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

[Swizzler]

Think 'civility' is the important word here - wouldn't hurt to suggest that posters use their common sense when posting potentially offensive content. Think people can get carried away sometimes. Don't like the idea of censorship, but spelling out some guidelines along the lines of 'no personal attacks' would be a good idea at the moment.

Surely we can have free, witty and informed discussions without being offensive?

[Astrophe]

I like the idea of a setting where each MNer could choose to see or not to see swear words, and also a request for no swearing in titles.

[Sackache]

Oh jeeeeez! Having to mind my p's and q's on MN???

WTF?

No thanks!

I swear..... in RL, allllll the time. Even in meetings with senior managers. I'm not going to tone it down.

Bar me.

[expatinscotland]

I say 'He/she can get to fuck' a lot.

I like that term. Get/go to fuck.

I also like, 'Would I fuck?'

[JustineMumsnet]

Dear all - thanks for taking the trouble to post and apologies for our delayed response - we've been up to our necks here at Mumsnet Towers.

First of all let me reassure you we are not talking one rule for celebs here and another for Mumsnetters. We don't allow personal attacks on members and that's not changing.

Also we weren't really thinking about a no swearing policy - think that would be unenforceable even if we were inclined to impose it, which we are not.

On balance it seems most favour a common sense rather than an over-interventionist approach and tbh so do we. Do of course report anything though that you think breaks our abuse policy.

Thanks again for your thoughts


MN Towers

[WideWebWitch]

I think you're right Justine, get rid of anything obviously outrageous using your usual moral compass and it'll be ok.

I'd hate to be stopped from swearing and I was one of the ones that found the cnting sainsbos thread title funny.

[WideWebWitch]

Oh and I think mn self polices very well wrt offensive thread titles.

[QuitYourJibberJabber]

WelshBoris did you REALLY? LOL!