Free Speech Coalition - who to vote for 2006 Board of Directors?

RawAlex · 2005-12-05, 11:10 AM

I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good.

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO).

It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it.

Alex

2005-12-05, 11:10 AM	#17
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good. By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO). It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it. Alex