Illegal or bannable posts in the Politics subforum?

A few days ago, there were several people participating in that discussion about the role of KC in America, though it hasn't been more than about a week. Some were reported yesterday and banned shortly after—though they weren't actually removed from the thread itself—but now, here we are again this morning.

On a different note, regarding similar topics—there are certain types of posts where publishing such content could actually lead to legal action against whoever shares it or even keeps it posted.

Just a completely random post, totally off-topic and unrelated to anything else.

In America—well, at least under the laws governing it across all fifty states—all of that falls squarely under the category of "public insult."

"Is there anything more undignified than public insults? It seems we have lost all sense of decorum. Based on where they come from. Is faith a matter of conviction, or simply a habit of tradition? Affiliation, race, or ethnicity.". The offenses carried a maximum sentence of six months in jail. If prosecutors elect to seek prison sentences for offenders...

If you ask me, this isn't just some nonsense; it’s actually strictly legal. I am currently filing a lawsuit. Regarding the material at hand—since the aforementioned "public insult" is driven by hate or intolerance—is the maximum penalty limited to six months in jail? Or would one instead pursue a formal apology and monetary damages for such offenses? (Plus, there is always the matter of that individual being fired from their position.)

Like I mentioned earlier, I reported that this morning. I also flagged two posts yesterday regarding the role of KC in America over on the Politics and Sol On forum, and they’re still up—even though one hasn't even been moderated yet.

Beyond just complaining about the "forum rules," shouldn't we be addressing the fundamental necessity for a certain level of civility in discussions over on Politics and such? One could easily argue for legal recourse here—perhaps seeking monetary damages for public insults or demanding a formal public apology.

If things keep going this way, I wouldn't even be surprised if someone actually decided to take action... or perhaps even pursue a lawsuit to shut the provider down entirely.

Susan Price30 said:And honestly, regardless of the forum rules, you could probably sue over this stuff too. You could go after them for damages because of those public insults or demand a public apology... something like that.

Yeah, you can sue civilly. If you actually know who wrote it, you can take them to court. Maybe try to get a subpoena to unmask them, if that even works. Otherwise, it's all just a wild goose chase...☕

Religion occupies quite a gray area when you consider the tension between free speech and hate speech.

Generally speaking, any critique aimed at religion itself—as an ideology—or its institutions and leadership is permitted, though I suppose there should still be a baseline level of decency maintained.

If the rhetoric shifts toward directly attacking a specific group because of their faith, then the legal consequences tend to be much more severe.

northernsailor8 said:Religion occupies a bit of a gray area when you look at the conflict between free speech and hate speech.

Generally speaking, any critique directed at religion itself (ideologically), its structures, or its leadership is permitted, provided one maintains a basic level of decency.

However, if it shifts into direct insults against a group because of their faith, then the penalties become much stricter.

But, public insult (fueled by hatred or intolerance, since that's what the laws clearly state) isn't a gray area; wherever you look, the law specifies exactly what "public insult" covers and how it applies.

(And it doesn't just apply to minorities, by the way. 🙂What kind of "free speech" are we even talking about here? As a moderator, isn't your job—according to the policy PDF, specifically—to maintain a civil discussion, regardless of the legalities or statutes for a moment?

So, we are discussing even the acceptable level that allows someone to engage in any debate at all...

I had previously flagged the controversial post, but after a quick consultation, I’ve decided to lift that restriction and expand the scope slightly.
Generally speaking, there shouldn't be any sacred cows; everything is fair game for scrutiny. However, one must recognize that there is a profound distinction between legitimate critique and mere crude, vulgar insults.

William Bennett53 said:The controversial post had already been archived, but after a quick consultation, I pulled it back and expanded the scope slightly.
Ultimately, there shouldn't be any untouchable topics, and everything is fair game for criticism—but there is a massive difference between offering critique and resorting to crude, vulgar insults.

Exactly that. I agree—constructive feedback is welcome, whereas random outbursts fueled by pure intolerance toward any group of people are something else entirely.

So, I suppose the moderator's job is to judge when we're dealing with religious or nationalistic intolerance versus just someone playing around with a topic because they think they can get away with it.

Those kinds of posts used to vanish in a heartbeat, 😁 often before the user could even finish typing them, especially if one of the more experienced mods like edge or Cuka caught wind of it.

Plus, on the Politics board, you have to account for how incredibly sensitive people get regarding certain issues, like religion or heritage—which is why we have specific community guidelines in place to begin with.

The controversial post had already been archived, but after a quick consultation, I pulled it back and expanded the scope slightly.

Thanks, Dorian, for being so responsive and willing to adjust.