On 27/09/2007, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon(a)uspto.gov> wrote:
Wow - one of my many, may points about the perils of
having a banning
tool in the first place - we end up endlessly arguing aver banning
rather than dealing with the content of the problem.
Banning is bad for ... do we need a list?
It always ends up with this:
Banning is bad for the person who bans.
"...more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative
peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the
presence of justice..." -- MLKJr
Mostly, I consider it highly rude to insult/attack someone
in a forum in which he or she cannot respond. There
are two ways to solve this - allow the person to respond,
or don't insult/attack the person (or, failing that, get rid of
the insults/attacks). Now, if you really want to ban someone,
I guess the first is out of the question. But if you are
censoring the person, defending the insults/attacks as free
speech is incredibly hypocritical, as is attacking the person
for daring to complain about the insults/attacks.
If not here, where?
Free speech is this way:
https://tor.eff.org