Google Frank Zappa Catholic Girls and read the lyrics.
I do not want my child (or anyone for that matter) to be pointed in the direction of this trash while perusing the forums of chess.com.
Good move, moderator. Thanks!
my topic removed
Sort:
anonym wrote:
Google Frank Zappa Catholic Girls and read the lyrics.
I do not want my child (or anyone for that matter) to be pointed in the direction of this trash while perusing the forums of chess.com.
Good move, moderator. Thanks!
You clearly know nothing about Frank Zappa and his music and are not in a position to refer to any of his songs as trash. You are offended by his lyrics and im offended by your statement. Why exactly are you offended? Why are his words censored and yours not? Both have caused offense.
KyleJRM wrote:
tones wrote:
There are plenty of topics on this site which are not related to chess, it is a forum for discussion and general chat. I assume that those who play chess have more than one interest and they can be discussed here. I dont see any problem with that.
Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't make the rules.
Feel free to start your own chess website with a forum and make whatever rules you want.
Personally, I don't want to be subjected to the inane social commentary that some people think is clever or relevant. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same, and that's why we have the rules.
You are in a forum, you have made the choice to be there, you are not subjected to anything. You have made the decision to look at the post. I didnt ask you or make you look at it. Keep bleating
@zombiewoof & tones:
LOL - dudes, you're totally missing the most important point. Barring someone from expressing certain opinions is only censorship if it takes place in a PUBLIC foum. Chess.com is NOT a public forum. Whether you like it or not, this website is private property.
Let's say I invite you into my house to hang out, watch TV, play video games, or whatever with the only stipulation being that you cannot discuss weiner dogs (I HATE those damn things...) The minute you start talking about how you finished second place at the weiner dog races, I have every right to ask you to stop. If you don't, then I'll ask you to leave. The point here is that when you're in my house, you follow my rules; likewise, when I'm in your house I must follow your rules. It's called personal property rights, and like the right to free speech, property rights are also protected in the US.
If you don't like the fact that the owner of this site restricts what you are allowed to say here, then I humbly suggest that you go elsewhere and speak to your heart's content.
You don't know what I know about, little boy. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
tones wrote:
There are plenty of topics on this site which are not related to chess, it is a forum for discussion and general chat. I assume that those who play chess have more than one interest and they can be discussed here. I dont see any problem with that.
Understood tones...but if yu wish to post and or comment on catholic girls then by all means to go a website that is meant for that. But this is a chess website, and IMO the best chess website. While i understand that chess.com is subjected to the same juvenile posts that every other site has to endure, please understand that this is a family site and there are kids here. If nothing else please consider that and think before posting.
anonym wrote:
You don't know what I know about, little boy. Don't let the door hit on your arse on the way out.
That post says more about you than it does about me, why would the door be hitting on my arse? What exactly are you saying about doors? I've never been chatted up by a door in my life
I agree. Why would you want to post those lyrics in the first place? Thank you chess.com for deleting that garbage.
This is brilliant, people are being exposed to Zappa! I love moral outrage
Most of what has been said in this thread in opposition to censorship is spot on, however it needs to be recognized that the decision whether or not to cencor in this case is fundamentally a business decision.
For those arguing that the option to ignore or avoid that which you find offensive is always there and that the responsibility to insulate your children from it until they are capable of fending for themselves based on the values you've imparted on them is the obligation of the parent, not the community, your are correct. The problem is that one means of avoiding or insulating is to eschew this site altogether.
As a result, the decision to censor in this case is, in effect, an estimation that the number of people likely to leave or avoid the site because of their disgust with the content herein is a higher than the number of people who are likely to leave the site because of their disgust with the censorship policy and that it is the right choice with respect to the overall impact to the bottom line. This is not a choice that I would ever suggest that a business owner or operator should have taken out of their hands and so crying foul over a perception of a right to free speech that was never afforded you in the first place and that you in fact agreed to curtail when you agreed to the sites terms and conditions is really not fair to chess.com.
What's more, is that in order to appease some of those who might be moved to abandon the site because of their disagreement with the censorship policy, there have been areas designated (namely groups) where the policy simply does not apply and is not enforced. You can always go there to get your fill of content that is not permitted here.
I think it's a pretty fair compromise and a good business decision on the part of chess.com, however all of this said I think that when the choice to censor is taken a note of explanation should always accompany the deletion of content as a courtesey to the individual censored.
Nice post Grobe:
A first amendment primer:
1) If the government isn't doing the censoring, it's not really a first amendment issue.
2) But, (and this is a good thing) many of us have internalized the first amendment value so completely, that when any vaguely authoritiarian organ (Chess.com, Mom & Dad, etc.) suppresses our speech, we get all violated and righteously aggrieved.
3) First amendment values should be absolute when it comes to government, and negotiable in private, with continual pressure upon private parties to be as permissive regarding speech as possible.
4) That actually what's going on. It's all good.
AMcHarg wrote:
zombywolf I think you are correct in many ways but in this one you are wrong in many ways too. I don't think Chess.com staff try to control opinion on these forums; they just simply want to avoid topics which will turn the forum into a slagging match. Anything that relates to religious topics will inevitably cause argument and will discourage many people from reading the forums as a consequence, not to mention the fact that it's nothing Chess related.
Censorship is particularly important when you consider that there are minors reading here, and your argument regarding this is wrong. Parents don't want their children to see/read certain things not because it might give them an opinion that contradicts their parents (as independence can be healthy there), but simply because there are some things which adults understand that will actually hurt children psychologically. Apart from the fact that children are easily indoctrinated because they are very naive and we don't want our children to be taken in by zealots for instance. You only have to look back at the Hitler Youth to realise how much more easily children can be indoctrinated than adults.
So while I respect your opinion and agree with much of it I think, if directed at Chess.com staff, it's a tad unfair!
A
That was a great explanation.
tones wrote:
There are plenty of topics on this site which are not related to chess, it is a forum for discussion and general chat. I assume that those who play chess have more than one interest and they can be discussed here. I dont see any problem with that.
You don't see any problem with violating rules that you agreed to follow?
[COMMENT DELETED]
the_big_j_77 wrote:
@zombiewoof & tones:
LOL - dudes, you're totally missing the most important point. Barring someone from expressing certain opinions is only censorship if it takes place in a PUBLIC foum. Chess.com is NOT a public forum. Whether you like it or not, this website is private property.
Let's say I invite you into my house to hang out, watch TV, play video games, or whatever with the only stipulation being that you cannot discuss weiner dogs (I HATE those damn things...) The minute you start talking about how you finished second place at the weiner dog races, I have every right to ask you to stop. If you don't, then I'll ask you to leave. The point here is that when you're in my house, you follow my rules; likewise, when I'm in your house I must follow your rules. It's called personal property rights, and like the right to free speech, property rights are also protected in the US.
If you don't like the fact that the owner of this site restricts what you are allowed to say here, then I humbly suggest that you go elsewhere and speak to your heart's content.
Big J - Words of a poorly educated mind...... So much ignorance in this I suppose I will start at the beginning of your comment, where you incorrectly define censorship (perhaps your buddy ichabod should look at the definition as well).
| cen·sor·ship [ sénssər shìp ] |
noun |
| Definition: |
| 1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security |
| 2. suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable |
| 3. ancient Roman office: the office, authority, or term of an ancient Roman censor |
| 4. psychiatry suppression of memories: the suppression of potentially harmful memories, ideas, or desires from the conscious mind |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Big J, please look at definition and help the rest of us understand why you believe there is no censorship in private...... To continue your twisted logic we can presume that because you have discovered a public toilet that you now believe there can be no toilets in your home. Censorship like toilets whether public or private are still censorship and toilets.
Big J, while you are at it please show me where I said that chess.com was a public forum.
Big J, your next paragraph, an anecdote about your wiener races is funny in an oafish way but irrelevant to this forum in your confusion with property rights. Your "house rules" are made at your own arbitrary discretion. If you do not like another's behavior in your home you may request the person to leave the premises whether you have made your rules clear to your visitor or not. If your only stipulation was not speaking of wieners and your visitor did not speak of them, but did speak about engaging in sex with your wife..... Do you plan to let the person hang out and watch TV because he did not talk about "Burnt Weenie Sandwiches"?
Your last sentence was neither intelligent nor humble. 1st of all, I CAN speak to my heart's content on this site. Chess.com does have forums put aside for such and freedom of speech is also accepted in private chess clubs on the site. I do enjoy this site, have provided input regarding software and policies in an effort to improve this site, have chosen to support it by purchasing a chess.com membership and have brought others to this site who have purchased memberships as well. What may I ask have you done on the site? If I ever do choose to leave this site, I can assure you that it will not be due to suggestions from apathetic people like yourself.
It is interesting that you and others who share your misguided thoughts assume that my censorship comments are directed specifically at chess.com. I believe chess.com has no real desire to censor. They merely respond to complaints submitted and make a judgement call. Nor have I ever suggested that they did not have the "right" to do so. My comments were directed primarily at the foolish and self-righteous who want censorship.
Grobe, nice post, well said and I have no disagreement regarding any of your points.....
zombywoof wrote:
Grobe, nice post, well said and I have no disagreement regarding any of your points.....
...i agree to that, what a great explanations from both sides, complacent to me n' perhaps to all...
Sep 25, 2009
0
#39
The chess.com staff have created the Open Discussion group expressly for those who would like to discuss politics or religion on chess.com. There is also an Off Topic subforum for those who would like to discuss humour, music or other non-chess-related subjects.
Censorship in the strictest definition can be done by any authority figure. That can be governmental or non-governmental. In ordinary conversation, when people use it, they do mean illegal suppression of speech by the government, but that doesn't have to be the case.
But regardless, when people cry censorship because they don't like the rules of a private party, they greatly cheapen the concept and are at best being grossly insensitive to the many people in the history of the world who have been genuinely censored by oppressive regimes.
Not being able to post rock lyrics on a private chess site, thereby being deprived of your ability to make psuedointellectual, shallow, hipster commentary on the role of religion in society, may technically count as censorship, using the term reveals much about the (lack of) perspective on your part.
All methods of communication is enabled through private business, government sponsorships (our tax dollars), or charity sponsorship (our donations) with the exception of your own physical voice in the sphere of its listening range. So ilikeflags your response is, to use your own phrase of choice "total bullshit".
Chess.com is a business and as such, can make the decision to succomb to the minority of its members. Nonetheless they are using the same flawed logic as any other censorship. Chess.com has already provided YOU with the ability to ignore forums as you choose, to censor the people or forums that YOU do not wish to read. That is not why you still demand censorship..... It is because YOU wish to control the content of what OTHERS have available to them. So my points made earlier do indeed still apply.
No, they don't. I take my savings and buy a printing press and start my own independent newspaper. Do you now have the right to say whatever you want in my newspaper? No, you don't. You just want to steal the effort of others to propogate your message.
You agreed to the terms of service. You agreed not to post certain topics in the forums. This "censorship" you imagine exists is entirely consensual. And it's totally imagined, because there are groups on this site where you can say whatever you want.