Chapter 9f
Moderation (and Censorship)
A prototype system for moderating discussion forums that protects freedom of speech


Freedom of speech is THE most basic tenet of Democracy. Without freedom of speech, Democracy simply cannot exist. Period. Exclamation point! There are NO policies that are more important in determining the quality of Democracy in the organization we imagine than its guarantee of effective freedom of speech to ALL its citizen-members.

Yet as mentioned on the welcome page to this blog, all social freedoms carry responsibilities in the manner in which they are used. We all know that the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowed theater” goes well beyond the bounds of freedom of speech, because it violates our social responsibilities to our fellow citizens.

We believe that one of the most crucial factors in the success of this project will be the system of ‘moderation’ that is devised and applied to the organization’s discussion forums. A democratic system of moderation must protect the freedom of speech of every citizen-member, even as it enforces the responsibilities of all to maintain civil behavior and mutual respect for one another's rights and common human dignity.

Any of us who have participated to any extent in interactive online communications know that there are few factors that degrade or enhance the quality and effectiveness of online discussion forums as much as their quality and degree of ‘moderation’. It should be obvious that in a group dedicated to democratic principles above all else, the nature of moderation applied will largely determine its success at being ‘democratic’ (or not).

Completely un-moderated online discussion groups are rarely successful, over time, in maintaining an atmosphere of constructive and civil discussion. Many of us are familiar with the complete lack of standards of civility that sometimes accompanies the relatively anonymous nature of online communications. Many completely un-moderated forums quickly descend into the mire of ‘wild west’ type verbal ‘shootouts’, with overt insults slung back and forth with vile cursing being commonplace.

As mentioned previously, in the Local Groups that comprise the 'trunk' of the organization we imagine, citizen-members will not be anonymous. In order to participate, in order to be granted the credentials to exercise the various rights and privileges of citizen-membership, a means must be devised for people to identify themselves as real persons, (not virtual identities). This alone, coupled with a ground floor democratic culture of behavior that the group will foment from the outset, and take vigorous measures to maintain, should go a long ways toward curtailing uncivil behavior.

But human passions are always involved in politics, and our passions often cause even the ‘best’ among us, even those of us most self-possessed of calm Reason, to sometimes cross the line into incivility. It is at those times, when human passion subverts our capacity for Reason, when moderation must be employed. When the self-discipline of the Group’s democratic culture breaks down under the weight of human passions, some means of ‘applied discipline’ must be available.

But human nature being what it is, the moderation that occurs in many discussion groups amounts to outright censorship, which is, as should be obvious, completely antithetical to Democracy. We believe that to succeed in providing the opportunity for creative and constructive discussion, while not descending into censorship, a well-defined system of moderation must be built into the organization’s structure, and it is organically natural that this will be a major function assigned to the organization’s Judicial Branch.

We believe that a major tenet of any moderation applied, to guard against its becoming censorship, is that it must be applied ‘after-the-fact’. Messages must post to the forums without being pre-screened, and only then, after they are posted, will inappropriate messages be ‘censured’, (rather than ‘censored’). The natural biases inherent in human nature will always cause ‘before-the-fact’ moderation, by which messages must be approved before they can post, to descend into censorship sooner or later, in the atmosphere of forums whose purpose is to facilitate the expression of political opinions, and the ironing out of political disagreements.

By allowing all messages to appear as written, with inappropriate messages, meaning those whose tone of incivility do not conform to established standards of behavior, being ‘censured’ (rather than censored) after-the-fact, (after they have appeared), the democratic sensibilities of the group’s citizen-membership will be brought to bear on the standards of censure being applied.

Before-the-fact moderation, (pre-screening), takes place out of sight of the group’s membership. Only the ‘moderator’, and those whose messages are prevented from appearing, are even aware that a message has been prevented from appearing.

After-the-fact censure is a ‘sunshine policy’. It takes place ‘in public’, out in the open, in the full light of day. Before-the-fact moderation (pre-screening) is prone to devolve into censorship because it takes place in the shadows, out of sight, with the general citizen-membership not even aware that an act of censorship has taken place. Without the oversight of the citizen-membership, it is MUCH harder to prevent moderators, no matter how fair-minded they might think they are, from enforcing their own personal biases in the decisions they make.

A Prototype Moderation System

Every Local Group will elect, or delegate the authority to elected officials to select, a given number of moderators. This number should be 3, 5, 7, or 9, or some other uneven number that is commensurate with the size of the Group. (It would obviously be unwieldy for a Local Group with only 15-25 members to have 9 moderators, whereas a very large group with 1000 members might elect to have 15, or 17, or any number that to them seems appropriate). The moderators should be people who are very active participants, who read most or all of the posts that appear on the discussion forum.

Whenever a post appears on the forum that any moderator considers to be a violation of the group’s standards of democratic behavior, she or he will issue a preliminary ‘censure’ of that message, which will be published to the forum. Software tools will be available to moderators to facilitate this function. Whenever a moderator issues a preliminary censure, the software will automatically send messages to alert all other moderators of the fact. They will then be required to issue their own judgment as to whether the tentatively censured message should be officially censured or not. They will simply cast a vote to issue an official censure or not, (and will have the option to write an opinion supporting their vote). If a majority the moderators votes in favor of the preliminary censure, an official censure will be issued.

Different degrees of censure might be provided for, ranging from a ‘slap on the wrist’ warning for straining the Group’s standards, (with more restrained penalties applied), to a ‘major’ censure that provides for removal of the offending message from the Group’s archives, (although a publicly accessible database should be maintained, for purposes of the organization’s ‘legal’ proceedings of appeal, of all messages removed), and immediate suspension of the citizen-member’s posting privileges.

A citizen-member whose message is censured by a majority vote of the moderators will have the right to appeal their decision up the line of authority of the organization’s Judicial Branch, (See Org Chart), first to the District Judicial Board, then to the State and National Judicial Boards, according to criteria that will be established to ascertain the merits of a ‘case’ as it is appealed to higher levels.

Just as higher appeals courts in the nation’s legal system can refuse to hear cases based on lack of merit, Judicial Boards above the District level might have the option to reject cases that seem ‘clear cut’ in a preliminary reading of the record of lower level appeals. Or perhaps review might be required to the State Judicial Board level, with only the National Judicial Board having the option to reject cases for lack of merit. Some means will likely need to be provided to prevent anyone bent on deliberate disruption from manipulating the system by bogging it down with deliberate violations and merit-less appeals.

The organization’s rules will provide codified penalties for the varying degrees of Official Censure, and if a citizen-member’s appeals are denied, (or if she or he declines to appeal), she or he will be immediately subject to whatever penalties the group has established for the degree of censure incurred.

For example, say the group might establish three degrees of censure, warning, minor, and major; penalties will be provided for each. Such rules might allow, for example, that a warning censure carries no further penalty, but a second warning censure within a set period of time, say one month, will cause a minor censure to be issued. Rules might stipulate that anyone who receives a minor censure will lose their posting privileges for a set number of days, (say one week), once their appeal has been exhausted, (or if they choose not to appeal). An alternate penalty might be having one’s allowable ppd (post per day) average reduced for a set period of time, (or some combination of both), with the severity of penalties increasing for multiple violations.

A citizen-member who receives multiple censures within a set period of time, for example, (say two censures in a one month period), would have their penalties accelerate accordingly. A citizen-member who continues to receive censures, and accumulates a set number in a set period of time, (say five in six months), could be subject to proceedings that lead to more serious consequences, even including possible expulsion from the organization in the most extreme cases.

Major censures, those involving egregious violations of standards, might be, as mentioned above, subject to immediate suspension of privileges, which would require an ‘injunction’ from the District Judicial Board to forestall during appeal. And penalties for major censures would be commensurate with their egregious nature.

Provisions could also be provided for automatic removal from office of moderators whose decisions are overturned on appeal an inordinate percentage of the time. Or measures could provide for the removal of moderators by order of Judicial Boards for egregious violations of the trust placed in them, (moderators who repeatedly issue censures that are consistently found to have no merit). Other provisions for recall or impeachment of moderators might be provided. (Corrupt moderators could potentially have considerable power to disrupt a Group, and provisions must be made to guard against this).

Much consideration will be required to design and create an effective but eminently just system of moderation, presided over by the Judicial Branch, that will protect the rights of citizen-members, but also guard the interests of the group from undue (and possibly deliberate) disruption.


Previous Page..........................................Table of Contents..........................................Next Page