The problem I have with
BADecker's post is the lack of proper references. If you claim the Supreme Court ruled something, at least add a link to the official ruling.
If you watched the video, you would see the video did
reference a specific ruling, although I don't think any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that the person in the video made.
That's exactly why I have a problem with the referencing: I'm not going to watch a video to find a PDF. It looks like the purpose of the post is to make people watch the video instead of read the actual ruling. That means he's trying to trick me, while he could have just made a topic about that video if that was the real purpose of the post.
The reference was at the beginning of the video. As is the case with most threads that are discussing a specific video or article, it is best to view the article and/or video prior to commenting on the thread, this is regardless of if any references are in the text of the thread.
I don't think these threads should be moved to Off Topic, as this sub is reserved for "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" and the response some of these threads are getting (or more specifically, the lack thereof), shows that many of these threads are not of interest to bitcoiners.
Off Topic is absolutely not "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" though, as the board description suggests it should be, but rather a dumping ground for anything and everything. The most popular threads in there at the moment include "Do you wear underwear?" and "How to get girls when you're not handsome?"
There is a lot of junk in Off Topic. If that sub was even moderately moderated requiring threads with actual discussion, it would probably cut down on a lot of spam forum-wide, as people have used that sub to rank up extensively (although I am not sure they do this anymore with the advent of the merit system).
I think the Off Topic section might be why many old-time forum users leave the forum, even if they had rarely posted in Off Topic during their tenure. For example, someone may have come to the forum because of their business, but no longer conduct business, or they came to the forum to discuss their mining equipment, but have no intention to mine anymore, they might stay to discuss interesting topics in Off Topic that are not necessarily directly related to bitcoin, but are interesting to many people who were at one point involved in bitcoin in some way.
But sure, if you want to argue for those threads to be deleted because they are low value or uninteresting, then I'm not going to argue against that. I just don't think we should be deleting threads - any threads - because we don't like the content. Free speech doesn't just mean protecting speech that you or I or any sane person would consider acceptable, which does not need protection in the first place; rather, speech which you or I or any sane person would consider unacceptable or even vile and disgusting is exactly the type of speech which needs protection.
There are multiple classifications of speech when deciding if it should be removed:
*Speech you disagree with: If this is your only issue with speech, it should absolutely not be removed. IMO, it is not even necessary to discuss potentially removing this type of speech, but this classification is needed to help establish a spectrum.
*Hate speech: Assuming said speech does not fit into any of the below categories (that involve speech that should be disallowed), it should be pretty clear cut that these types of threads/posts should not be removed. Again, it is needed to mention this classification to help establish a spectrum.
*The use of slurs or epithets: This is speech that should be protected, even though I do not like it when people engage in this type of speech. This is a very good example of when
more speech is a good solution. Again, I need to mention this classification to help establish a spectrum.
*Dehumanizing speech: Depending on the circumstances, this is where I might consider advocating for removing a thread/post, depending on the circumstances. Examples of this would include describing a group of people, based on some characteristic they cannot change, (such as their gender, skin color, nationality, or disability), or things like religion, and sexual orientation to an animal in a negative way, or describing them as otherwise less than human. One reason why it should be considered to remove some of this type of speech is that this type of speech will often lead to violence. If someone is describing the viewpoint of a third party unrelated to yourself, I think said speech should remain, as long as someone is not using this as a "loophole" to dehumanize others. If dehumanizing speech is part of a larger speech that is otherwise allowed to remain, I might frown upon the thread, but the entire thread should be allowed to remain.
*Speech advocating for, or calling for violence against a person or group of people, who are not active in a country's military, when said violence does not involve a state/government: In most cases, I think this should not be allowed. This is specifically excluding cases in which someone is discussing an unrelated 3rd party's viewpoint so long as they are not using this exception as a loophole. Another exception to this might be innocent people who are being used as human shields (in these types of cases, it is really the group that is using the human shields who are advocating for the violence against the innocent civilians, even if the violence is done by their adversary). Another exception to this would be speech describing what can reasonably be described as self-defense, for example, violence against someone who is actively swinging a baseball bat at you. Calling for actual violence against innocent people is not protected speech (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942, and others). This is probably not something that can be defined in a one-line rule.
*Speech that is objectively uninteresting: It is difficult to establish a standard as to what is "objectively uninteresting", however threads that meet this (yet to be established) standard, should be
removed limited (threads that are very uninteresting, or low value should be removed). I don't think it is appropriate for someone to be making dozens of threads in the span of a short period of time when the overwhelming majority of them receive no or very few replies. This is based on the principle that you should have the right to say things that I do not like, but at the same time, I do not have to listen to what you have to say. If you have a half-dozen threads on the first page with a total of zero replies, you are not only preventing other, more interesting threads from easily being viewed, but you are also giving the impression that a particular sub does not have many interesting threads, which may prevent someone from returning to that sub later.
*Threads that do not meet the description of the particular sub they are in: At a minimum, these threads should be moved out of their current sub. Depending on the moderation standards as to what is allowed to be in the Off Topic sub, these threads can be moved to either Off Topic or the trashcan. This is not a novel concept, and this is really just saying that existing forum rules should continue to be enforced. Earlier today, I reported a dozen or so threads, mostly started by B1tUnl0ck3r, currently in P&S for not being related to "politics", nor "current events" as is required per the current forum rules. So far, one (not one of B1tUnl0ck3r's) has been marked "bad" and the rest are unhandled.
*Other speech: this can be discussed, and rules can be formulated accordingly. SCOTUS 1st amendment rulings can be used as guiding principles.
