Posted:
Some of the arguments demanding "freedom of speech" are downright ridiculous. It is quite amusing to see people throwing around legal jargon and threats while possessing the most rudimentary juvenile understanding of free speech laws.
The ability to post in an online forum is not a "right", it is a "privilege". The administrators/owners of a forum choose to allow us to use their platform to discuss, debate, chat or whatever. When we choose to join a forum, it is with the understanding that we will abide by the rules and policies set by the forum. The forum is not a democratic nation where it is obligated to protect "free speech" or any such constitutional bill of rights. The owner of the forum has full authority to enforce any rules or policies they wish, change them, backtrack on them or do whatever no matter how arbitrary it may seem.
There is not a single nation on this planet that mandates that an online forum guarantee its members free speech. The only legal obligation of any forum is local and international laws like protection of intellectual property, privacy protection, child protection, limiting po*nography etc. This is where the "Terms of Use" and "Privacy Policy" come in. This is a legally binding document yes, but not one that guarantees you any democratic rights your country may offer you. This document is solely there as a security blanket for the forum in light of its legal obligations. It basically states that by using the site you agree that you are over 16, and that you are aware you cannot distribute po*nography or copyrighted material etc using the forum and similar such clauses. It prevents parents from suing a forum for exposing their child to inappropriate content. It prevents a record label from suing IF because some members distributed copyrighted content. It washes its hands off, if members engage in illegal activity.
Threatening a forum with legal gobbledygook because it won't let you call someone a bitch is as good as Apple suing Newton for not giving them credit for gravity.
As they joke on the internet sometimes, Administrators are not meant to be elected officials, they are more like benevolent dictators, you are lucky they don't declare "Off with your head" more frequently.
Some further reading on the concept of "Private Forum" and "Free Speech"
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum103/560.htm
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107226
That being said, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of rules on IF. Not on the grounds that they trample free speech. My big beef with this forum is rules that are impractical, inconsistent, unclear and never properly implemented. In fact I think the rules of the forum cause more chaos, more conflict and are unnecessarily complicated. IF tries too much to be a "moral authority" and most moderators are forced to spend their time "babysitting" the forums and resolving ludicrous arguments rather than focusing on more real problems. There are much more pragmatic ways of setting up forum rules so that they are simpler to implement and consistent across the board.
1) Censoring the f-bomb, the b-word etc. is tedious and pointless. If this was the forum for Disney Channel or catered only to family shows, it would make sense. The forum has grown to encompass a wide variety of television programming. There are sections for shows like Big Boss, Roadies etc where abusive words are hurled by the dozen. These words have become a part of everyday language. Even kids use it. Everyone here is supposed to be over 16. So this is just a waste of time for moderators. Swear words do not violate any legal code of conduct expectations. It would be prudent to let parents and elders in a family do the teaching of language. There is no need for a forum to do that.
2) Adapt the generally accepted internet fan fiction ratings. Before Fifty Shades of Grey, there was the internet and fan fiction. I don't follow most of the fan fiction on IF, but some of the controversies surrounding it is amusing. I've perused through a few. What we basically have is a conflict of cultures. On one hand we have youth who enjoy provocative, racy material and would like their fan fiction to depict a lot of sex. On the other hand we have youth who feel it is unbecoming, immoral and inappropriate to be so hormonal. Never the twain shall meet.
That is why most sites that host fan fiction have adapted fiction ratings - http://www.fictionratings.com/. Most sites are 16+ and can host stories that are K through M. Rated M allows adult themes as long as it is not explicit, violent or too graphic. The author clearly marks their fiction with the ratings. Those who want clean, feel good, family style fiction read K-T fiction. Those who want racy content, will read M. Neither should complain about each other.
Other than graphic and explicit fiction, the forum should focus their energy on fictions that promote/glorify crime like rape, pedophilia, trafficking etc.
3) Celebrity X,Y,Z are not members and do not need protection. It is a good thought that a forum wants to create a safe friendly environment. But the energy of the moderators should be focused on making members feel comfortable here, not celebrities. Yes, it is not nice to call people names, mock them, make fun of them. What people say about others, reflects on them and not the ones they trash. But celebrities don't need our protection. It is the price of fame. The internet is filled with hate sites trashing celebrities. If celebrities gave a damn about crap people they had to say, Justin Bieber would not keep going so strong. The rules should make celebrities, politicians, fictional characters, etc exempt from the derogatory and abuse rule. That protection should be for members only. The only action should be taken if it is slander or call to violence against someone.
The problem with trying to protect celebrities is that many have ardent fan following, who will take a yard if given an inch. Fan groups take it upon themselves to "protect" their favorites. So what happens is that one comment against their favorite results in a dozen reports and PM campaigns. When action is taken, this incites the hate group against the celebrity and they push the envelop further creating havoc for everyone. In my opinion this is not a place for forum rules to apply - but for a matter to be ignored. Let them fight it out like idiots till someone learns to grow up. Only intervene if a member is personally attacked or bullied.
This rule also is very lopsided and unfair in implementation. For example if someone criticizes Barun Sobti, Karan Singh Grover, Sharukh Khan or Salman Khan - dozens of fans will launch a hue and cry as if some foreign power has shelled their homes. On the other hand, one could go about the forum trashing some minor celebrity, and no one will even bother to report. Are only a few celebrities "special" and deserving of protection? Are minor celebrities not human and deserving of derogatory abuse? Either a rule should be applied fairly and consistently to everyone or not at all. Unless IF can commit to watching the entire forum like a hawk and ensure that every celebrity gets equal protection, they should just exempt celebrities from this protection.
The no "bashing" protection for celebrities is also very subjective. Some people are extra sensitive and some people have thick skin and unfazed by everything. It is impossible to set an objective standard. The celebrity with most fans gets the broadest interpretation. It is never consistent.
I strongly feel inconsistent rules should be scrapped.
The ability to post in an online forum is not a "right", it is a "privilege". The administrators/owners of a forum choose to allow us to use their platform to discuss, debate, chat or whatever. When we choose to join a forum, it is with the understanding that we will abide by the rules and policies set by the forum. The forum is not a democratic nation where it is obligated to protect "free speech" or any such constitutional bill of rights. The owner of the forum has full authority to enforce any rules or policies they wish, change them, backtrack on them or do whatever no matter how arbitrary it may seem.
There is not a single nation on this planet that mandates that an online forum guarantee its members free speech. The only legal obligation of any forum is local and international laws like protection of intellectual property, privacy protection, child protection, limiting po*nography etc. This is where the "Terms of Use" and "Privacy Policy" come in. This is a legally binding document yes, but not one that guarantees you any democratic rights your country may offer you. This document is solely there as a security blanket for the forum in light of its legal obligations. It basically states that by using the site you agree that you are over 16, and that you are aware you cannot distribute po*nography or copyrighted material etc using the forum and similar such clauses. It prevents parents from suing a forum for exposing their child to inappropriate content. It prevents a record label from suing IF because some members distributed copyrighted content. It washes its hands off, if members engage in illegal activity.
Threatening a forum with legal gobbledygook because it won't let you call someone a bitch is as good as Apple suing Newton for not giving them credit for gravity.
As they joke on the internet sometimes, Administrators are not meant to be elected officials, they are more like benevolent dictators, you are lucky they don't declare "Off with your head" more frequently.
Some further reading on the concept of "Private Forum" and "Free Speech"
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum103/560.htm
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107226
That being said, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of rules on IF. Not on the grounds that they trample free speech. My big beef with this forum is rules that are impractical, inconsistent, unclear and never properly implemented. In fact I think the rules of the forum cause more chaos, more conflict and are unnecessarily complicated. IF tries too much to be a "moral authority" and most moderators are forced to spend their time "babysitting" the forums and resolving ludicrous arguments rather than focusing on more real problems. There are much more pragmatic ways of setting up forum rules so that they are simpler to implement and consistent across the board.
1) Censoring the f-bomb, the b-word etc. is tedious and pointless. If this was the forum for Disney Channel or catered only to family shows, it would make sense. The forum has grown to encompass a wide variety of television programming. There are sections for shows like Big Boss, Roadies etc where abusive words are hurled by the dozen. These words have become a part of everyday language. Even kids use it. Everyone here is supposed to be over 16. So this is just a waste of time for moderators. Swear words do not violate any legal code of conduct expectations. It would be prudent to let parents and elders in a family do the teaching of language. There is no need for a forum to do that.
2) Adapt the generally accepted internet fan fiction ratings. Before Fifty Shades of Grey, there was the internet and fan fiction. I don't follow most of the fan fiction on IF, but some of the controversies surrounding it is amusing. I've perused through a few. What we basically have is a conflict of cultures. On one hand we have youth who enjoy provocative, racy material and would like their fan fiction to depict a lot of sex. On the other hand we have youth who feel it is unbecoming, immoral and inappropriate to be so hormonal. Never the twain shall meet.
That is why most sites that host fan fiction have adapted fiction ratings - http://www.fictionratings.com/. Most sites are 16+ and can host stories that are K through M. Rated M allows adult themes as long as it is not explicit, violent or too graphic. The author clearly marks their fiction with the ratings. Those who want clean, feel good, family style fiction read K-T fiction. Those who want racy content, will read M. Neither should complain about each other.
Other than graphic and explicit fiction, the forum should focus their energy on fictions that promote/glorify crime like rape, pedophilia, trafficking etc.
3) Celebrity X,Y,Z are not members and do not need protection. It is a good thought that a forum wants to create a safe friendly environment. But the energy of the moderators should be focused on making members feel comfortable here, not celebrities. Yes, it is not nice to call people names, mock them, make fun of them. What people say about others, reflects on them and not the ones they trash. But celebrities don't need our protection. It is the price of fame. The internet is filled with hate sites trashing celebrities. If celebrities gave a damn about crap people they had to say, Justin Bieber would not keep going so strong. The rules should make celebrities, politicians, fictional characters, etc exempt from the derogatory and abuse rule. That protection should be for members only. The only action should be taken if it is slander or call to violence against someone.
The problem with trying to protect celebrities is that many have ardent fan following, who will take a yard if given an inch. Fan groups take it upon themselves to "protect" their favorites. So what happens is that one comment against their favorite results in a dozen reports and PM campaigns. When action is taken, this incites the hate group against the celebrity and they push the envelop further creating havoc for everyone. In my opinion this is not a place for forum rules to apply - but for a matter to be ignored. Let them fight it out like idiots till someone learns to grow up. Only intervene if a member is personally attacked or bullied.
This rule also is very lopsided and unfair in implementation. For example if someone criticizes Barun Sobti, Karan Singh Grover, Sharukh Khan or Salman Khan - dozens of fans will launch a hue and cry as if some foreign power has shelled their homes. On the other hand, one could go about the forum trashing some minor celebrity, and no one will even bother to report. Are only a few celebrities "special" and deserving of protection? Are minor celebrities not human and deserving of derogatory abuse? Either a rule should be applied fairly and consistently to everyone or not at all. Unless IF can commit to watching the entire forum like a hawk and ensure that every celebrity gets equal protection, they should just exempt celebrities from this protection.
The no "bashing" protection for celebrities is also very subjective. Some people are extra sensitive and some people have thick skin and unfazed by everything. It is impossible to set an objective standard. The celebrity with most fans gets the broadest interpretation. It is never consistent.
I strongly feel inconsistent rules should be scrapped.
Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon
