in light of the big controversy that went on surrounding the referendum, I had a few questions...

when I post on MacInsiders, are there rules about what I can and cannot say? what about things about the MSU, are there things i'm not allowed to say about it? if i violate those rules (if they exist) how am i punished? and what about the MacInsiders team, what sort of rules do they have to follow?

Macinsiders has it's own terms of service, which says that moderators have the right to remove or edit posts that do not comply with those terms. The MSU does not administer these rules and does not intend to shut out "free speech."

Violating the Terms Of Use results in your post(s) being edited/deleted depending on the severity of the offense.

The only reason the 'free speech' thing came up during the past referendum was because of the rule that online campaigning was not allowed.

Hey Steven,

Here is a link to our Terms of Service if you're worried about violating rules. But I honestly don't think you ever would, you're too awesome

The general idea is to be polite and respectful. Common decency goes a long way. As you have seen, there is a lot of discussion on MacInsiders and not everyone always agrees with each other and that's fine so long as everyone expresses their views in a proper manner.

So if bias is their worry, why was my post asking if people had heard about this removed as being against the rules?

I believe that it was removed by macinsiders staff, not the EC.

I don't know what exactly your post was but the staff member was trying to be safe and avoid anything that might be considered as campaigning.

Well it was removed by MacInsiders staff at the request of an SRA member. How exactly is asking if anyone had heard about something campaigning?

I don't know.. lol and the SRA member wasn't me. You never know how someone's going to interpret something.

The only online notification that was originally allowed was the announcement posted on the EC's website.

Also, they might have wanted to just prevent any discussion that would have led to something that could have been campaigning.

Why doesn't the MSU apologize for its actions?

There was no campaigning occurring when the MSU decided to crack down on student discussion. There were only people on the Internet asking basic questions. Basic questions that the MSU was not willing to answer and that couldn't be answered by visiting the MSU website. (Maybe the MSU should update their SRA and EB minutes more than once a semester.)

This is exactly why Andrew Richardson must resign from the Elections Committee and why The Silhouette was forced to call for that resignation.

No individual member, especially an SRA member, on the Elections Committee should be allowed to go around threatening students for simple discussions that clearly fall under the purview of free speech.

This is exactly why no member of the Elections Committee is empowered to play police as an individual.

The MSU has forgotten its own rules in this regard and doesn't seem to mind the fact that it looks like a group of bullies due to the actions of a few members of its SRA.

According to MSU bylaws passed by the SRA governing elections, the Elections Committee can only act as a group, not as individual members.

So, did the SRA members who make up the majority of the Elections Committee authorize themselves to play thought police?

Instead of standing up and being concerned about free speech for its members, the MSU is instead interested in complaining about its members, The Silhouette, and defending the actions of its own.

Members of the SRA are elected to represent students, not to have their own bully pulpit.

Steven and Danny, I've had numerous posts requested to be deleted this year and last by the MSU.

You have to remember that macinsiders can be punished by the MSU and up until this point, not enough people realized how dictatorial the MSU was.

No that the disinfectant of light is shining upon the MSU, I doubt they will continue to be able to pressure this website.

Also, they might have wanted to just prevent any discussion that would have led to something that could have been campaigning.

By that line of argument:

I think the MSU should stop serving alcohol at Quarters by this logic. While most people drink responsibily, we have to prevent something that could led to public drunkeness.

Mind you there is a great distinction, one is illegal in Canada (public drunkeness - more violation of the peace these days) and the other is protected by the Charter (free speech) with the expection of the "Human Rights Commission."

Originally Posted by DannyV

So if bias is their worry, why was my post asking if people had heard about this removed as being against the rules?

At the time of your post, internet campaigning was not permitted. What you had posted was at that time considered breaking the rules of the campaign. Thus, your post was removed because although we do not fall under the MSU directly, we don't want to be breaking campaign rules...it sets the wrong example for students, and it would inadvertently end up as a fine after the election was completed.

Our aim at MacInsiders is to promote unbiased information about the school's politics when the need arises (for example our MSU Presidential coverage last year). If discussion is permitted online we allow it, but if it isn't we unfortunately have to take it down.

Hopefully that clears some things up!?

Originally Posted by fullsmash26

This is exactly why Andrew Richardson must resign from the Elections Committee and why The Silhouette was forced to call for that resignation.

THIS is exactly what I mean by disrespectful. You're directly attacking an individual on a public forum where that person may not have the chance to defend himself. That can be considered slander, not to mention just plain rude.

AND you're speaking on behalf of an entire newspaper, of which you are not the editor or manager, in fact you're not officially associated with the Sil period. This may be YOUR opinion but don't speak for the Sil, the people who work for the Sil have mouths of their own and can use them should they feel the need.

AND you're speaking on behalf of an entire newspaper, of which you are not the editor or manager, in fact you're not officially associated with the Sil period. This may be YOUR opinion but don't speak for the Sil, the people who work for the Sil have mouths of their own and can use them should they feel the need.

He was referring to an editorial from the Executive Editor who had stated that he felt Richardson should resign from the committee. But you're right about the fact that this is not the opinion of the entire newspaper.

Originally Posted by kokosas

THIS is exactly what I mean by disrespectful. You're directly attacking an individual on a public forum where that person may not have the chance to defend himself. That can be considered slander, not to mention just plain rude.

AND you're speaking on behalf of an entire newspaper, of which you are not the editor or manager, in fact you're not officially associated with the Sil period. This may be YOUR opinion but don't speak for the Sil, the people who work for the Sil have mouths of their own and can use them should they feel the need.

I'm not speaking on behalf of The Silhouette. You know that.

Also, this is not even close to slander. I know what slander is. I'm well trained as a journalist in these matters.

The Silhouette spoke for itself on its own editorial page. I merely noted the editorial position of the newspaper.

This is not disrespectful. The phrase you may be looking for is public debate and accountability.

In terms of it being rude, if the MSU wishes to consider itself worthy of respect as a governing body, it must accept that people can legitamity question its actions.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

But you're right about the fact that this is not the opinion of the entire newspaper.

The editorial is considered the position of a newspaper on matters of public importance.