a wrong assumption on my part). We are all the losers for it.
Some people on the Forum are "straight shooters" so if you don't want their opinion, best not ask for it. I also don't think that's offensive. It's merely the way they are...probably in the "real world" as well as in cyber world.
Someone once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
If people want to spend time debating a "gay and lesbian" marriage thread, then that's their perogative. If others are offended, don't visit the site. When you put that subject in the context of more pressing world matters, it really is insignificant anyway.
I miss those who are not posting. They added flavor, variety and humor to the Forum. Hope they come back!
Rockie
I have said before, that I participate on other forums (not HR related) and on a couple of blogs (weblogs). One particular blog is related to news and politics, so obviously there will be strong opinions expressed. I find it very interesting, the editors there have never to my knowledge removed or edited a post - though they reserve the right to do so in extreme cases. Some posts will include ad hominen attacks and sometimes the editors of the blog are taken to task in very direct language. The editors, to their credit, are gracious allowing people to speak their mind realizing that in the end, those who are way off base or being unreasonable are outed by their peers. And by the way, M. Lee Smith, this particular blog sells magazines as their main source of income. They have a vested interest in how the blog is perceived, too.
The difference may be in how the audience, or participants are perceived. Are we adults or children? Will we be allowed to interact as adults or will the editors take the "Kindergarten Cop" approach assuming we need parental guidance? Being an adult doesn't mean we all agree and always use pretty words. We may have strong disagreements and may say things in a harsh way. Besides, it can be very difficult sometimes to read a person's tone on the written page. I hate using the smiley icons but will just to make sure I'm not being misinterpreted. Let me ask, are there ever heated discussions at your place of work? Do you ever have heated discussions with your spouse? I know some will people will answer that last question in the negative and that is great. Do you ever have heated discussions with your neighbors? The list can go on. The fact that there are heated discussions is not the issue, how we resolve our differences is what defines our character.
I have found this forum to be a great source of information, but also a great source of friendship. And sometimes our disagreements can lead us to thinking in new directions or it can help make our convictions more firm - both can be good. It can also be cathartic - which is how I perceive this post I'm writing.
edit:
To sum up, even though I found some posters to be offensive or have been concerned that they could be offensive to others, I have never once considered leaving as a result of what another poster has said. But my enthusiasm has been curtailed and I have contemplated moving on to greener pastures as a result of censorship and ostensibly being perceived as a child needing the parental controls of a Kindergarten Cop.
I miss the way the forum used to be when I first came around. Unfortunately, in today's society of every other person screaming 'foul' for one reason or another, we've been reduced to a vanilla discussion as so many others have put it. HOW BORING! I do not come here to see the same old, same old. I come here for a diverse group of people to discuss concerns that could potentially have an impact on what we do in the world of HR. Without some of the key participants of the past posting in the future, any newbies to this world of HR will be sorely lacking the expertise, knowledge and wisdom of those who have posted before.
Maybe there should be another section for the more controversial subjects with a 'warning' about not participating if you may be easily offended?
I think this issue is important to some of us and I believe that the comments on this thread have been thoughtful. Is anyone at MLSP listening?
One of the surveys I would like is of the people who have left and why? That's what I would want to know if I was MLSP..people leaving because of cenorship OR lack thereof? Those are facts I would find interesting.
Also Ray, your question on heated discussions. .sure, I think we have all been there. While I was reading your post (on my lunch hour), a heated debate occured right outside my shut office door. .it was heated to the point that in MY opinion it crossed a line and became unprofessional, uncalled for, rude. Where's the line? If 10 of you had been in the office with me I doubt all 10 of you would have agreed with me. Where's the line? and that's the job I don't envy MLSP with. I hinted at it in another thread, but I like the idea of CONSISTENTLY notifying the poster and providing them an opportunity to respond. This POOF stuff on the part of MLSP and frankly, posters is frustrating.
Enough babble..
Interesting how your heated discussion experience coincided with reading my post. Yep, heated discussions happen. You can't legislate them away. No constitutional amendment will banish them forever. The key is how we respond. Do we take the high road?
But even if we create a section like this, we'd still be having this same debate. I can't imagine that we'd allow anyone to post nude pictures of themselves (or Janet Reno or Rush Limbaugh). What about the N-word and the F-word, as Sonny asked? Holocaust jokes? KKK propaganda? Threats of violence?
I'm not saying we'll never create a section like this - just that it won't end this debate altogether.
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
The timing on that heated discussion was pretty weird, Ray. Can't find the icon for Twilight Zone music. .
I like that on your other Forums people come to the defense of each other. Speaking ONLY for myself, there are times when I wish I had done so and didn't.
That being said -on to the censorship. I am not so sure it is censorship on MLSP's part, its their site, they should decide what they want and do not want on a site bearing their name. I agree that "sort of" is a difficult qualifier to go by, especially since what offends others may not even cause me to bat an eye. I think that they have been very leinent anyway, this is supposed to be where we post HR related funny situations and just about everyone posts everything BUT.
Not everyone has the same tolerance for words. Its hard to read tone in the written word, emoticons or not. We, as HR professionals, have often discussed what is appropriate at work as far as calendars, religious paraphenelia, dirty words and suggestive phrases on T-shirts and how HR absolutely has the right to tell employees what they can and can not wear because it may be offensive to others...isn't MLSP doing the same thing?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a good debate, I think it keeps the mind strong and forces one to use logic while honing those conversation skills. But I also think there is a place for it and if the owners of this forum say this isn't it, well, then, this isn't it.
"I don't agree that it should be okay to simply state whatever you want and not face some sort of repercussion whether that be from forum peers or by the editorial board."
mwild, if it's the editorial board's decision, guess I can live with that. What I can't and won't live with is someone who can't look me in the private email box and tell me they are offended, could I please edit or refrain in the future or they will be forced to hit alert.
Oh no, it's like the neighbor who comes over, eats your food, drinks your beer, then goes home and calls the cops because the party has gone on longer that he likes.
"Don't get me wrong, I am all for a good debate, I think it keeps the mind strong and forces one to use logic while honing those conversation skills. But I also think there is a place for it and if the owners of this forum say this isn't it, well, then, this isn't it."
In a nutshell, rad - and they've obviously said it.
So, if it's something to do with the HR forums, food or laughter, you may see me post from time to time. But a thread like this? Nevermore!
What if CBS had put the show on a 10-second delay and hired you as the censor? You probably would've censored the nudity based on your understanding of your audience. But some viewers would've complained, saying you're a prude or out of touch with your audience, or that it wasn't too bad compared with other stuff on TV.
What about Kid Rock wearing an American flag? Some people would be highly offended, but others really wouldn't care. Would you delete his entire performance? Play the audio without the video? Or let it go uncensored? Whatever you do, a lot of people will disagree.
Would you give him a chance to take off the flag during the live broadcast to avoid being deleted? How long would you give him? Keep in mind that your audience is watching. How long would you give Janet Jackson?
And what would you do when a performer grabbed his crotch once? Lots of crotch-grabbing has been shown on TV before, so you might allow it. But if you allowed it once, do you have to allow it the second time? And the third? The 50th? And what if the 17th grab seemed a lot more vulgar to you, but it was hard to explain why. Would you be wrong to censor the 17th when you didn't censor the 16th or 18th? If you delete ALL of the crotch-grabbing, would you allow him to touch himself an inch from his crotch? Eight inches?
If you were the censor, you'd do your best to prevent third parties like Janet Jackson from putting content on your network that would offend your audience, based on your understanding of your audience. Your rulebook would only have a few obvious rules listing words and parts of the body that aren't allowed. You wouldn't find detailed definitions of prohibited crotch grabbing or wearing the flag.
In the end, you'd try to do what's best for your audience. Some people will loudly criticize you. Some will accuse you of being biased against Jackson because you have a personal vendetta against her, or you're afraid of controversy, or you disagree with her opinions or lyrics, or you're philosophically opposed to nudism. Jackson would complain that you wouldn't have censored Kid Rock if he had gotten naked.
Since your decisions are mostly subjective, there aren't many concrete facts to prove whether you were right or wrong. You can only say that you tried to act in your viewers' best interest, which sounds pretty lame.
Meanwhile, a few people will quietly thank you for your actions. But 90 percent of your audience won't say a word, even if you ask for their feedback. Some will leave quietly because you censored too much, and some will leave because you censored too little. You'll never know for sure.
Well, that's my 4 cents' worth (it's way too long for 2 cents).
For the record, here's the thread "Superbowl Half-time show":
[url]http://www.hrhero.com/employersforum/DCForumID25/721.html[/url]
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
[email]WebEditor@HRhero.com[/email]
Thank you for your explanation. While I on one hand empathize with your (and the other editors) position and don't envy the decision of what is, isn't or could be offensive, on the other hand, I find it hard to understand how some posts get deleted immediately and others that I thought were worse take a few hours or days before they get deleted, if at all.
I like the idea of the alert button to a point but I also think the suggestion of leaving it up the customer to tell you what is offensive using that outlet might be a good idea. It would seem that some people's opinions are misconstrued more often than others, and I don't see a consistency in the censorship.
Bottom line James, I think something needs to be done for there is an outcry from your customers.
Edit: I for one would send a private message if I was personally offended by a comment, I may use the alert button if it's over the top and should be deleted. I rarely, if ever see anything that is over the top. We are all adults, aren't we?
HS, you make a good point. The simple answer is that the weekly Forum moderator doesn't read every response to every thread. And we might check the Forum only once or twice a day. It's been this way for a long time.
It's not that we're lazy (really!), but we've always intended for the Forum members to be the driving force behind the Forum, with the moderators stepping in only when necessary.
The offensive posts you saw, we probably didn't see them right away, or maybe not at all. Most of the messages we delete are brought to our attention by Forum members.
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
I am one with strong views on many issues that have been discussed here. Most of the people I surround myself with share those views. I now realize that I subconsciously looked down upon those that held different opinions on these big issues. I had my eyes opened with these latest topics. Here were people that I respected, that have helped me so many times, that were kind, funny, highly intelligent, people that I want in my life even if it is through the forum. I think that I have learned that I can value, enjoy, laugh with people who have opinions that are very different from mine. What a blessing that is!!!
Seriously, one of the reasons I like this forum is the banter back and forth between the participants. So far, I've never been offended by anything I've seen on the forum, but if I was you can bet I wouldn't hesitate to send a private e-mail to the offending party, rather than hiding behind an anonymous "alert" button that serves as a crutch for either my intolerance or my ultra-sensitivity.
To bring the subject full circle, the quiet, anonymous use of the alert button rather reminds me of a certain activist group that quietly did an end-run around the public process here in Oregon and threatened our county council with a lawsuit if they didn't start issuing same-sex marriage licenses. x;-)
Chari