Defining political speech
Thread Rating:
The problem is that "political speech" hasn't been defined, not even vaguely, so there are disagreements about what constitutes political speech. I've seen it go both ways: a post that didn't seem political resulting in a warning from a mod, and a suggestion from a mod about how to word something to avoid being political, when the rewording was *still* political.
The other problem is that there are threads about political things (e.g., Presidential Betting Odds) where it's pretty much impossible to not mention political things, and other issues which are so highly politicized (e.g., Coronavirus) that it's the same problem.
So, I propose two definitions, the first for threads that involve politics or highly-charged issues:
It's succinct, easy to follow, easy to enforce, and reasonable.Quote:An expression of support for or opposition to/criticism of a political candidate, politician, party, or issue.
Applying that definition, here are examples of how particular statements would be considered:
NOT POLITICAL:
(1) Objective statements of fact (even if those statements tend to reflect badly on a politician, because of what the politician did).
(2) The results of polls (even if those polls show that a large segment of a particular party believes things that don't align with reality)
POLITICAL:
(a) Adjectives or pejoratives reflecting the poster's opinion (e.g., right-wing nut job, nanny state, flaming liberal, Democrat Party).
(b) "The Board of Trustees of KFF are all flaming liberals and so are the 'reporters.' Their agenda is to neutralize the right with their highly biased "polling." You know, kinda like your own personal agenda." (source)
Then, for all other threads:
Quote:Any mention of a political candidate, politician, party, or political issue, unless it's extremely germane to the topic being discussed, and even then it must not run afoul of the definition of political speech for political threads.
Discuss.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI agree with the decision to ban political speech on this forum. (Rule 19)
The problem is that "political speech" hasn't been defined, not even vaguely, so there are disagreements about what constitutes political speech. I've seen it go both ways: a post that didn't seem political resulting in a warning from a mod, and a suggestion from a mod about how to word something to avoid being political, when the rewording was *still* political.
The other problem is that there are threads about political things (e.g., Presidential Betting Odds) where it's pretty much impossible to not mention political things, and other issues which are so highly politicized (e.g., Coronavirus) that it's the same problem.
So, I propose two definitions, the first for threads that involve politics or highly-charged issues:It's succinct, easy to follow, easy to enforce, and reasonable.Quote:An expression of support for or opposition to/criticism of a political candidate, politician, party, or issue.
Applying that definition, here are examples of how particular statements would be considered:
NOT POLITICAL:
(1) Objective statements of fact (even if those statements tend to reflect badly on a politician, because of what the politician did).
(2) The results of polls (even if those polls show that a large segment of a particular party believes things that don't align with reality)
POLITICAL:
(a) Adjectives or pejoratives reflecting the poster's opinion (e.g., right-wing nut job, nanny state, flaming liberal, Democrat Party).
(b) "The Board of Trustees of KFF are all flaming liberals and so are the 'reporters.' Their agenda is to neutralize the right with their highly biased "polling." You know, kinda like your own personal agenda." (source)
Then, for all other threads:Quote:Any mention of a political candidate, politician, party, or political issue, unless it's extremely germane to the topic being discussed, and even then it must not run afoul of the definition of political speech for political threads.
Discuss.
link to original post
Quoting poll results on highly political subjects will not be allowed*. The rule is " No Political Speech" and we're not creating a back-door for polls that are published on the internet.
- There are many wacko so-called polls with wildly unscientific methods and highly skewed audiences
- Political speech is barred even if the poster believes that his source for information is reliable. Our rules do not say "No Political Speech except for quoting results of polls." WOV is not the correct forum for discussing political issues.
*There is an exception for the quoting of polls about odds of winning the election for the Election Odds threads, but polls about whether one party is full of idiots or whether a candidate had sex with a goat or has dementia are not allowed in any thread. the Wizard has been clear that the threads on Election Odds are an experiment, and if people can't avoid Partisan Political speech in those threads then he will close the thread.
Objective statements of fact (even if those statements tend to reflect badly on a politician, because of what the politician did) are also not allowed
First of all, it is unlikely that, say, billryan and AZDuffman will agree with each other about which statements are "objective facts."
Secondly, the WOV forum does not seek to become an internet repository for objective facts about political candidates or parties. We instead wish to make this a politics-free zone. If you seek to state objective facts about Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and other political figures and candidates then I suggest you go elsewhere to do that.
****************************************************************************************
The Wizard is "off the grid" for a few weeks, otherwise I suspect he would be weighing in. The Forum Rules are established by him. Period. End of discussion. Dieter and I assist him in enforcing the rules on a case-by-case basis. The three of us exchange PMs to ask each other for opinions, to cite precedents and sometimes to discuss what we are trying to achieve. The forum has three lengthy threads, all "Discussion of the Suspension List" in which interpretation of the rules are explained, and in which people protest about what they see as unfairness and inequities.
Next time Wizard asks for volunteers who want to be considered as possible moderators, perhaps you should raise your hand if you have such an interest in this subject.
In the same thread, you suggested that someone who crossed the line should have instead posted something like, "the poll lacks integrity, reportedly, it is motivated by political partisans for use as partisan propaganda". How do you not see your proposed rewording as outrageously political in nature?
This is why I suggested the two definitions, for the two kinds of threads. Because if you think my post about polling is off-base, and your suggested rewording is a-okay, I can't imagine how anyone can be expected to follow the rules.
Also:
Did you miss that I referred to a thread about PRESIDENTIAL BETTING ODDS? Or did you see it and truly believe that poll numbers about a candidate, in a thread about betting odds on their chances of winning, is really prohibited?Quote: gordonm888If you seek to state objective facts about Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and other political figures and candidates then I suggest you go elsewhere to do that.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Discuss.
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/2-forum-rules/#post37215
As I read Rule 19, (linked above) the prohibition of "Political Speech" is incidental to the broader prohibition of "Controversial Speech". I see that as an adjunct to (and refinement of) Rules 12, 17, and 18. (These seem to be extensions of Rules 6 and 1, which seem to extend from the initial rule JB.4 (see original rules).)
Quote: Rule 12Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member.
The goal of Rule 19, as I see it, is to keep the forum on-topic (Vegas, math, and gambling), and avoid flame-wars.
Many people closely identify with their religious or political views and feel that a challenge to that religious or political viewpoint rises to the level of a personal attack (see Rule 1). This is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
Deliberately doing so would seem to be bullying or trolling (see Rule 12), because it attempts to elicit an emotional response rather than a logical response. Because it's easy to inadvertently step over the line (and start a fight), we ban the political, racial, sexual, and religious topics that many people find offensive.
That should cover the 'why', which informs the 'what'.
The "political" threads are on a tight leash. The highly-charged issues need to be discussed in a manner that is respectful, does not insult other members, and does not begin a flame-war.
Within a "highly-charged" thread, objectively citing data seems to generally meet this criteria.
Anything that is specifically intended to change a person's subjective opinion does not seem to meet this standard.
All of the highly charged threads that I recall have made this clear at the beginning - the moderators allow the discussion, until we don't.
Outside the highly-charged threads, no. There really shouldn't be a need to discuss politics, except as intersects with Vegas, math, or gambling. (Vegas and gambling, most likely. I can't see political revisions to math going well.)
I know you're looking for an "x is specifically allowed, y is specifically not" answer, but I don't think such an answer is available. This is considered on a case-by-case basis.
Personally, I enjoy betting on elections and wish we could have a thread on the topic that complied with forum rules. However, it didn't. I don't plan to re-open it until the general election, since neither primary is very competitive. I might add that in hundreds of posts since the thread was opened, as far as I know, it engendered only one small bet (the one between me and Soopoo on Georgia).
As to polls, that is allowed when the betting on elections thread is open. Objective statements of facts is more fuzzy. I would not look kindly on a post that stated 20 reasons for not betting on candidate B or T, even if they were statements of fact, because the political opinion of the poster would probably be pretty clear.
MBJ did a very good job of staying within the rules of that thread and his posts should serve as a good example of what is allowed.
That's indeed a very good definition. Though for threads about politics and highly charged topics, I think my proposed definition adds some clarity:Quote: WizardThe rule of thumb is that a post shouldn't betray the political opinion of the poster.
An expression of support for or opposition to/criticism of a political candidate, politician, party, or issue.
And that's only for political/controversial threads/topics. For other threads, I think the preference is that we don't bring up political issues at all, not just that we remain objective, right? That's why I proposed this definition for non-political/non-contentious threads:
Any mention of a political candidate, politician, party, or political issue, unless it's extremely germane to the topic being discussed, and even then it must not run afoul of the definition of political speech for political threads.
It's probably not in the budget, but if it is, it would be nice if posters who would otherwise cause a thread to get shut down could get barred from individual threads, in lieu of shutting down the whole thread for everyone (or conversely, if posters who showed they could stay within the rules could get whitelisted for posting in otherwise closed threads). After the presidential election betting thread was closed, the shockwave NYT/Sienna polls came out, and PredictIt (which was the lone holdout that had Biden ahead, and which Biden supporters used to justify Biden's supposed lead, ignoring all the other metrics) flipped for Trump. And I can't post those things to the closed thread.
Quote: WizardThe rule of thumb is that a post shouldn't betray the political opinion of the poster. I do agree that the forum rules should be clarified as to what is political speech.
The hard thing is the more you define them the more you keep needing to define them. IMHO we need more of a "Common Law" approach than a "Code Law" one. For those who do not know, Common Law is what we have as a basis in 49 states as well as the Constitution. It is the English system where you tell people their rights and let court decisions set the precedent. Perhaps a trio of mods discuss when there is a question with a defined appeal process if one mod gives a warning?
Code Law, OTOH, you try to define every last thing. To see the difference, look online for the (failed) European Constitution from IIRC the 1990s vs. the US Constitution.
A couple examples. Once here I mentioned a method Rush Limbaugh used to use to make a point. I forget the discussion and who but they said I "made it political because I mentioned Limbaugh." Would that be political just because a radio personality does a political show? If you limit that, who else do you limit? Any broadcaster who takes a position?
Or suppose we are talking about a casino once owned by Trump. Is that political? Is liking or disliking said casino taking a political position?
Should politics related to gaming be allowed? That is a big can of worms.
Then there are issues that are not political but are going to get very emotional on both sides. Two I can think of are both a matter of time. One a casino somewhere opens a pot lounge similar to a cigar lounge. Second, some show on the strip features a trans-female showgirl. That one will get half the place suspended no matter what the rule ends up being.
Thus, I suggest go KISS on the actual stated rules but set up an actual process. And when a ruling is made explain it openly and let the ruling be precedent. But like Plessy v Ferguson it can be later overturned if it is shown to be in error.
**********************************************************************************
Vivek Ramaswamy Says He’ll Fire Government Employees Based on Their Social Security Number
'If your SSN ends in an odd number, you’re fired,' said the 2024 GOP hopeful
"On Day 1, *instantly* fire 50% of federal bureaucrats," Ramaswamy posted on X. "Here’s how: if your SSN ends in an odd number, you’re fired."
Quote: ChumpChange'That's insane': CNN panel horrified after watching latest Trump interview
**********************************************************************************
Vivek Ramaswamy Says He’ll Fire Government Employees Based on Their Social Security Number
'If your SSN ends in an odd number, you’re fired,' said the 2024 GOP hopeful
"On Day 1, *instantly* fire 50% of federal bureaucrats," Ramaswamy posted on X. "Here’s how: if your SSN ends in an odd number, you’re fired."
link to original post
3 Day suspension for political speech.
Its amazing that this came in a thread where all of the preceding posts attempted to define political speech in both political election threads and in non-political threads. This thread is not about politics, per se, although illustrative examples of allowable or non-allowable speech should be allowable. However, the ChumpChange post above, reports news with an obvious viewpoint and that is not permitted.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe hard thing is the more you define them the more you keep needing to define them. IMHO we need more of a "Common Law" approach than a "Code Law" one. For those who do not know, Common Law is what we have as a basis in 49 states as well as the Constitution. It is the English system where you tell people their rights and let court decisions set the precedent. Perhaps a trio of mods discuss when there is a question with a defined appeal process if one mod gives a warning?
link to original post
I too favor keeping the rules simple and interpret them as we go. However, I'm open to some clarification. I prefer to keep any rephrasing of the rule to one or two sentences.
I also might add that I created an entire separate site for the purpose of discussion of topics not allowed here. Please have a look: diversitytomorrow.com. I've yet to make a penny from that site and spent thousands of dollars on it, so I don't have much guilt over making suspensions for political statements here.
Quote: gordonm888
Its amazing that this came in a thread where all of the preceding posts attempted to define political speech in both political election threads and in non-political threads.
Not amazed here. It is either a joke or an example of modern American society. By the later I mean we have too many people who just cannot keep politics out of anything.
It happens everywhere. But personally I think the post was a joke.
Quote: WizardQuote: AZDuffmanThe hard thing is the more you define them the more you keep needing to define them. IMHO we need more of a "Common Law" approach than a "Code Law" one. For those who do not know, Common Law is what we have as a basis in 49 states as well as the Constitution. It is the English system where you tell people their rights and let court decisions set the precedent. Perhaps a trio of mods discuss when there is a question with a defined appeal process if one mod gives a warning?
link to original post
I too favor keeping the rules simple and interpret them as we go. However, I'm open to some clarification. I prefer to keep any rephrasing of the rule to one or two sentences.
I also might add that I created an entire separate site for the purpose of discussion of topics not allowed here. Please have a look: diversitytomorrow.com. I've yet to make a penny from that site and spent thousands of dollars on it, so I don't have much guilt over making suspensions for political statements here.
link to original post
Quick idea before I go to work.
Politics in posts must have relevant and civil discussion.. IOW, no posts about something political quoting an article without proper commentary to back it up. For what not to do, see the posts at DT with just an article maybe one line mentioning say Trump supporters/haters.
Either allow it or ban it. Don't try splitting the baby in half. That rarely works well.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI agree with the decision to ban political speech on this forum. (Rule 19)
The problem is that "political speech" hasn't been defined, not even vaguely, so there are disagreements about what constitutes political speech.
link to original post
Why is it a problem? After a few calls on borderline pitches, you should begin to understand an umpire’s strike zone.
Quote: JimRockfordQuote: MichaelBluejayI agree with the decision to ban political speech on this forum. (Rule 19)
The problem is that "political speech" hasn't been defined, not even vaguely, so there are disagreements about what constitutes political speech.
link to original post
Why is it a problem? After a few calls on borderline pitches, you should begin to understand an umpire’s strike zone.
link to original post
When some people can't do whatever they want, when they want- it is a problem. They want to be able to do and say whatever they want, but cry whenever someone offends or disagrees with them.
Soopoo and I did agree on a wager on that thread also.
Quote: FinsRuleIt’s a shame the betting thread is closed. There is a lot of interesting things going on odds wise.
Soopoo and I did agree on a wager on that thread also.
link to original post
Which I of course don’t remember!!!!
A betting thread which has actually generated bets is being closed. Maybe we can have additional feline infestation threads started? You know, because that’s what WoV is for…
Quote: billryanEither members are adults or they aren't. If the owners want politics to be discussed, fine. If they don't want it , that's fine too. Making mealy-mouthed rules where some discussion might be allowed but other isn't is poor leadership.
Either allow it or ban it. Don't try splitting the baby in half. That rarely works well.
link to original post
I have to agree with Bill. Political speech should either be allowed 100% or banned 100%. Any attempt at interpretation is going to lead to inconsistency.
Quote: Deucekies
I have to agree with Bill. Political speech should either be allowed 100% or banned 100%. Any attempt at interpretation is going to lead to inconsistency.
link to original post
I'd vote for totally banning all aspects of politics, odds and betting included. If forum members want to wager on it, they can do it via PM.
The forum was starting to turn into a cesspool when it was 100% allowed.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
(b) "The Board of Trustees of KFF are all flaming liberals and so are the 'reporters.' Their agenda is to neutralize the right with their highly biased "polling." You know, kinda like your own personal agenda." (source)
It is quite flattering that you and Ace2 continue to use me as a reference. As Willie Nelson opines: "You are always on my mind."
tuttigym
Quote: billryanEither members are adults or they aren't. If the owners want politics to be discussed, fine. If they don't want it , that's fine too. Making mealy-mouthed rules where some discussion might be allowed but other isn't is poor leadership.
Either allow it or ban it. Don't try splitting the baby in half. That rarely works well.
link to original post
There is, unfortunately, some intrinsic overlap.
If a political (governmental) issue is directly relevant to Vegas, math, or gambling, it (and related discussion) would appear to be on-topic.
Politicking would simultaneously seem to be off-topic.
If it was easy, it would be solved already.
Enough's enough, tuttigym blocked. Should have done it years ago. He never has anything useful to say, but trolling pushes it over the line.Quote: tuttigymQuote: MichaelBluejay
(b) "The Board of Trustees of KFF are all flaming liberals and so are the 'reporters.' Their agenda is to neutralize the right with their highly biased "polling." You know, kinda like your own personal agenda." (source)
It is quite flattering that you and Ace2 continue to use me as a reference. As Willie Nelson opines: "You are always on my mind."
tuttigym
link to original post
BTW, tuttigym might have noticed that I didn't name him when I quoted his example, so as to not make it look like I was picking on any particular user, but he's the one who drew attention to it.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: FinsRuleIt’s a shame the betting thread is closed. There is a lot of interesting things going on odds wise.
Soopoo and I did agree on a wager on that thread also.
link to original post
Which I of course don’t remember!!!!
A betting thread which has actually generated bets is being closed. Maybe we can have additional feline infestation threads started? You know, because that’s what WoV is for…
link to original post
I can start a candle thread if you want, we can post pictures it will be great.
Can I say that I think trump will outpunt his coverage and his opponent will run up the score?``
Quote: rainmanQuote: SOOPOOQuote: FinsRuleIt’s a shame the betting thread is closed. There is a lot of interesting things going on odds wise.
Soopoo and I did agree on a wager on that thread also.
link to original post
Which I of course don’t remember!!!!
A betting thread which has actually generated bets is being closed. Maybe we can have additional feline infestation threads started? You know, because that’s what WoV is for…
link to original post
I can start a candle thread if you want, we can post pictures it will be great.
link to original post
I was wondering why there are no shots of litter boxes, but they are about as useful as math.
Quote: MichaelBluejayEnough's enough, tuttigym blocked. Should have done it years ago. He never has anything useful to say, but trolling pushes it over the line.Quote: tuttigymQuote: MichaelBluejay
(b) "The Board of Trustees of KFF are all flaming liberals and so are the 'reporters.' Their agenda is to neutralize the right with their highly biased "polling." You know, kinda like your own personal agenda." (source)
It is quite flattering that you and Ace2 continue to use me as a reference. As Willie Nelson opines: "You are always on my mind."
tuttigym
link to original post
BTW, tuttigym might have noticed that I didn't name him when I quoted his example, so as to not make it look like I was picking on any particular user, but he's the one who drew attention to it.
link to original post
Really? Did you not SOURSE the quote? AW too bad, I was looking forward to your next profundity. Well, of course, when you do post, I will be lurking and ready to always sign my posts which apparently causes teeth gnashing and hair pulling, but carry on.
tuttigym
Quote: WizardThe rule of thumb is that a post shouldn't betray the political opinion of the poster. I do agree that the forum rules should be clarified as to what is political speech.
I like this as a general guideline, as politics is a part of any discussion. The most innocuous sounding facts can actually be the most politically charged statements. Saying "Curacao is a country in the Caribbean", doesn't seem like to should be political and can certainly have a link to gambling. But what about saying "Tibet is a country in Asia"?
In Las Vegas talk about a car race becomes political with some strong views about the decision that politicians made to even allow the race to happen.
The most notorious topic in Las Vegas social media is tipping, with the discussion often based on different economic theories about who should control the means of production, which is about as central to politics as possible.
We do have a couple of good challenges: to reveal political ideologies without making political statements, or to make the strongest political statements without breaking the rules of don't talk about politics.
