The Green Party of Utah and other state green parties have put forth a Proposal on list serve protocol. There is some controversy over whether or not it is acceptable to keep the original language preventing users from using profanity on the list. Some folks thinks that kind of rule limits free speech. Others feel that having such a rule will create a safe place for participants to discuss issues. I have created a poll to see what folks think:
-
I pledge allegiance to all life
in its interdependent diversity;
and to the Planet upon which it exists;
one World, under the sky, undividable
with harmony and balance for all. ~ Tom King, 2001, for Blue Sky Institute -
-
Me This is my personal website which contains links and information to all aspects about me.
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 
Here are what delegates from other states are saying (names deleted):
“I would prefer that that language be stricken from this list even if we do know the intent. Enough of our work is public and it reflects badly on us in the larger public.”
“I suggest the friendly amendment of removing the word “Obscenities” from point III, D. The rest of the language in that section covers the intent of the section. Obscenities COULD used abusively or they could be used for an entirely different effect.”
“….if we do not know the fine line between the political statements that we must make and the personal indulgence of venting and lashing out, then in order to maintain the intregity of this forum, making note that our purpose here is limited, we must rely on some basic ground rules that a majority of us can agree on to act as a buffer for us.”
“I object to the word “obscenities” being removed from the listserv proposal. I think that would encourage more abuse; leaving it open to interminable discussion about what is obscene and what isn’t.”
“….as far as I’m concerned, all words can have legitimate usages. I am opposed to the outright banning of any word, just for the sake of banning the word.
The difference, I believe, is that this proposal is meant to cut down on insults. If “cuss” words are used in an insulting way, then it’s an insult, which would be offensive. But, the same words could be used and not directed at an individual,. but meant for emotional effect.
I am absolutely opposed to the outright banning of specific words. It’s censorship, plain and simple!”
“Using appropriate language is a good habit to get into regardless of our right to say what we choose. We should be as civilized to each other as we would to opposition and friend in the halls of Congress were Greens serving there. Is it not apparent that use of colorful language is more likely to turn off those who we choose to persuade, each other on this list and the public in general. It is not really the words, truly, which are offensive on this list, it is the intent as some have stated, but that doesn’t mean that colorful language be the norm on what should be seen as a professional level discussion.”
“On occasion I may use such language among my intimates, in anger or in jest. But the people of the NC are not my intimates. And because I use such language rarely, in any setting, when I do, it matters.”
“We are the Green Party. We treat each other with respect.
Whatever disappointments we suffer at each others’ hands over policy disagreements, none of them equal the provocation or anger of the story I have just shared with you.” (regarding a personal story shared with list participants.)”We do not do this because someone “outside” might be looking over our shoulder. We do not do it because we are never disappointed in each
other– to the contrary, we often are. We do it because none of the Ten Key Values means squat unless it is based on our belief that human beings, just by being human, deserve respectful treatment. We do it because, as human beings, it is a betrayal of our own dignity to treat each other with trivialization and contempt.”
“Other question and thoughts: What is the difference between a policy that says you can’t use obscenities and a policy that says you cannot insult people? Both are limits on free speech. It seems that if people are willing to limit their speech to avoid insulting each other, they should be willing to refrain from using obscenities.”
“I don’t believe we should ban vulgarity as a means to cut down
insults, but instead as a way to help us communicate more
effectively both with each other and with the communities in which
we live. The fact is, most people are turned off by the use of such
harsh language, and if we are trying to reach the largest possible
audience, whether it be delegates on this list or with the community
at large, vulgarity is inappropriate, at least from a strategic
standpoint. I suppose that [some of you] are correct in asserting that the
banning of specific words does constitute censorship, but we must
ask ourselves which we value more – our personal freedom to say what
we when we want; or the chance to broaden our base and appeal to a
larger audience than we currently do.”
Normally I wouldn’t be so opposed to the use of obscenities on a list serve, but on the NC list serve, I trust so few people to actually treat others with respect that I’d like to see obscenities taken away just because it’s one less weapon people can use.
You’d think that people would want to create a list serve that would make members and new members feel welcome and where debate could occur without personal attack, but that doesn’t look like it’ll happen with the national party’s list serves any time soon.
“While I believe that those who want to impose civility on this list are well intentioned, I believe that rules proscribing objectionable behavior are bound to be abused, and stifling debate is the likely outcome. So I ask rhetorically as others have before, what is wrong with the DELETE key? It works, and if it works why fix it?”
“….there are many folks who have indicated a desire to develop some list protocol so they feel like they can participate without being ostricized.
….I know there are lots of delegates who do not comment because of the poor list behavior in many instances. I would not be surprised if many of those who **are** still subscribed and not participating are not responding because they **do** hit the delete key before ever even reading any of our posts. To me this is sad. In my opinion, our lists are not inviting. To tell people, in so many words, that they must have thick skin and just use the delete key, or just put up with poor behaviors, is not the way to go. Some of us may have that thick skin, but many do not or do not care to.
Isn’t having respect for diversity inherent in the Green Key Values? Is asking that sensitive people thicken their skin a good way to demonstrate a respect for diversity?
There are many things I do not respond to because I know that when I do, I will be the subject of comments not worth responding to. So why bother? It reminds me of the weekly peace vigil I have been participating in for over 4 years….holding a sign with a poignant message on it and having someone drive by with statements like “Get a job!” or “Go home you hippie!” Not very intelligent responses to these messages. I keep at it because the honks of support and thumbs up far outweigh the negative comments. I cannot say the same (more positive versus negative) for our NC lists.
So how do we attract to and keep people on our lists? Most people appreciate structure so that they have a safety net in which they can express themselves without being the subject of degrading comments. There are those of us who resist structure and have a hard time with it. But if we are to be inviting and inclusive, I feel we must listen to those who are fed up with the current system of protocol (of which there is none) and develop guidelines everyone can live with, in the spirit of compromise and respect for all phiolosophies.”