I have tried not to reply to this, but there's some bits in here I don't think should go unchallenged, but I'll stick to the major points rather than replying to each comment. On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:15:33AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote: > > I'm offended at the use of the CoC as a political hammer. > As are many. Emailing lists off of debian infrastructure have been > created and those who enjoy certain ... freedoms of expression ... > have migrated, at least partly. That's fine. Those who do not share the project's values about what is or is not acceptable behaviour are free to set up their own lists, just as Debian is free to withdraw a platform to host their views. > On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote: > > On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> > > wrote: > >>On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no > >>> idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and > >>we > >>> ought to be open to that. > >> > >>> While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects > >>> people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they > >>> disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of > >>> bad behavior. > > One woman's opinion is another mans offensive speech. I'm sorry, but why did you have to bring gender into this? That's not relevant to the discussion. > This is the fundamental problem, not with the COC per se, but with the > doors it opens up, and why I believe so many spoke and voted against > it. By a vote of 228 against 53, this passed. I believe that to be a strong endorsement of the CoC. > > No matter how well or poorly he put his opinion, some people were > > going to have a case of butt hurt over it. > > > > Avoiding offence is a great goal, but sometimes (and I think this is one of > > those times), it isn't possible to avoid it without overly restraining free > > expression. In cases where free expression and avoiding offence are > > conflicting, free expression has to win out. > > Sad! Now you're already talking about valid restraining > of free expression. No, it's absolutely not. It's a fallacy that one forum's rules on what is acceptable is in any way a restriction of free expression. Free expression does /not/ mean you have a right to express any view in our forum. You are completely at liberty to do so in your own space, and I beleive that the conflation of these two concepts does a great deal of harm to the efforts to produce a civil discussion. Neil --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature