Re: [Ghm-discuss] The posh talk does not complain with the policy

[John Sullivan]

Luca Saiu <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2014-08-13 at 23:13, Niels Möller wrote:
>
>> Luca Saiu <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> If by mistake I offend a listener, I will apologize.
>>
>> Problem is, if you do that, and it happens to be the nth time the
>> listener is treated in a similar way, he/she won't tell you about it. So
>> you don't get a chance to apologize, you're just pretty unlikely to
>> communicate with that person any time soon.
>
> I guess you're correct: a person who is very easily offended won't be
> willing to communicate.
>
> The proposed solution is to let her disrupt any talk she disapproves by
> sending home the speaker at the second warning.  That would be wonderful
> for communication.
>
> (Remember that offense is subjective, and people can be touched by
> indirect clues "triggering" unpleasant thoughts, as described in the
> articles linked by Andy.)
>
>
> Speech police is not a solution.  We need to assume good faith.
>

I think what you are criticizing would indeed be objectionable but is
not the way such policies work. Any disputes will still be resolved by
the event organizers. The policy does not give any one attendee veto
over event proceedings. Such policies commit the event organizers to
taking such disputes and concerns seriously. They do not commit the
organizers to instantly throwing out anyone that someone else complains
about.

Yes, let's assume good faith -- including on the part of those who might
raise concerns or support such policies. 

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.