Posts: 8,225
Threads: 431
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
> then why do you seem to be saying that it's OK for it not to
> be punishable if protected by anonymity?
IMHO, there may be rare and highly-specific cases where speech *might* be worthy of criminal punishment or civil damages. In those cases, anonymity would not be relevant to culpability. Thus, I did not mention anonymity in the passages that you cited.
Penetrating anonymous posts in order to prosecute those rare transgressions is an exercise for the courts. And in an ideal world, ONLY the courts would have the authority to penetrate the veil.
Posts: 22,243
Threads: 2,844
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
[quote MacMagus]> True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should
> either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
No. I don't agree.
I don't think that there's any form of speech that should be per se outlawed or moderated (censored).
There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.
Would you not agree that certain forms of hate speech should be limited? You can argue that nothing whatsoever should be limited, but then you aren't acknowledging the fact that certain forms of speech ARE actions, and should be treated (and punished) as such.
[quote MacMagus]There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.
But to ban or "moderate" all of the forms of speech that might be interpreted as criminal incitement or worthy of civil damages is repugnant to me and I believe that it is contrary to the needs of the citizenry both for civil society and representative government.
I never said to ban; I would say moderation is in order. I repeat: we do not generally allow anyone to say anything they like at any time. We are not, as a society, at that level of "free speech".
[quote MacMagus]More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that.
No, what I am saying is that one should be held accountable to one's actions. If one makes a hurtful opinion-- in particular, one which is either substantially untruthful and/or which cannot be easily refuted-- then one should be held accountable. Criminally accountable, if need be. The problem in this case is that the anonymity makes it extremely difficult for it to be refuted or proven untrue. That is to say, someone on one of these websites can use the veil of anonymity to get away with making substantially defamatory or untrue statements, without being held accountable.
Posts: 8,225
Threads: 431
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
> Would you not agree that certain forms of hate speech should be limited?
No. Not as a matter of law.
> You can argue that nothing whatsoever should be limited
I have not done so.
> The problem in this case is that the anonymity makes it
> extremely difficult for it to be refuted or proven untrue.
You call it a problem. I count every roadblock as a blessing.
Think DMCA takedowns.
http://mylaw.usc.edu/documents/512Rep/
The last people who should have power are those who think themselves righteous and needful of it.
Posts: 4,864
Threads: 581
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
1
[quote MacMagus]> Would you not agree that certain forms of hate speech should be limited?
No. Not as a matter of law. so you think the U.S. constitution should be changed?
> You can argue that nothing whatsoever should be limited
I have not done so.
Then what exactly is your argument?
Penetrating anonymous posts in order to prosecute those rare transgressions is an exercise for the courts. And in an ideal world, ONLY the courts would have the authority to penetrate the veil.
So, you wouldn't happen to be a law student, would you? Because you seem to be advcocating for a society in which we'd all need to meet weekly with our lawyers to file piles of suits to protect our reputations from idle anonymous potshots.
Posts: 8,225
Threads: 431
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote h'][quote MacMagus] Would you not agree that certain forms of hate speech should be limited?
No. Not as a matter of law. so you think the U.S. constitution should be changed?
The US Constitution does not impose limits on the speech of citizens. Rather, it limits the encroachments that the government can make upon speech.
> Then what exactly is your argument?
I've made several. The gist is that PeterB wants greater power for himself to speak and to censor than he'd grant to his students.
> you seem to be advcocating for a society in which we'd all need to meet
> weekly with our lawyers to file piles of suits to protect our reputations from
> idle anonymous potshots.
If you're so spiteful of every negative comment made about you that you'd feel the need to sue, the legal bills would surely be a token of cosmic justice.
Posts: 801
Threads: 77
Joined: Nov 2008
I am not sure that the Constitutional guarantee of free speech extends to anonymous (or pseudonymous) posts on a private and for-profit web-site.
Just as with this site, ratemyprofessors has a "terms of use" document which specifically excludes harassment and libelous remarks.
A site maintained by Viacom to convey advertising to college students isn't the same thing as the public square. The owners of the site will certainly maintain that they have the right to delete or modify content on the site without restriction, just as newspaper editors insist upon the right to modify, revise, retract, or withhold from publication, any submitted content -- be it an article or a letter from a reader.
It is interesting to see the "Professors Strike Back" videos on Ratemyprofessors.com -- but what would be more interesting would be to see a "Ratemystudents.com" website -- oh, wait, that's right -- I have the magic red pen. Which, of course, is what this comes down to.
In fact, I am pretty sure that my school would take a dim view of me appearing -- as a representative of my school -- in one of those rebuttal videos. I give my assessment of my students -- along the only dimension within my concerns -- at the end of every term. Anything more than that would be unprofessional.
I stand with PeterB, however, in thinking it is odd that "Doctor Oogle" allows doctors and dentists to opt out of the ratings. Since I cannot be certain that my ratemyprofessor ratings will only ever be used by students trying to decide between my class, and some other class (a dubious, but legitimate application), I would have liked the option not to have been rated at all.
Posts: 22,243
Threads: 2,844
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
My wife's on there. She's a chili pepper, which sounds about right.
I expected quality to pretty much equal ease, but it appears it doesn't even correlate that well. I found several profs in a couple pages that were high quality, but hard, which makes me suspect there is some validity. High quality, hard is what I would think most good students would look for. kj.
Posts: 18,006
Threads: 637
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
Hi everyone,
I've kept out of this particular discussion because I can totally understand Peter's point of view. But, something that seems to have forgotten is that we do not in fact have an absolute right to free speech and the government does in fact impose limits on it. For example, we as individuals do not have the right to yell fire and cause chaos in a crowded movie theater when there is no danger whatsoever to be found.
Yes, it could be as construed that we should be allowed to do so because of the constitution. Someone who does it could say, "Hey, I'm expressing myself. I yelled "Fire!" in an artistic manner and was taking an advantage of an opportunity to demonstrate my acting skills in front of an audience!" But, only an absolute moron would think he/she could get away with it. (Yes, it is a ridiculous example but it is as valid as it is inane).
Robert
Posts: 22,243
Threads: 2,844
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
[quote kj]My wife's on there. She's a chili pepper, which sounds about right.
I expected quality to pretty much equal ease, but it appears it doesn't even correlate that well. I found several profs in a couple pages that were high quality, but hard, which makes me suspect there is some validity. High quality, hard is what I would think most good students would look for. kj.
Wish that were true. For the better students, I think it definitely IS true. But I'd say that for many students nowadays, they just want the 'easy A'... I do notice a strong correlation there between ease and high ratings. This is also why, at least in my institution, I'm pretty sure the student eval ratings are compared against the grade distribution-- very high ratings means nothing, if the grade distribution is skewed towards the As.
|
