[Bob Kuczewski]

I generally believe the Funston club is a good club. But they're being tempted into placing limits on their forum. There's a discussion taking place at:

http://flyfunston.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1130&p=2575

The following quote was from Dan Brown who really hit it out of the park. I hope he doesn't mind if I repost it here:

Dave wrote that pilots allowed to vote because of the 20 hour voting bylaw are those “people who have an actual stake in the site (they fly Funston) and are taking the time to run the club.” I agree. I wrote the bylaw and that is why I objected when USHPA’s Directors voted to prohibit us from having the bylaw. At that same meeting the Directors voted to impose a gag rule limiting speech because of “serious PR problems” and a bad public image caused by “detrimental” speech. USHPA defined “detrimental” as:
“1. Any correspondence in any public media which is
critical of USHPA’s programs and policies.
2. Any correspondence in any public media which is critical
of other Chapters.
3. Any Club policy which is detrimental or causes harm to
any USHPA program.”

USHPA’s attempt to limit free speech to improve its image and reputation predictably had the opposite effect damaging the image and reputation. The same will happen to Fellow Feathers. If pilots are denied a forum to present their views, they will go to the GGNRA or the Commissioner of Corporations.

Free speech by its nature is critical, detrimental, dangerous, undermining, harmful and creates a bad public image. Those running organizations from governments to hang gliding clubs always want to limit speech to “responsible” speech. The problem is who decides what is responsible. To compare small to large during the Viet Nam era, the Nixon and Johnson administrations attempted to limit speech claiming criticism they deemed not responsible aided the enemy.

Here limiting speech to voting members assumes that voting members are more responsible than non-voting members. Flying 20 hours or more at Funston does not increase intelligence.

All speech has limitations. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Patently offensive comments or comments not related to hang gliding do not belong on the site. Beyond that everything within reason should be permitted. Personal attacks are deplorable but usually do more harm to the person making them than to the intended victim. Steve was not harmed by recent personal attacks on him.

Limiting posting to voting members can be circumvented by voting members posting comments for non-voting members.

Prohibiting non-voting members from posting raises legal issues since their dues help pay for the site. It could jeopardize the voting bylaw and the non-profit corporate status. A valid argument could be made to limit posting to Club members, voting and non-voting, on the theory that they are the ones who pay for it but this is ungenerous and not in the spirit of a free and open internet.

We should be less concerned about public relations and more concerned about what we do at Funston. We should not imitate USHPA. It’s not words but deeds that count. Limiting speech will do more harm than the speech.

Excellent, excellent post Dan. Thanks.