Oh yes. I had way too many years as a BBS sysop having to "explain" freedom of speech to users.
I suspect these jerks may also be afraid that SWFA may get around to exercising its "Freedom of the press" to tell them that they can't use the organization's resources to spread that sort of speech.
That was another concept that the BBS users tended to not get. That freedom of speech *doesn't* include the right to use somebody else's "press" to spread your ideas. That comes under freedom of the press, and pretty much amounts to "the owner gets to say what does and doesn't get printed".
In this case SFWA, by *not* shutting these guys down is de facto making the statement that the organization doesn't object to what they are saying. Which is very much not good for SWFA.
Whoever is in charge probably thinks that exercising editorial control (freedom of the press) would be violating the "freedom of speech" of the jerks. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If I say "you can't say that on my site" , then you are stuck. My site, my rules. You are completely free to try to find some other site that will let you say it.
And if nobody wants to, then you can start your *own* site.
Again, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to use other people's resources to spread your ideas. Nor does it include any right to make people listen. Expecting them to *agree* with you? It is to laugh.
And yes, people *do* get to talk back to you. Or about you. Unless it rises to the standard of libel or slander, you get to live with their responses as part of the *price* of freedom of speech. Because they get it too.
no subject
I suspect these jerks may also be afraid that SWFA may get around to exercising its "Freedom of the press" to tell them that they can't use the organization's resources to spread that sort of speech.
That was another concept that the BBS users tended to not get. That freedom of speech *doesn't* include the right to use somebody else's "press" to spread your ideas. That comes under freedom of the press, and pretty much amounts to "the owner gets to say what does and doesn't get printed".
In this case SFWA, by *not* shutting these guys down is de facto making the statement that the organization doesn't object to what they are saying. Which is very much not good for SWFA.
Whoever is in charge probably thinks that exercising editorial control (freedom of the press) would be violating the "freedom of speech" of the jerks. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If I say "you can't say that on my site" , then you are stuck. My site, my rules. You are completely free to try to find some other site that will let you say it.
And if nobody wants to, then you can start your *own* site.
Again, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to use other people's resources to spread your ideas. Nor does it include any right to make people listen. Expecting them to *agree* with you? It is to laugh.
And yes, people *do* get to talk back to you. Or about you. Unless it rises to the standard of libel or slander, you get to live with their responses as part of the *price* of freedom of speech. Because they get it too.