WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS TYPE OF 'MODERATION' IN A [POLITICAL] FORUM?

One obvious consequence is that ALL DEBATE on a particular issue [on such a forum, within that forum] can be 'guided'.

The debate is 'guided', to the point where only 'acceptable' views, will influence THE DIRECTION OF THE DEBATE.

In other words, what is ostensibly [to an outside observer] an open, online forum, for politial debate, becomes a *pseudo* forum for politial debate.



.



THE WHOLE POINT OF FREE AND OPEN DEBATE

What the ABC forum MODERATORS are effectively saying is,

"Your point of view is [pick one] untrue/offensive/too contentious. And i won't allow such views to be expressed here."

My argument to the MODERATORS is,
ABC forum MODERATORS may disagree with my opinions, and even say that my opinions are untrue or 'offensive' to some.

But if they feel that, then shouldn't they, or somebody else, be prepared to make that argument, IN THE FORUM, against any points i present?

If i do regard ISLAM as an 'offensive' philosophy, then in a 'free and open' forum, shouldn't i be permitted to express that point of view, and to demonstrate, why i hold that particular view about ISLAM?

And if the detractors [of certain comments i have made] have a legitimate complaint, then let them air it [IN THE FORUM], and have their complaint tested in debate!
.....FOR ALL TO SEE.

Shouldn't the ABC forum MODERATORS allow those people who frequent the ABC forum pages, to decide for themselves if my [or anyone elses] arguments have any merit [or not]?

If what i say is untrue, or ridiculous, that fact, will soon become apparent to everyone, when what i say, is exposed to the light of [widespread] scrutiny.



Open societies do not fear the opinions of fools.
....they rather, EXPOSE and laugh at folly!

In any free and open debate, if a 'position' is absurd, if an 'argument' is absurd,
...then the debater is [often] condemned to all, WITH HIS OWN WORDS.

And isn't the exposure of folly, and error, THE VERY FUNCTION, of free and open debate?

Free and open debate *is meant* to be a contest of ideas!
....where every folly is revealed.

And i would contend, that open debate is healthy, to all general freedoms in a society.

Whereas, lies are easily concealed in closed societies,
....*because* these closed societies are places where lies, and falsehood,
....ARE NEVER EXPOSED TO SCRUTINY, OR SPOKEN TRUTH.

I would also ask, isn't a very *legitimate* purpose of open debate, to reveal 'error', or to reveal positions held, which are unjust [towards third party's]???

I would contend here, that in any open society, the instruction of TRUTH [what TRUTH reveals to us], is *never* offensive.

Or it should not be held, to be so!

And i would contend that, in any open society, TRUTH the first defence of JUSTICE [in that society].

For the sake of free, and open debate, FREEDOM OF SPEECH must *mean*, the freedom to 'offend' [others who would 'gag' us].


CONSIDER.....

If 'the powers that be' determined to censor and gag debate in society, on the basis that material [information] which may be revealed, was confronting, or distasteful,
....then why do we as a society, feel the need to investigate and debate, issues like CHILD ABUSE and INCESTUAL RAPE???

And using the same logic, of those who claim they are being shamed, humiliated, or 'insulted', by the revelation of confronting or distasteful information,
.....shouldn't we as a society, then suppress the reporting, and debate, of CHILD ABUSE, and INCESTUAL RAPE within society????