I'd also like to suggest that telling people what they should or shouldn't find offensive is a bit...irrelevant.

If the "gay sex is icky" comment didn't push any of your buttons, well, lucky you, you had a much better afternoon that day than the rest of us did. Ditto to anyone who wasn't offended by the Christianity rant.

The salient point is, other people were offended, and instead of backing down and saying "I didn't realize people would take it that way, sorry, didn't mean to offend," Zoe just got more and more obnoxious, on both occasions. It's a pattern of behavior that has repeatedly caused problems, and she's made no effort to change it.

It's a pattern of behavior that has repeatedly caused problems, and she's made no effort to change it.

Also? The fact that more than one person e-mailed her alerting her to this discussion -- in addition to the people who mentioned it in-thread -- and she neither responded to the e-mails nor joined this discussion tells me that she does not care about the community's response to her behavior.

So why are we so concerned with accomodating her when she doesn't care about us?

hugging 1st amendment to her chest.

Whoa. Not ALL speech is protected speech. Lets please remember that.

"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

Really, really honest-to-goodness leaving this time because (regrettably) building plans don't review themselves.

I don't understand the meaning of your post, Fay. Could you clarify or expand upon it?

Bwah! Well, I certainly had that coming. Sorry - I so haven't mastered brevity.

Smonster, I'm really sorry you're going. Hope to see you again soon.

I don't see much difference between me speculating that she has problems and others speculating that she is a vicious troll.

From my point of view, wrod. Also she did say she was on medication (just checked upthread), so it's not like it was a totally random deduction.

"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

smonster, I meant my statement to be a general statement w/r/t the First Amendment. It was not a reply to any specific cited incident.

A privately run BBS is not bound by the First Amendment.

I think that's what needs to be kept in mind, not "was that hate speech" or "is that harassment".

Anyhow, poster-in-question's in Scotland. Just sayin'.

"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

No, she means (EDIT: Okay, I mean) that this board is not constitutionally protected. Obviously, we encourage people to say all sorts of shit here and speak their minds, but you can't call down the first amendment.

A privately run BBS is not bound by the First Amendment.

Oh, well, crap. I didn't think of that.

t edit Dana, as much as I wish I meant what you said I meant, I didn't.

I have realised that I have been reading the CS (regardless of the words, this is just me projecting onto them) as saying "We want you to behave respectfully of us as individuals and as a community."

That is what I *try* to do, sometimes more successfully than not, but something I think is intrinsic to the success of the board.

No, not everyone is deserving of the same respect as individuals -- that's something that's earned and lost. But the community? Abso-freaking-lutely should command respect, otherwise you're souring it for the rest of us.

And that's when I get tense. When it's dogging the amorphous "y'all" that make up the Buffistas. That, I find offensive, above and beyond specific offensive statements.

Quantifiable? NSM. It's based mostly on a pattern of behaviour, but I don't think it's unreasonable to agitate for action when it's sensed.

smonster, I think the point Steph is trying to make -- well, I'm trying to, as well -- is that the 1st amendment abjures restriction of the freedom of speech only by Congress. We are not Congress; we are a private entity; so within reason, we can make whatever speech rules we like.

1st amendment is stretch a lot of the time to mean things it really sort of doesn't.