Should the F word be starred out?

[bmck 117]

Alrighty troops.

 

I can't promise anything will follow from it, but let's have a discussion about whether the F word should be starred out. This isn't a discussion about whether the word is sectarian, but rather whether it should be starred out. I'm not sure what my own position on the whole thing is, but here's why it is starred out as I understand it:

 

1) In the prosecution of the Famine Song person, the F word was deemed to refer not to "the American brotherhood founded in the 1850s, but rather to persons of Irish ancestry or Roman Catholic faith" (see http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/54-8/1006871.aspx). The supporting evidence was the person saying Ef Tee Pee and The Famine Song itself.

 

2) If we're going to be - as we often are - laying into the sham of the anti-sectarian industry, we want to do so from a position that's beyond reproach - even if the reproach is bullshit. The point here is rather that we don't want to be seen to be sectarian. We are not sectarian, regardless of what people say, but our position goes against the 'wisdom' of politicians, the media etc and as such it is canny to ensure we cannot be accused of saying one thing about sectarianism while on the other hand tolerating it.

 

Now I understand fully that many could justifiably perceive this to be a weak case.

 

1) The chances of prosecution are infinitely small. So long as it's not accompanied by breach of the peace, and accompanying sentiments about the pope etc, it's doubtful whether the law could be applied.

 

2) In starring the word out, we're conceeding ground that should be contested - ie: whether such words really are sectarian.

 

3) Just because someone uses the word, doesn't mean they are necessarily using it in a sectarian way - so it's just overkill. It's arguably more sectarian in '****** bastard' than it is in a discussion of the movement with which it is associated, and this makes it just a blunt instrument made for saving moderating time.

 

4) It's just not a big deal .

 

Considering both sides, people can form their own conclusions and vote accordingly. I would say that while people are making their decision about whether it should be starred out or not they should remember that in the context of websites, they're not actually responsible for what they say - we are. As the owner of the domain registration and the supplier of the server it is Frankie and I who are named as being responsible, and the only reason we make the decision to blank out words or not allow links for feeds to be publically stated is that ultimately anything comes back to us - it's not a reflection of our own held views. We've had legal threats before - though none to do with sectarianism obviously - and it's a pain in the ass to deal with, and one I personally don't have time for.

 

Having thought about it myself I'm not sure it should be starred out at all. It just always has been. It could very well be that MF is right that it's tacitly accepting the bullshit stance of Murray we often spend so much time arguing against. On the other hand, it's a little rich to point to us as the cause of the problem while we're merely reacting to it. The word has, by everyone's account, been deemed to be associated in vague and unpredictable ways with sectarianism - I don't want to be labelled sectarian, or anything I'm legally responsible for, and while I'm happy for some widespread systematic response to this abuse of free speech, and would support it, the obligations on everyone - not us.

 

Anyway, look forward to your thoughts.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bmck

[rbr 1,247]

If we go down this route then surely we are just playing into their hands ...naw naw and thrice NAW

[Zappa 0]

I don't think starring the word out or any other word that could be deemed as derogatory, sectarian or racist etc stops posters from displaying their sentiments. With spelling tricks to get around the blocks people can post these words and sentiments anyway, so I think blocks that star them out are pointless.

[bmck 117]

If we go down this route then surely we are just playing into their hands ...naw naw and thrice NAW

 

You say 'we', but you're not really included, just us. You're anonymous. I ask honestly, would you turn round and chastise the real person next to you at a Rangers game for going quiet when the word came up in a song as playing into their hands or are you only as bold as this when it's easy? I don't know you, obviously, so I can't say.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bmck

[bmck 117]

I don't think starring the word out or any other word that could be deemed as derogatory, sectarian or racist etc stops posters from displaying their sentiments. With spelling tricks to get around the blocks people can post these words and sentiments anyway, so I think blocks that star them out are pointless.

 

This misses the point, though. It makes people have to bend the official position, or whatever, to do it - it makes them more responsible for their own words, and us less responsible for their words. Which seems to me perfectly fair and as it should be. If I want to say fen1an, I have the same option.

[rbr 1,247]

You say 'we', but you're not really included, just us. You're anonymous. I ask honestly, would you turn round and chastise the real person next to you at a Rangers game for going quiet when the word came up in a song as playing into their hands or are you only as bold as this when it's easy? I don't know you, obviously, so I can't say.

 

Sorry bmck I missed your point on this thread I thought you were talking about on here , what anyone sings or doesnt sing , your correct that is up to them , unless they are caling themselves a Hun which really pisses me off , and has led to many heated arguements .

 

At the end of the day whether it,s ****** , Fen1an or f****n at the end of the day everyone knows what it is , if however you are facing any action against you personally through this site through the words or actions of anyone else then that is entirely different , we are all responsible for our own actions however in Internet land that's entirely different and your call

Edited December 15, 2010 by rbr

[Zappa 0]

This misses the point, though. It makes people have to bend the official position, or whatever, to do it - it makes them more responsible for their own words, and us less responsible for their words. Which seems to me perfectly fair and as it should be. If I want to say fen1an, I have the same option.

 

The thing is though mate, I'm not so sure that you ARE responsible legally for people's words typed here. You might feel that you are, but I don't think you are legally. All posters on internet forums are essentially responsible for their own words, but I'd be very surprised if there's any legal precedence for a forum owner to be charged on the basis of posters making comments which could be deemed sectarian or racist because it can't possibly come under any of the legislation which is being used in court cases like the Walls one.

[bmck 117]

Sorry bmck I missed your point on this thread I thought you were talking about on here , what anyone sings or doesnt sing , your correct that is up to them , unless they are caling themselves a Hun which really pisses me off , and has led to many heated arguements

 

Cheers mate. To be 100% clear, my own view is that it's an abberation things have got to the stage where the word fen1an is legislated, and it's shameful, as a support, we've allowed it to happen to the extent we're willing to censor ourselves on a message board. I think some sort of collective, organised, smart and systematic approach has to be taken to redress this - but pointing at our decision to star out a word as if we're somehow responsible for this state, or guilty of perpetuating it, seems to me absurd. People wanting other people to do what they themselves, and we ourselves, should be doing effectively out in the real world if it's that important.

 

On the other hand though, the road to defiance starts with small steps, and it may be worthwhile to unstar the word even if just for that reason. This country's going in a very ugly direction but it's their highly politicised and motivated outlook versus our apathetic one that is the cause - the word's starred because they're winning, and it seems rich to ask us to buck a trend that people aren't willing to buck themselves out in the real world.

 

But I agree it's playing into their hands, but it's only because they hold the cards at the minute. Whether it's smart or cowardly for us to cover our back in this manner is for people to decide. but I think the old looking for the specks in others' eyes while you've got a plank in your own advice is pertinent here.

[rbr 1,247]

To be honest we dont have any real problem with any type of language on this site , or have I been missing something

[bmck 117]

The thing is though mate, I'm not so sure that you ARE responsible legally for people's words typed here. You might feel that you are, but I don't think you are legally. All posters on internet forums are essentially responsible for their own words, but I'd be very surprised if there's any legal precedence for a forum owner to be charged on the basis of posters making comments which could be deemed sectarian or racist because it can't possibly come under any of the legislation which is being used in court cases like the Walls one.

 

Website owners are potentially liable and have been prosecuted for unmoderated slander and copyright infringement in user generated content. Like I said, chances are infinitely small tho I wouldn't put it pass the tims in their crusade to give it a go. The main point's still point 2.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bmck