Six Canadians, who took part in a doomed conversation at the Expat Forum, started the Isaac Brock Society on December 12, 2011, in order to create a safe place to have a discussion about US expat tax issues and renunciation of citizenship. The Expat Forum considered renunciation an extreme measure and began to censor our user-created threads. Furthermore, they were impervious to arguments that there was a need to allow the discussion. Seeing this coming, I made contact with our committee members, suggesting that we create a new blog that would cover our issues and where we, not some disinterested party, would be in control of the parameters of the discussion. Thus, part of the DNA of the Isaac Brock Society is a distaste for censorship.
Over the course of the months, various critics have demanded that I shut down one aspect or another of our conversation . Always I could make the case that the videos, threads or comments were relevant and useful, even if they were objectionable. The committee’s five remaining members have always supported me, until now.
In the last few days, one notorious abuser of our open policy has provoked the ire of not a few. I’ve been in constant discussion over the last three days about the abuse of this policy by the commenter ConfederateH: he has continually ridiculed and mocked other commenters on this website. My view was that we should not worry about the reputation of the website, because we cannot be responsible for the opinion of an idiosyncratic commenter. Yet still, time after time the complaints came to me, and now the committee could not find any justification for retaining CH’s odious comments, and I found myself growing weary of defending what I too found offensive. Then CH showed utter disdain for the rules of decorum in all human society and told another commenter, who justifiably objected to his crass and offensive comments, to “fuck off”. Now, I don’t object out of hand to profanity and have used it in the past. But this is different. This was a direct attack at another and a flaunting of the good graces of the hospitality that the Isaac Brock Society had extended to CH. I am bitterly disappointed in his continually offensive comments, and I began reluctantly to take down certain comments.
Members of our committee and several other bloggers have sent me complaints about CH, in addition to numerous complaints in the comments themselves. I have tried to shrug it off with the following justification: (1) We have our Administrative Notice. No commenter, no matter how stupid or offensive, represents the “Isaac Brock Society” and so it is no reflexion on the website; (2) free speech requires allowing objectionable opinions; (3) CH is a genuine expat whose experience is informative to us; (4) many other much more famous forums and informational websites which allow comments have similarly stupid and offensive comments (see e.g., HuffPost, Zerohedge, Business Insider); (5) no one is forced to read CH’s comments or any comment for that matter.
Yet I must bow to the pressure of the nearly unanimous outrage. I do however grant that this man’s atrocious comments, intentionally mocking and insulting others, is unacceptable in human society. If it is a choice between his company and those who have complained, including members of the committee and several other friends I’ve made through this blog, then it is a not a hard choice at all.
Therefore, I have put CH in moderation. But I prefer not to continue with this aspect of the job. So I’ve asked one of the members of the committee, Pacifica, who has already been involved as an editor on this site, to become the Comments Editor and she has graciously accepted. From henceforth, I ask that any complaints about comments be sent to pacifica@ this domain name (i.e., isaacbrocksociety dot ca) . I will remain as administrator but it is my intention to be “hands off” when it comes to comment moderation. Pacifica has my full confidence, and she shares the concern of finding the right balance between open discussion and moderation.
Absolutely, Schubert. I often worry about “the other”. Her situation was much like mine in that she has a family member with a disability. She also has a non-US spouse, so a double whammy. I tried to put myself in her shoes and understand what would make her leave after being such a strong voice. I so hope she and her family are well and coping with this. I’d love to hear that’s the case.
@Petros
You make it sound like the “Original Six” in the NHL (Montreal, Toronto, Boston, New York, Detroit and Chicago – I think). Anyway, the “Original Six” of the Isaac Brock Society has grown into a mature league. The “moderation decision” is just a growing pain and evidence of the maturity it has reached.
I believe that the Isaac Brock Society is now the single most influential entity, accessible to the general public, (and read by others) discussing the #FATCA nightmare and tax issues for US persons abroad. Through the videos (and painstaking transcription of same) Isaac Brock played a major role in ensuring that the recent FATCA Forum will continue to be relevant, and shape the discussion, long after the day that it took place.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FATCAForum/videos?view=0&sort=da&flow=list
I notice that the comments on the December 31 McKenna article in the Globe are dominated by people who have clearly visited the blog of the Isaac Brock Society.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/12/30/new-article-by-barrie-mckenna-on-fatca/
So, you and others are making a difference.
On the first day of 2013, I would say also that I believe that 2013 is going to be a big big year for FATCA awareness and discussion. The Isaac Brock Society has a responsibility to continue to set the “Gold Standard” in discussion, awareness, advice and optimism!
You have done an absolutely fantastic job!
Happy New Year.
@calgary411 Although I am not a member of the comittee of 6, as an author who started participating at IBS not long after its foundation, I wrote a comittee member a few days ago expressing my wish that ConfederateH calm down. As I wrote above, I was tired of his posts not focusing on the issues and not proposing new ideas or angles on our issues. He was not worth my read anymore. And I didn’t want Ueli Maurer or his assistant to show up at Isaac Brock and see that CH (the abbreviation used for Switzerland by the Swiss) was being a pain to everybody. So, there you have it. The decision of the comittee was thus not unilateral but a response to several observations from people like me who finally said, “enough is enough”.
As far as I am concerned, CH can post anything productive but must refrain from unproductive comments slamming others here at IBS. Jokes that attack FATCA or poke fun at the whole situation are fine, as long as they don’t slam anybody in particular. Dirty words should be kept to a minimum and masked e.g. “F***ing FATCA” if somebody really wants to use them occasionally. If CH wants to discuss more contraversial things like conspiracy theories (I personally don’t believe the government’s story about anything and don’t believe any conspiracy theory either, I think the truth is something horribly in between, we are lied to about many things) I wouldn’t mind discussing them with him, just not here at IBS please. Create your own blog, it doesn’t cost anything but your time configuring it and writing posts there and say anything you want there, but tone it down here at IBS.
*Jefferson D. Tomas, I’m not bothered with fancy words, Switzerland is more relaxed with their usage and the US tends to go overboard on restricting them, making a big deal out of nothing, but otherwise I agree with you. Funny enough, when I was in the US military, it became difficult to not state a sentence without having a swear word in it! It’s all a matter of perception.
@SwissPinoy In Switzerland, the word “merde” is used alot, and while referring to scat, it is somehow not quite as vulgar as its cousins in other languages. Swiss people tend to mix French with the F word itself e.g.” j’en ai rien à foutre de ton f****ing père de merde, on va au disco”. One thing about US military practice that I actually like is the tendance to say “Can not, shall not, will not, do not” etc. Contractions can be missunderstood (e.g. “can’t” could be misconstrued as “can”— with disasterous results) but spelling it out is clear. “DO NOT LOOK DOWN THE BARREL OF YOUR WEAPON BEFORE ENSURING IT IS CLEAR OF ROUNDS”. As someone active with firearms here in Switzerland, I always avoid contractions when speaking to any unexperienced person whom I supervise shooting.
I don’t know which is more depressing: having to put up with someone’s occasional over-the-top rantings or witnessing Brockers vie for some kind of position in a Brock hierarchy 🙁
@Bubblebustin- your observation is an example of the poisonous and harmful consequences to our cause that can result from harboring and excusing behaviour by people like CH. It is really sad to see just how long this thread is getting to be.
I say that because this thread isn’t devoted to our real fight. It is a shame that it ever got this far.
Abusive behavior should not be tolerated, but what determines abuse? It’s important not to confuse malicious behavior with differences in style, subject matter, or direct challenges to other contributors opinions. What line has been crossed so that a rule can be applied consistently, otherwise it will be at the discretion of a few individuals who will be censored.
I am not sure what is meant by a Brock hierarchy or that people on this thread are vying for position within it. Clearly, I together with those who created this website (if I dare speak for them) have the intention of serving the public: Among other things to serve (1) Our country Canada to fight against the encroachment of the United States; (2) Others around the world who are in distress because of the extraterritorial tax reach of the United States. The committee (for want of a better or more accurate term) have been my advisers and friends in this process; and they have also served the website in various ways.
When people have commented or emailed me with their opinions about comment or post moderation, I’ve have always taken their views very seriously–it has been an enormous expenditure of my time to do this. I have taken views in consideration, and that was to maintain the no censorship policy. But in the case of CH, the desire to moderate certain comments was so strong, I felt that the wisest course of action was to accept the opinion of the majority in this case, especially because the committee had decided to draw the line. I could, being the administrator of the blog, have insisted on my way, as I have control over the software. But it has never been my intention to “own” the Isaac Brock Society, but rather to provide it as a service to others. So there is no hierarchy. There are only servants.
Petros et al — *
You made the right decision. In previous incarnations I have had the responsibility of editing the letters to the editor page, and the comment page on a couple of Canadian dailies. There’s a big difference between censoring ideas and censoring odious comments. There’s a big legal difference between the two as well. You won’t get sued (well, not successfully) as the publisher of an idea, but you might get sued as the publisher of a clearly libelous personal attack. And remember that the defense of “fair comment” is not black and white. You can get away with calling the prime minister a horse’s ass, but you can’t get away with saying that about an ordinary joe, and the line is not easy to define.
The internet has turned the world of defamation through libel or slander upside down — especially when it comes to determining a jurisdiction in which to launch a libel suit.
When the comments get personal, it’s time to cut them out.
DW
Canada, that hotbed of successful libel and slander suits – especially since the advent of the internet.
Petros,
Of course, I am in the camp complaining about CH’s posts, so I am quite OK with your decision. I did notice for a period that he had not posted and then got a bit worried about him (personally). I myself, have not been posting lately, but it is entirely related to workload.
The issue that I had with his posts is that it discouraged me from recommending the IBS site to fellow USPA’s. Aside from being downright offensive, his posts were off-topic and took away from the credibility of the IBS site.
If you’re a large news site, one can afford to ignore the odd kooky posting, but posts are concentrated to a small group on this site and CH was showing up on nearly every topic with a racial rant.
I am sorry that it has come to this, but am glad for it.
Silencing someone through censorship is akin to putting a bullet in them, one should at least fire a warning shot. Again, the need to clearly define and post for all readers the line not to cross within the seemingly tolerant stance Brock posts in its current Administrative Notice.
@bubblebustin- CH and Annoyed did receive many warning shots but they rather than listening to the warnings they each became even more abusive in their writings. We are grown people and not little children. If these two grown members of the human race could not have the moral discipline to know right from wrong then they have no one to blame but themselves.
The attempts by “annoyed” to hide his true identity made his transgressions even worse because that was a clear indication that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
I have no problems with an open forum but it is not an open forum if some are using it as their exclusive playground and just believe others must put up with them. That is pure selfishness.
If other people are sent away from the site because of rudeness by others then are those people not being censored?
*I agree with both bubblebustin and recalcitrantexpat on this. The rules must be defined so that the limits are known, while individuals must be protected from being censored through harassment. Once the rules are defined, then they must be strictly followed. As such, it is best to make the rules simple so that they are very clear and easy to enforce.
I’ve been banned from forums for responding to personal attacks after moderation inaction, for having a unique “discussion style” and for defending my arguments from moderator personal attacks! All of these forums eventually died due to a lack of participation, since the rules were not properly enforced (bigotry).
@recalcitrantexpat
maybe Brock should develop and post some house rules as other blogs have done.
@Swisspinoy
Lol, you posted that while I was composing my comment suggesting the same.
@bubblebustin- I can agree with that. Rules against personal attacks on other participants would be at the top of my list. I guess that we really shouldn’t be attacking even the government administrators that are doing harm to us. I would hope that we would see ourselves as being here in order to fight against an injustice as opposed to having the goal of pilloring people on our verbal stakes.
I would like it if our sight could show that we can advance our arugments without resorting to speech that assaults the character of others, no matter who they are. We aren’t in high school anymore, or at least we should behave as if we are.
People who come to our sight aren’t coming here because they are looking for someone to fight with. I am sure that most of us already have someone like that in our lives. What we come here for is to exchange ideas, information and to find comfort. We should all behave accordingly and make sure that all feel welcome.
@recalcitrantexpat
Thank you. IMO, the ‘house rules’ should be prefaced with a line or two about what the objectives of the blog are and what it would like to encourage among its participants. I found some house rules from another blog which could be used as a framework here: http://blogs.news.sky.com/about/house_rules.html
The bold are my own deviations/concerns:
“We want you, the users, to enjoy the discussion boards and blogs and make them a forum for intelligent and vigorous debate.
You must not post comments which:
Anyone who submits material which breaks these rules or our Terms and Conditions, or abuses the system, may be banned from contributing in the future, and could be reported to the authorities. If you have questions about this please e mail us atmessages@skynews.co.uk.”
It’s my opinion that contributors should receive a warning first.
Good comments bubblebustin.
Start with agreeing upon what the objectives of the site, and ensure that the rules meet the objectives, re evaluate and adjust regularly and as necessary.
Consider the needs for future users of the site (if growth and spreading the word is the objective) versus the needs of current users of the site. People that don’t like a site or product don’t complain, they just go away.
Focus upon quality (and quantity) of the head topic versus the objectives. (the comments have a lesser effect upon the audience than the head topic–comments need less Control).
Allow (encourage) random posts (chattish) on a Place designated for that. (while encouraging comments on the head topics to be applicable to that particular topic)
@bubblebustin, Recalcitrant, I am not in charge of the comment policy. As I said, I’ve handed over the job to another. So what follows is my opinion.
Public officials like Geithner, Schulman and Obama, are fair game regarding their obvious lack of character as they have started a regime of persecuting and oppressing innocent expats. There are no terms bad enough that we can employ for people who oppress others, especially if they do so with impunity because they represent the established authority. This is exactly the sort of censorship that I abhor, if you tell me for example that I can’t say that these men are evil for what they have done–especially since, having been told that what they are doing is evil, they persist without wavering from their persecution. In such cases, profanity is rhetorical flourish, and often necessary.
The one rule that this blog needs is that which guides all society. Never say anything to anyone that you wouldn’t be willing to say to their face if they were standing in the room. Anyone who is potty trained knows what those rules are. Having a list of rules in my view is therefore not necessary. Rules against libel are written in the law code of Canada. No libelous statement which comes to our attention will be permitted to stand. We are not going to put this blog in jeopardy of a lawsuit for defamation of character.
CH didn’t need a warning. He knew that he’d stepped out of bounds, and he knew that eventually folks here would reach the end of their tolerance for him. For your information, I have not heard that his all comments will be permanently or totally banned from the website. They are in moderation, which means a comments editor must determine first whether they are appropriate before allowing them on the blog. If he writes anything of value, that doesn’t include insults to others here or a far-fetched theory which the majority would consider part of the kook fringe (such as the incendiary suggestion that Sandy Hook incident was staged), then in all likelihood, that comment would be permitted.
Petros says: I am not in charge of the comment policy. As I said, I’ve handed over the job to another. And then proceeds to speculate about likelihoods of what majorities would find acceptable.
So isn’t everybody already happy at Brock that the majority of Homelanders (both the US and Canadian varieties) find the current treatment of US extraterritorials acceptable? Or do a lot of unhappy muddleminds just want to have it both ways?)
The “policy” so far seems to consist of ad-hoc-banning summarily directed at persons and not at comments. So much easier to deep-six a person than to deal with heterogeneity of perspective and multiplicity of words. (Sort of like concluding that ease of administration is the “principle” that justifies taxation on the basis of citizenship!) Those who are immersed in the US tax code and in FATCA regulations might draw on that profound experience to produce 100 or so pages of Brock regulations, which the “moderator” could then apply to each comment in a timely fashion, before offendable other eyes ever have opportunity to view it. Challenge to redaction of never-seen comment is not possible in such an opaque judgmental process. (Sort of like knowing that any news from the IRS has to be bad news, because the only good news is the uncertainty of not having [at least not yet] received the bad news.) But if some method of challenge were instituted, then Brock could additionally constitute a Supreme Court of Isaac that might even succeed in instilling retroactive angst in a person who thought their comment had passed and stood. (Sort of like the opposite of getting back that citizenship you didn’t think you had.)
The vigilante who shoots self in foot may find a lot of company among the posse, as all present huddle in descending chill to congratulate themselves on the now absent “others” who got disappeared without having to be tarred and feathered, lynched, or rode on a rail. There is nothing as frightening as a respectable mob who enjoys deciding what good taste is (behind the scenes gossip is always a useful preparatory tool for that effort) and who circularly congratulate one another on who is no longer present and what is not being said, with the expectation that more fine persons like themselves may possibly swell the ranks of the homogeneity, especially since the odious otherness has been expunged and the respectability and purity of the precious wampeter promulgated by the karass preserved – at least for the time being.
Oppression begets oppression.
@usxcanada- I think that you have a severe case of misapplication of analogy. No collection of human beings can ever be a Libertarian utopia. Rules are necessary because of who we are.
@usxcanada & all
I am not an intellectual who can come up with arguments at to why things should be this way or that way, and as a result, I tend to distill thing down to what I think are the essence of any issue, if only for my own sensibilities. As much as I feel that any person in charge of moderating comments would be a fair person, I would rather put up with or ignore comments I find offensive, off topic, and frankly insane, rather than defer to a ‘decider’ who determines content. Then again, I most often choose fight over flight, often to my own detriment.
I thought having rules would be a good compromise to either choice, or is that also too ‘oppressive’?
*Glad to hear that we’re now focussing on Our Problems (unfair treatment of citizens and green card holders outside the US, FBAR, FATCA and getting those CLNs) rather than Anything Else That Is or Might Be Wrong with the US of A. Heck, I may even stop lurking and come back into the fold.