"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[Sirveri]

8. Jury results (I am #4)

At Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Slander, libel, intimidation, incitement...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1348107

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Really? Supporting free speech is supporting hate speech? It's over the line,

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:11 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Hard case; close to the line.

1) Initially it seems like a personalized attack on some one, but the OP it responds to is so brief that it's not really personal, per se. Thus it is not "hurtful".

2) The post makes a point, stridently, mockingly, aggressively, excessively. However many other posts are accepted on DU that are more extreme in those ways simply because they target right wingers or Republicans. Thus it is not "over-the-top".

2b) The use of obscenity in the last sentence is not necessary, but so much profanity is thoughtlessly used on DU that community standards are in the gutter in that regard.

3) The answer to this kind of speech in this post is not censorship but more speech.

4) The post is rude but given that the top is precisely free speech versus restraints on speech, it should be given a pass in this case.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well written post, thoughtful, discussing the actual argument - alerted on WHY? Oh, yes, a FREE SPEECH advocate getting his/her butt handed to them in an argument wants this FREE SPEECH hidden. Welcome to other people's opinions - who knew DU was full of them?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: The accusation that the thread starter hates Muslims, supports bigotry, hate speech, and dehumanization of others, is "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over-the-top". All five.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: So the alerter is in support of free speech and shows it by trying to get somebody elses free speech curtailed using the alert system?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If you believe in free speech, why are you trying to hide this post?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster said they do not support hate speech in the post. And hate speech is not protected by the Constitution. I'm protecting a valid argument.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.