Civility - what we should and shouldn't allow

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all,
We've just deleted a thread entitled:
"AM a bit pissed so this isnt gonna be worded as eloquently as one would wish, but Gordon Brown is a bit of a cock sucker so who the fuck are we gonna vote for?" on the grounds that some folk had complained, it's a personal attack and also we'd like to get him on for an online chat and we didn't think leaving it up would be helpful in that regard .

But it did get us thinking about what sort of guidelines (beyond posts which break the law) we should have as a rule, particularly with regard to folk who are in the public eye - celebs etc.

We've always shied away from deleting on the grounds of poor taste (who's taste and where do you draw the line?) and we certainly are not too fussed about swear words. But naturally there's a lot of comment on MN, much of it tongue in cheek for sure, that could be construed as as abusive towards famous folk - equally true is that it's an awful lot tamer than elsewhere on the net.

Mumsnet (as you know ) is pro freedom of speech as a rule and have no wish to censor or stop the conversation flowing. What's more our stated aim is to make parents' lives easier - and a bit of bit of a vent/laugh is often a useful thing but should we intervene more or is it a case of just reminding/ urging folk to be civil and treating each case on it's merit?

Should there be one rule for celebs and one rule for the rest? Had the Gordon Brown comment been made on the thread and not in the title of it, we might have been inclined to let it stand - but does that make any sense?

We'd be very grateful if you'd let us know your thoughts about where you think the lines should be drawn and what sort of level of intervention you'd like.
Ta very mucho,
MNHQ

[KathyMCMLXXII]

Hang on a minute, when we're talking about one rule for celebs and another for normal people we're talking about being kinder to the normal people, aren't we? Surely a 'Joe Bloggs of Wooster Garden City is a dick' comment would be deleted sooner anyway as things stand. Isn't the debate about whether or not it's ok to say things about celebs that we wouldn't say about people outside the public eye?

In which case, I suppose an issue would be where we draw the line between public and private people, particularly when they are or might be MNers?

[NormaStanleyfletcher]

I wouldn't have different rules for celebs and 'ordinary' people.

I can see there is a point for asking people not to swear on thread titles as you can't avoid them popping up into active convos constantly - but on the other hand then we would never have had this which I found hilarious

[Dimpled]

oh yes the cunting sainsburys thing was inspired - will leave mumsnet if it means threads like that aren't allowed.

[Enid]

look mumsnet is getting all big and corporate now

it will change as this happens

sad but true

cod and I will set up our won site dont worry

[UtterPigsty]

[Cappuccino]

will it have drunk people ranting on about Gordon Brown

looking forward to it

[UtterPigsty]

lol at our site

[Cappuccino]

no cod this means you can't have your shitty shite topic

I disallow it

[expatinscotland]

I agree with you, Enid.

Honestly, what is wrong with asking people to use consideration in thread titles?

Because 99% of the time, they already do.

Why do we need more rules?

[Enid]

yes it will have a SHITE section

and

RESCUE ME section

[expatinscotland]

And a 'support' (vom) section for Crocs wearers.

[glitterfairy]

I run a message board where users can turn off swear words or choose to see them it is up to them. If they turn them off they see a load of little stars instead that is all.It is a default setting on the board so if you want to see swear words you just turn it off and lo they appear.

I dont like censorship much but think if the above is not possible then why not just say no swearing in thread titles full stop. I object to one set of people getting a different set of rules from another.

[Housemum]

The problem with the watershed is probably the logistics behind it - would that mean the whole thread being deleted? I personally use MN more in the daytime as I spend half hour online in my "free" time whilst kids at school/pre-school. I'm sure a lot of others are the same - I quite like to laugh at the more risque posts in the cold sober light of day!

I think the idea of perhaps the "choicest" words being unacceptable for thread titles could be a good one - I am broad minded but it still takes me aback when I see the C word or a lot of swearing like the Gordon Brown one. Problem is you will end up with the words being mis-spelt so that they can be used - fcuk,cnut etc (obviously I am just referring to a clothes shop and a Danish king...)

[Enid]

yes I am selfish

about mumsnet

so what

we all are (hence this pointless discussion)

[NadineBaggott]

I'm with you lapin.

We had the hoo-ha about sensationalist news stories being upsetting - can't see the difference myself.

Although I do think Gordon Brown deserves every oath in the book throwing at him and please get him online so I can ask him how he perfected his Uriah Heep facial expressions and ask him to get therapy for his constant lip sucking.

[MerlinsBeard]

i don't think ther should be censorship along the lines of turning every swear word into fluffy (eg fluffy sainsburys, gordon brown is a fluffy fluff sucker)

Ijust think that generally alittle consideration (and not MNing when drunk ) would help

[Piffle]

if cock sucker had been replaced with arse licker would that have stood? [grin}

[Tigana]

oooh, the magic censorship setting on glitterfairy's board soudns like a good solution to me.

If swearing bothers you, or you have small children peering over your shoulder etc click and the rude words are gone.

If you aren't bothered by it/children are not peering, click and bask in the glory of unfettered profanity!

No, honestly, seems like a good solution to me. That way MNers get to chose how censored their personal internet viewing is. Like it.

[expatinscotland]

Because it's not necessary, lapin.

Because there's a report this post function already.

Because most users don't swear in the title.

[Housemum]

I meant as a guideline to thread titles - not automatic censorship, just when you post a polite request to consider your choice of title words carefully to avoid unnecessary offence (I'm all for necessary offence, of course...)

[Tigana]

get glitterfairy's magic button function ready THEN start a thread where we all get to nominate which words are rude enough to be censored by it!