Having been oh-so-politely invited via email by p.ie to resubmit my username/password for verification, I was presented with the following message:

"You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

So much for the so-called democrats on p.ie.

Well, we're always happy to have your fine posting here, Aragon and have missed it of late.

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

Kate P wrote:

Well, we're always happy to have your fine posting here, Aragon and have missed it of late.

Seconded. P.ie is well on the way to being twotone talking to joel. You would only be casting your pearls before swine over there.

Aragon you've been gone too long and welcome back. Why do you think you were banned? Were you banned before the facelift?

'Cochranocracy' - I like that word somehow.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Aragon you've been gone too long and welcome back. Why do you think you were banned? Were you banned before the facelift?

'Cochranocracy' - I like that word somehow.

It's not my own. Rolls off the tongue though, doesn't it?

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

Nor is it acceptable to act the shit and not expect there to be repercussions.

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

The appearance is certainly there of open political debate but it appears to be only an illusion. Bannings on political grounds and deletion of posts that are fair comment are regular complaints.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

The appearance is certainly there of open political debate but it appears to be only an illusion. Bannings on political grounds and deletion of posts that are fair comment are regular complaints.

I think Aesop wrote a fable about that...

cookiemonster wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

Nor is it acceptable to act the shit and not expect there to be repercussions.

All appearances to the contrary, Cochrane is still in place is he not.

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

Nor is it acceptable to act the shit and not expect there to be repercussions.

All appearances to the contrary, Cochrane is still in place is he not.

But you're not.

cookiemonster wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

It’s not acceptable to set up a site inviting political comment and then for the site owner to “ban” posters at his personal whim.

Nor is it acceptable to act the shit and not expect there to be repercussions.

All appearances to the contrary, Cochrane is still in place is he not.

But you're not.

True, are you telling me that you agree with him.

cookiemonster wrote:

Since when has p.ie claimed to be a democracy? It's a cochranocracy and always has been.

A new phrase in Irish politics perhaps? Thanks for the larff.

We could all bitch about another site. You've got to find the place where you feel most comfortable. Tbh, I was missing what I considered the cut and thrust of debate on pie before I was welcomed on the machine nation site. However, there was very little in the way of debate on pie, in retrospection, and more on slagging off the other poster's opinions. Concenus is never an option on many sites.

On MN I find that I have to stop and think a little before I reply or retort in order to keep within the spirit or ethos of the site. In other words, I am forced to think before I type, and sterotypical answers are not sufficient.

There is a saying in Monaghan: "have manners". This simple phrase is used when anyone gets out of line. Simple but understood by all participants in Monaghan. Go against the saying and you can lose friends very quickly.

I mightn't always live up the the saying but, god love me, I try, and usually row-back my "over-enthusiasm".

Sound stuff rockyracoon. btw - when I first saw the thread title I thought someone was having a go at the Stickies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/03/germany.australia

Catalpa i think started a discussion on on p.ie out of this article about an Australian revisionist historian - who denied, approved or or played down the killing of Jews during the Holocaust on the Internet between 2000 and 2004, being held in Britain on a European Arrest Warrant on the basis of his beliefs.

Quote :

A small group of supporters, including the controversial British historian, David Irving, attended today's hearing.

Outside the courtroom Irving, who was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust, said: "Either you have freedom of speech or you don't.
"Freedom of speech means the right to be wrong."

Asked if he agreed with Toben, he said: "I disapprove of some of his views but he has the right to express them. This case is about the right to say what you think and the right to be wrong."

Apart from when we set up the charter, where the context was a little different, we haven't discussed this much here.

I was speaking only yesterday to a family law solicitor who was complaining that when domestic cases become criminal and are heard in the District Court, the press has the right to publish the details. She feels this is unfair.
But this story here I think is a good example of where those cases deserve to be made public.

On the other hand, the likes of John Waters feel that there is no reason why family law cases should be heard in camera and that for the benefit of all concerned, they should be heard in public.

Having said that above, those court issues deal with the reportage of information rather than unsubstantiated opinion. Though even court reporting can be wildly different depending on the context - Indymedia court 'reports' are often staggeringly subjective, lack balance and are written as colour or opinion pieces unlike the traditional court report which has to be balanced and where the personal involvement of the reporter is not welcomed.

I've long ago come to accept that there is no such thing as 'the truth' but merely variations on it depending on where you are at the time. But what are the boundaries on free speech? There are moral decisions that we make all the time - speaking ill of the dead, giving legs to a rumour, censoring what we say in front of children. Do the words matter in themselves or is the context or indeed the repercussions which are important?

What is free speech?

Kate P wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/03/germany.australia

Catalpa i think started a discussion on on p.ie out of this article about an Australian revisionist historian - who denied, approved or or played down the killing of Jews during the Holocaust on the Internet between 2000 and 2004, being held in Britain on a European Arrest Warrant on the basis of his beliefs.

Quote :

A small group of supporters, including the controversial British historian, David Irving, attended today's hearing.

Outside the courtroom Irving, who was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust, said: "Either you have freedom of speech or you don't.
"Freedom of speech means the right to be wrong."

Asked if he agreed with Toben, he said: "I disapprove of some of his views but he has the right to express them. This case is about the right to say what you think and the right to be wrong."

Apart from when we set up the charter, where the context was a little different, we haven't discussed this much here.

I was speaking only yesterday to a family law solicitor who was complaining that when domestic cases become criminal and are heard in the District Court, the press has the right to publish the details. She feels this is unfair.
But this story here I think is a good example of where those cases deserve to be made public.

On the other hand, the likes of John Waters feel that there is no reason why family law cases should be heard in camera and that for the benefit of all concerned, they should be heard in public.

Having said that above, those court issues deal with the reportage of information rather than unsubstantiated opinion. Though even court reporting can be wildly different depending on the context - Indymedia court 'reports' are often staggeringly subjective, lack balance and are written as colour or opinion pieces unlike the traditional court report which has to be balanced and where the personal involvement of the reporter is not welcomed.

I've long ago come to accept that there is no such thing as 'the truth' but merely variations on it depending on where you are at the time. But what are the boundaries on free speech? There are moral decisions that we make all the time - speaking ill of the dead, giving legs to a rumour, censoring what we say in front of children. Do the words matter in themselves or is the context or indeed the repercussions which are important?

What is free speech?

That story in the Herald deserves a thread to itself Kate P. There are a lot of different issues in your post - there are big problems out of having family law law behind closed doors. There is no possibility of reference to previous cases so how can there be any consistency. There seems not to be any proper record or what happens in the cases. People wondering whether or not to take their problem to the courts can have no idea of what might happen. Then you get something like that poor boy being made to give evidence in open court in his father's trial - surely a video link would have done?

The holocaust denial issue is very different. German politics and law are a product of German history - holocaust denial law - the ban on referenda - "Berufsverbot" : the banning of Communist Party members from public service employment (does this still apply?) - I would like to hear from a German person on whether they think these laws are justifiable or whether they are "extraordinary measures" that aren't needed any more and if they were ever justified. They seem to me to all be limits on democracy.

When people talk about truth, they are generally talking about the validity of the relationship between the way something is told, and the objective reality that is being talked about. The reality is "steady state", it is the way it is described that varies. Limits on the telling of truth (I assume we are not talking about a right to tell lies, or distort) are social and political and come out of the power relations and concerns of the day. My view is that freedom of speech is fundamentally important to human rights.

Holocaust denial is not about the "right to be wrong" its about the right to deliberately lie. Whilst I feel that its anti-semitic, noxious and provocative I don't think jail is an appropriate means of dealing with it. On the principal of fighting fire with fire, imo telling the truth about history is the way to counteract the lies. And I'd add to that, that giving a public platform to people who spread racist lies is not a neutral act, its an act of support.

I've started another thread on family law and the press here.
so that discussion can continue there if posters are interested.

Thomas Aquinas said that "A judgement is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality" but even the external reality is not concrete, fixed.

Quote :

When people talk about truth, they are generally talking about the validity of the relationship between the way something is told, and the objective reality that is being talked about. The reality is "steady state", it is the way it is described that varies. Limits on the telling of truth (I assume we are not talking about a right to tell lies, or distort) are social and political and come out of the power relations and concerns of the day. My view is that freedom of speech is fundamentally important to human rights.

Your definition here combines two theories of truth - the correspondence theory as expressed by Aquinas and the constructivist - that truth is a social construct and limited, as you say, by the context of the day.

Under another theory, the consensus theory, Toben may be considered to be telling a truth because there is consensus among a group of people (he's not the only holocaust denier) that the Holocaust did not happen - even if that group is infinitessimally smaller than the group who agrees that it did happen. So if half a dozen people agree that an event occurred in a particular way, then does that equate to the 'steady state' of reality of which you speak. I think again of disputes in general where two groups may disagree about how something happened.

I agree with you that freedom of speech is fundamentally important to human rights and was most struck by that relatively recently in one of the Lisbon debates at Dublin Castle, where Dick Roche challenged Joe Noonan's right to have an opinion on the Treaty because he was not an elected representative. Needless to say, Joe reminded him that as a citizen in this society he is as entitled to propose his view as anyone else, but it just struck me how even on the most fundamental level, those in power abuse the principles of freedom of speech and attempt to deny people the right to exercise that right because it conflicts with what is another, more widely accepted truth. Indeed I wonder in the interpretation of something like the Treaty of Lisbon, where the 'steady state' of reality fits in.

Kate P wrote:

Thomas Aquinas said that "A judgement is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality" but even the external reality is not concrete, fixed.

I don't agree with Thomas Aquinas. There is no scientific basis for what he says. The idea of "external reality" is itself flawed. There is no separate and opposed "internal and external" reality. Thomas was himself part of the objective natural world. His thoughts were a partial reflection of reality. I don't agree that reality isn't concrete. The fact that it is constantly changing is a condition of its existence, it doesn't make it any less real, or any less concrete.

I remember hearing about a guy (true ) who was going to jump out of a plane without a parachute to prove that faith could overcome the concrete. The police took him into custody.

Quote :

Quote :

When people talk about truth, they are generally talking about the validity of the relationship between the way something is told, and the objective reality that is being talked about. The reality is "steady state", it is the way it is described that varies. Limits on the telling of truth (I assume we are not talking about a right to tell lies, or distort) are social and political and come out of the power relations and concerns of the day. My view is that freedom of speech is fundamentally important to human rights.

Your definition here combines two theories of truth - the correspondence theory as expressed by Aquinas and the constructivist - that truth is a social construct and limited, as you say, by the context of the day.

No I don't agree with Aquinas, neither did I say that truth is a social construct. Reality is not a social construct, is is objective, concrete and knowable. Our understanding and knowledge of it is limited and we are always striving for deeper and more accurate knowledge of it. In the context of this discussion on censorship and self censorship, I said that limits placed on telling the truth "are social and political and come out of the power relations and concerns of the day"

Quote :

Under another theory, the consensus theory, Toben may be considered to be telling a truth because there is consensus among a group of people (he's not the only holocaust denier) that the Holocaust did not happen - even if that group is infinitessimally smaller than the group who agrees that it did happen. So if half a dozen people agree that an event occurred in a particular way, then does that equate to the 'steady state' of reality of which you speak. I think again of disputes in general where two groups may disagree about how something happened

.

Would you think that theory has any credibility? This is no different to saying that the earth is/might be flat because there are flat-earthers. Do you not think there is an objective reality in which the earth is an approximately round object in space?

It comes down to the question: "Was there, or was there not, a mass murder of jewish people, gays, gypsies and communists by the Nazi regime?"

Quote :

I agree with you that freedom of speech is fundamentally important to human rights and was most struck by that relatively recently in one of the Lisbon debates at Dublin Castle, where Dick Roche challenged Joe Noonan's right to have an opinion on the Treaty because he was not an elected representative. Needless to say, Joe reminded him that as a citizen in this society he is as entitled to propose his view as anyone else, but it just struck me how even on the most fundamental level, those in power abuse the principles of freedom of speech and attempt to deny people the right to exercise that right because it conflicts with what is another, more widely accepted truth.

Good point on the citizen's freedom of speech. But the debate about Lisbon was not about truth/reality of the Treaty or otherwise, it was a political debate about who would and who would not benefit from the provisions of the Treaty.

Quote :

Indeed I wonder in the interpretation of something like the Treaty of Lisbon, where the 'steady state' of reality fits in.

Not sure what you mean by this last bit. The Treaty if adopted would be interpreted over time in practice and in the European Court and the Courts' interpretation would flesh out the Treaty.
By 'steady-state' I mean something that is objectively existing, irrespective of what peoples' thoughts and ideas about it are.

cactus flower wrote:

Sound stuff rockyracoon. btw - when I first saw the thread title I thought someone was having a go at the Stickies

To get back on topic, I'm not over into commenting on other fora, but the question was asked by the O.P. Politics.ie is a contradictory animal, because its main selling point is that it is an open forum for political discussion, but it is owned by someone who is politically partisan and who operates, as he is entitled to do, in an autocratic way.

We have a poster like Aragon, who we know is an honest and high quality left wing poster, and who doesn't troll, who has been banned from P.ie. Then there is someone who calls himself/herself Zyklon B - the gas used for the purpose of mass murder by the Nazis, who trolls, and who has posted about gassing jews, who doesn't get banned from the site. Persistently posts and posters who are critical of Libertas have been removed. But it is David Cochrane's prerogative to pick and choose members, and we all have the option of opting out if we want to (unless banned ).

David Cochrane will make his own judgement about alienating and banning posters. It would seem more likely that members of P.ie would accept his decisions if they were transparent and related to a consensus-based set of rules, but that is entirely a matter for himself to decide on. Perhaps some people like to be treated rough .

We know ourselves it isn't easy to get the balance right. We've had a lot of discussion on modding on this site in the first few months and in drawing up the Site Charter. No one has ever been banned, but a couple of people have left because they felt over-modded. Boards.ie has had the same issues. As the site has got more settled in, it has developed its own character and hopefully is overall constructive and reasonable and people respect that. Auditor #9 and EVM have had to slap me on the wrist a few times though *sorry*.

cactus flower wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Sound stuff rockyracoon. btw - when I first saw the thread title I thought someone was having a go at the Stickies

To get back on topic, I'm not over into commenting on other fora, but the question was asked by the O.P. Politics.ie is a contradictory animal, because its main selling point is that it is an open forum for political discussion, but it is owned by someone who is politically partisan and who operates, as he is entitled to do, in an autocratic way.

We have a poster like Aragon, who we know is an honest and high quality left wing poster, and who doesn't troll, who has been banned from P.ie. Then there is someone who calls himself/herself Zyklon B - the gas used for the purpose of mass murder by the Nazis, who trolls, and who has posted about gassing jews, who doesn't get banned from the site. Persistently posts and posters who are critical of Libertas have been removed. But it is David Cochrane's prerogative to pick and choose members, and we all have the option of opting out if we want to (unless banned ).

David Cochrane will make his own judgement about alienating and banning posters. It would seem more likely that members of P.ie would accept his decisions if they were transparent and related to a consensus-based set of rules, but that is entirely a matter for himself to decide on. Perhaps some people like to be treated rough .

We know ourselves it isn't easy to get the balance right. We've had a lot of discussion on modding on this site in the first few months and in drawing up the Site Charter. No one has ever been banned, but a couple of people have left because they felt over-modded. Boards.ie has had the same issues. As the site has got more settled in, it has developed its own character and hopefully is overall constructive and reasonable and people respect that. Auditor #9 and EVM have had to slap me on the wrist a few times though *sorry*.

I'm not a racist, but...

It's all very well to pontificate from the pulpit without knowing why and indeed if there was any reason for them being banned at all. It may just be a technical issue owing to the change of server and software but lets not let that stop us jumping to wild conclusions, eah?

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm not a racist, but...

It's all very well to pontificate from the pulpit without knowing why and indeed if there was any reason for them being banned at all. It may just be a technical issue owing to the change of server and software but lets not let that stop us jumping to wild conclusions, eah?

This was the opening post - perhaps we should ask for a screen print or some way of verification? I don't think a server error would kick up the below.

Aragon wrote:

Having been oh-so-politely invited via email by p.ie to resubmit my username/password for verification, I was presented with the following message:

"You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

So much for the so-called democrats on p.ie.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm not a racist, but...

It's all very well to pontificate from the pulpit without knowing why and indeed if there was any reason for them being banned at all. It may just be a technical issue owing to the change of server and software but lets not let that stop us jumping to wild conclusions, eah?

This was the opening post - perhaps we should ask for a screen print or some way of verification? I don't think a server error would kick up the below.

Aragon wrote:

Having been oh-so-politely invited via email by p.ie to resubmit my username/password for verification, I was presented with the following message:

"You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

So much for the so-called democrats on p.ie.

No I've checked and Solzhenizin there is one the banned list, but the ban date of everybody there is October 1st, it appears that all banned users had to be banned again when the new software was installed. But rather than emailing Dave and asking if this was the case, or indeed for an explaination we run off to another website and start with the name calling.

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm not a racist, but...

It's all very well to pontificate from the pulpit without knowing why and indeed if there was any reason for them being banned at all. It may just be a technical issue owing to the change of server and software but lets not let that stop us jumping to wild conclusions, eah?

This was the opening post - perhaps we should ask for a screen print or some way of verification? I don't think a server error would kick up the below.

Aragon wrote:

Having been oh-so-politely invited via email by p.ie to resubmit my username/password for verification, I was presented with the following message:

"You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

So much for the so-called democrats on p.ie.

No I've checked and Solzhenizin there is one the banned list, but the ban date of everybody there is October 1st, it appears that all banned users had to be banned again when the new software was installed. But rather than emailing Dave and asking if this was the case, or indeed for an explaination we run off to another website and start with the name calling.

Slightly longer explanation: everyone who'd ever had a p.ie account received the email, but those who were banned, for whatever reason, were still banned. The reason would have been whatever the original reason was, but that presumably didn't carry through into the new software. So anyone who had been previously banned would have received that message, and the coincidence of all their banning dates being the install date of the new software would make it look like a purge.

Bloody software eh.

Not a purge, more along the lines of the health check reminders the HSE occasionally issues to the dead.