[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: moderation versus the first amendment
In article <4di8ko$fpv@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>1. The political articles, which will generate interest in
> 'aploitical' audiendce go to s.r.h. If that is the proposition
> what the hell is 'apolitical'. I do not think that ANY moderator
> should be made the authority on what constitutes 'apolitical'.
> Further, such article, (which are a mix of religion and
> politics) are already premitted in the present s.r.h.
i think at least *you* and *I* have different understanding of the
word *moderator*. a moderator will have *some* authority to decide
individual cases under the *guidence* of the charter of moderation.
if that is *not* the case there would be no need for human moderator.
a human moderator will have some element of discretion in performing
his duties, but works within the ambit of the charter.
As someone pointed out earlier: if one is looking for democracy and
*free* expression, then one should not look for a moderated group,
anyway.
G.Sree Ramana Gopal
