Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence or freedom to a platform. It also doesn’t mean freedom to respect harmful beliefs. The Staff has all the right in the world to ban people who are being openly hostile towards people, this is a private form and freedom of speech does not apply here, otherwise there wouldn’t be banned users. Transphobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. are all open hostility towards members and shouldn’t be tolerated.

Racism isn’t seen a debatable subject and the same should be extended to other harmful beliefs. Transphobia is harmful, it shouldn’t be debated.

No it shouldn't be up for debate and transphobia is hurtful and not acceptable. Also the fact we are telling the site staff this as two members of the trans community and our voices are not being heard or simply being ignored is also somewhat rather hurtful but there you go. I guess our feelings don't count.

This boils down to "you can't control what's in people's heads" - you can't, the government can't, not even God, if you believe in any divine entities, has that kind of power. Once you deploy the argument of force, which is what the government is, a big machine that aims guns at people, you've not only lost the debate, you've also reinforced all the prejudices you purported to fight. What are you going to do, put someone in a re-education camp until they think like you do? Give them a hefty fine, or long jail time because they said a no-no word? Congratulations - that person thought you were dangerous and you just showed them that they were right all along - that's what will go through their heads, not a sudden change of heart. The way to fight prejudice is through exposure, being an example of a decent human being, not by force feeding your views down people's throats. Everybody is "especially vulnerable", the cornerstone of a free country is equality under the law. Protected classes de facto go directly against that principle. On the flip side, you have freedom of association - you don't have to associate with bigots, you don't have to speak with them, you don't have to do business with them, you don't even have to acknowledge their existence. Use it. GBAtemp is a private entity and it fully utilises that freedom by picking and choosing what falls within the bounds of acceptable discourse. Those outside of those bounds are penalised or ejected. The same does not apply to the public square which belongs to everyone.

Foxi4 I will ask you as others are not answering this question. Why is Transphobia treated differently on the site to Racism. There should be no difference between the two in how they are dealt with but sadly they are as the trans community here keeps having to point out.

Maybe we have a different definition of what constitutes "disparaging remarks towards others about race, gender, origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation, personal politics and religion", which is the actual phrasing used in our terms of service. If another member wished harm upon you or treated you as somehow lesser, or used slurs against you, or harassed you based on your gender, I can assure you that those comments would be swiftly dealt with. I have not seen that happen as of yet. For the record, we actually do have transgender staff, and they don't seem to have any issues with how the site is being moderated.

Transphobic comments are not swiftly dealt with there has been numerous times where staff members have not deleted comments made and then I have had to contact Shaunj66 or pm certain staff members that actually care and then the comments have been deleted whilst other staff members have done nothing and in some instances posted in reply to the post that has been reported.

Everyone gauges things differently, we're not machines. Some of us are more lenient than others, "offensive content" is in the eyes of the beholder.

And there lies the problem you should all be singing off the same hymn sheet in regards rules so as there is a clear line as to what is and isn't acceptable.

Are the staff (assuming I count as one) not bringing up and contemplating points brought up by you? That surely speaks to being heard. Or is it "hear me, obey me" that you seek? Do individual viewpoints matter as much as adherence to an underlying notion? Plural of anecdote is not data and all.

I also struggle to define what transphobia might be, and so do many.
Fuck off and die might be fairly clear cut (assuming you can tie it to such a thing, not that you have a fondness for Pikmin that caused that).
Floating around the world though I see any number of edge cases.
I once more return to the sports question. Some say merely posing it counts. I can't get to that.
Some tell me not sleeping with is. Patently absurd as far as I am concerned, and otherwise equivalent situations allowed (we have oriental only dating applications, seems equivalent to me), but never the less it is a case some (some even "prominent in the community" if that matters at all -- personally I go with underlying logic as a far better thing) make.
Some find questioning behaviours vis a vis stats, outcomes, practices, medical techniques, and more itself questionable. The court case stuff that presumably kicked this thread off seemed like a reasonable court case in line with medical logic and legal logic, used otherwise all the time to great effect. Might be simplistic and might be revised as more information comes in (though wait for more studies is a viable path there for a lot). At the same time I can recognise the seeds of doubt tactic that some might employ. Curious one that one as determining intent is difficult at the best of times, internet text is anything but the best of times.
Querying medical definitions hits something of a sore spot as well for some. Biology is ever fun too, even more so as altering chromosomes and manufacturing organs appears to be within sight of science as we speak.
Speaking of medical stuff. Some low percentage was mentioned for detransitioning (itself a process fraught with difficulty and dubious outcomes). While I might query the relevance of it (as opposed to percentage that engage with medical services vs ultimate outcomes) that much risk is actually rather high for a lot of medical treatments, as in drugs have been yanked off the shelf and out of rotation. Might not your "opposition" (as much as they can be considered a unified monolith) just be those with lower risk tolerance?

Pronouns is ever a fun one. Easy enough to conform to for me but it could easily fall under compelled speech and that is a slippery slope I would rather not start down.

Do those that label themselves it get a pass for "hateful terms" not unlike seem to be afforded to rappers, comics and the like? Works well until someone claims it, and challenges of "prove it" (to say nothing of the gatekeeper issue) tend to end badly as such things justifiably get able to be asked in turn (possibly even with the gatekeeper issue -- I am because I am, living as, are hormones, under the knife, does the state recognise it or would a "nice"* state recognise it... all things polite conversation usually seeks to avoid). I will claim such a label/trait as well right now (any imagined, because there is none, dislike of the concept I have previously shown was purely internalised self hatred manifesting itself) and with it my pass if there is one.

*some would seek a medical certificate, others you might rock up and get it done just for asking and cost of printing. Which one is right?

For an interesting one. Some time ago I was watching the Linux kernel development. Someone floated the notion that "those that grew up with [insert minority card or card combo] might have grown up hard and thus can't face the same scrutiny". Generally code works or it doesn't but that would be a case of those advocating for special treatment. "especially vulnerable" does rather seem to be a pleading for special treatment and consideration, though again are not individuals more vulnerable still?

On racism then some have argued it is tolerated/allowed here. Had a nice long thread in the politics section in fairly recent times too. It also seems to be a rather fluid definition though, though I believe the phrase taboo was preferred in that discussion.

On respecting harmful beliefs, and perhaps cute turns of phrase. Where does "I may not agree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it" fall in this? "nobody has to defend popular speech" is another if we are collecting such things.

By similar token
"trans folk are the sex that they seek to be"
Would voicing disagreement with that statement be disallowed under your regime? A great many religions would take exception to such a statement, and if we are to consider "Islamophobia" as a thing then yeah that could be said to enforce it in the rules themselves. Now I would not make the argument (free speech and all that) but it would logically follow, and if you want to talk mental anguish I take it you have never seen someone question their religion. Though others might say "actually yeah this is bollocks, what were my parents thinking?" and go from there which does speak to the inherently hurtful thing.

"age of majority should be reached before irreversible treatment is undertaken"
Not usually a particularly contentious statement in most medical settings but it would seem some take exception to such a thing, indeed even accusing a nation state of being bigots on the basis of it (or using it as further evidence of such a position).

Never the less I shall ask.
What would be prohibited actions?
What of the considerations I left above. Are they verboten too? Going by previous conversations something of a hardline approach seems to be the one advocated for but benefit of the doubt and all that. I don't have answers to some of those so if you have some then I am all ears.
Can I square it with free speech, or if I am to depart from such high ideals then justify it on the basis of say harms avoided, boon to the site or whatever justifications might be accepted in such discussions.

Or at least the staff should listen when the two most respected members of a community (lol well Lilith certainly is) is telling you what is happening isn't right.

I disagree with the notion that every moderator should be singing the same tune, but what I disagree with more is repeatedly reporting the same posts, having those reports rejected (since reports are seen by all mods and discussed as needed, therefore they are resolved by means of team consensus) and instead of dealing with it, going through the extra trouble of talking to a "trusted mod" to have the content deleted anyway. This is something we may have to have a chat about in the staff section now that you've brought my attention to it - perhaps our voice would be more unified if you didn't undermine it by utilising improper channels.

Foxi4 Please do give an example of when I have repeatedly reported a post. Yes there has been an occasional or two when I have reported something twice but never any more than that. And Shaunj66 is well aware of the fact that I have what you just called trusted staff and he hasn't expressed a displeasure in this in our PMs about it.

I don't have to bring up specific examples - you just said you've done it on occasion. It's an example, not a rule. If you have a problem with a post, you report it so that all moderators can have a discussion about it, that's how an unbiased and democratic decision is reached. There are proper channels dedicated to resolving such disputes, the staff is not meant to operate outside of them, but once again, that's something for us to discuss as a team.

But then how do you know after I have contacted a staff member that they then haven't discussed it with other staff members before deleting said comment? You are just assuming that the staff member has taken it upon themselves to delete it.

It's not for public discussion regardless. I'm not assuming anything, I'm expressing concern over your apparent penchant to bypass the correct channels.

The correct channels were followed by a report and ignored when it was blatant transphobia. Thus the next day PMs were sent. I'm sorry you seem pissed off at this as was not the intention and as like I said Shaunj66 was aware of my actions in PMs we have had and he never said anything about me doing so. But I won't do it again and I will just be a good girl from now on

Once again sorry for upsetting you Foxi4

You didn't upset me. We have these systems in place specifically in order to reach balanced decisions - our team is exceedingly diverse and by hearing voices from all walks of life we've managed to create a community that welcomes everyone, within reason. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to abuse those systems to get your way - your way doesn't necessarily mean "right".

I would also appreciate if transphobia was dealt the same way as racism sadly it isn't but there you go.

freedom of speech in us means that the government cant have charges against you for saying bad stuff about it. go to iran and say the government sucks and you get killed. Freedom of speach does not mean you can just yell shooter in a movie theater.