When people say YES to censorship, what they mean is - as long it is done to anyone but THEM...

But Bill the issue is never going to be one of having a totally uncensored forum - I think that many have accepted long ago that for many reasons this is never going to be the case here. So there is really little point in trying to make me defend things I have not said or a general position that I do not hold. What I am interested in here is how the important principle of freedom of speech can best operate in the face of those who wish to exploit and abuse this freedom and those who wish to erode or ignore it.

The practical problem is first - what is meant by censorship on our forum? From reading all of this thread, although there are many questions that will follow on - I hope you would agree that this boils down to one simple question. Should every contribution made to the forum stay on the forum?

There may be some hope from some of us, that removing 'offending' posts, or even removing entire threads that may contain one or two 'offending' posts, may act in some way to prevent future 'offending'. However, I think the issue really is - if our forum should (forever) play host to these or should they be removed?

My preference is to try and ensure that this difficult question, or at least the following who,why,what and when questions - rarely need to be answered and when they do, perhaps is answered directly by Max).

It encouragingly looks as if others are also coming to recognise that there are perhaps alternative methods to try to encourage. And that changing attitudes by this encouragement may prove to be more effective, than relying only on the single questionably effective measure of the imposition of censorship, that will always remain so counter-productive.

Joe Offer in this thread.

It's still true that the very best way to deal with flames and abuse is to ignore them, to act as if offensive posts were invisible. That "discipline of silence" doesn't seem to happen around here as often as it should.

I would like Mudcat to be a gently, friendly place where people feel comfortable - and I'm deeply embarrassed when it's not. Right now, it sees that too many people around here just want to do battle. I'm sorry, but no amount of editorial work will change the essential spirit of things here. We do what we can to put out fires; but peace has to come from the community, not from some sort of editorial enforcement.

No I go banging on - mainly because our well-meaning volunteers and their loyal supporters give no ground at all and continue to publicly bang right back. If there really is a change of emphasis - from the mantra of routine imposition of editing action and encouraging judgement of the worth of other's postings, to one of ensuring that our volunteers set a different example, on the lines indicated here (and elsewhere by Joe) - I can finally stop banging on (which would be nice).

Is there any such movement?