If you owned a web site or magazine - and the KKK wanted to purchase a banner or advertisement - would you allow them to?

No. I turn away ad offers that don’t directly appeal to my audience – there’s no faster way to make people zone out. Never mind an ad placement for the KKK.

Ditto @richardhenry

I don’t think so. I wouldn’t want my site or magazine to be affiliated in anyway with a group who discriminates like them. On the other hand, they might end up lynching me. Eeeek.

Certainly. I love the Krazy Klown Kollege. That’s my alma mater.

Absolutely not. I also wouldn’t take ads from any religious or conservative groups

No.

Krazy Klown Kollege…Yes. Ku Klux Klan….No

No. And before the question ever came up, I would have a clearly written statement of policy regarding what kind of content I would consider acceptable.

Where do you draw the line? What if it was a church or a synagogue that wanted to invite people to mass, or a passover “seder?”

Nope. No KKK. No Nazi’s. No terrorists. No racists of any kind. Nope.

@KalWest Nope, no way.

@KalWest A mass or seder from a non-offensive church or synagogue, sure. An add from a militant group of any type? Nope.

I suppose it all depends on the kind of site it is and the kind of people you’re trying to attract, though.

@KalWest

I draw the line where I please- it’s my web site and I am allowed to judge what content I wish to have.

So no, no KKK for me- but no church invites either.

No, I wouldn’t. But one look at me and the good ol’ boys would definitely withdraw their offer. :D

What about: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

^What Jeruba said goes for me too^

@crisw I agree, if it’s my site/magazine or whatever, I draw the line where I please and in keeping with what I intend for the market/group/audience I choose to cater to

@KalWest
They have the right to say what they wish. They don’t have the right to say it on my website, any more than they have the right to spray paint it on my house.

@KalWest Defending free speech is entirely unrelated to having something you disagree with plastered on your creation.

@aprilsimnel
Same here lol. they sure would not let me into their club – which reminds me of a hilarious Dave Chappelle skit – but that’s not for here

@KalWest Yes I defend your right to say it. I even served in the military to defend that right, but you don’t have a right to say it on my website. This reminds me of the boy scouts controversy, I am against homophobia in any form, yet I believe the boy scouts as a private organization have a right to exclude homosexuals.

Fuck no.

@The_unconservative_one
“I believe the boy scouts as a private organization have a right to exclude homosexuals”
Until they accept public funding or use public services. At least here in San Diego, that was at the crux of the lawsuits- the Scouts were using a public park and public buildings.

@The_unconservative_one
Using that logic: Do you believe the boy scouts as a private organization have a right to exclude Jews?

@KalWest As distasteful as I find that thought, yes I do. If I decide to have a private organization which doesn’t take a single dime of government money, I can decide who I want in it.

@KalWest If the function solely as a private organization, I think they certainly do. I (as a Jew) don’t have to like it. The second that changes by using public property- even electricity tax payers pay for- they lose the freedom to discriminate.

@crisw That is the tipping point for me. If you use public resources then you don’t have that right. However if you are COMPLETELY private, your own land, your own money, your own everything, then okay.

@Likeradar Bingo!

@crisw BTW, I love San Diego, When I was in the Marines I used to spend a lot of time in San Ysidro

RichardHenry’s answer is the right one. No matter what you are publishing, you must know your audience, or the audience you wish to attract, and remain consistent with that vision. Your policy is directly related to your commitment to your audience.

You may not have to spell out “No racism,” etc. Depending on the type of publication, you may only have to say “We publish only material deemed by the editors to be of sufficient interest to our audience.” But you know what your yardstick is, and if a submission, whether paid or not, fails to measure up according to your yardstick, you decline to publish it.

The right of free speech does not obligate every publication to give space to your words. As long as I do nothing to prevent you from expressing or publishing your views, I am not interfering with your right to free speech. I do not owe it to you to publish them in my magazine.

Likewise, selectivity and appropriate discrimination are not censorship, nor is declining to publish something censorship. Every editor has the right and the obligation to serve his or her readership by exercising discretion in what is published. Censorship is the systematic suppression of content on moral or ideological grounds and does not describe an editor’s judicious application of selectivity to content or exercise of the right to edit material according to policy.

@Jeruba yuppers

no

@The_unconservative_one Should the Boy scouts have the right to deny blacks or Mexicans or Muslims or any other race? Private business aren’t allowed to not hire someone based on sexual orientation (or race and gender) the same should go for Boy Scouts

@aisyna Yes they do have that right. Businesses are a horse of a different color because they employ people. Employment has a defined set of rules. Membership in a private club is up to the club. Now, the boy scouts may NOT discriminate in who they employ in paid positions, but as far as members of the club, yes. Would it be right to force the Catholic church to allow atheists as priests? BTW, Muslim isn’t a race, it’s a religious distinction.

As much as it pains me to say, I’d have to agree that if the Boy Scouts (I’m assuming of America, can we qualify this regionally?) are funded themselves then by law they can exclude whomever they want.

This is very different from what I think is right or wrong but private property, organisation, and institutions should be allowed to conduct themselves within the constraints of the law within their own boundaries.

I took my (then) 8-year old son to a Boy Scout initiation meeting once. They had a special guest speaker, a Marine and Eagle Scout. He said, “The scouting way of life is under attack from liberals, atheists, and homosexuals” to raucous cheers.

I just about raised my hand and said, “Hey, I’m a gay atheist Democrat” but refrained. Mostly ‘cause I’m not gay but I didn’t want to embarrass my son either.

Kinda put me off getting involved with the group.

@PupnTaco Yeah, I used to think they were a good organization for young boys that was basically harmless. I now realize that it is basically a conservative training camp designed to make good little soldiers out of our sons.

Can Boy Scouts exclude girls?

@Jeruba I think they do. There is a girl scouts, but I don’t know if they are affiliated with each other.

There is a Girl Scouts of America. It’s a different organization, whether affiliated or not. The question is (and I don’t know the answer): are the Boy Scouts of America allowed to say “We admit only members who have penises.”?

If so, are they also allowed to say “We admit only members who have circumcised penises.” or ”...nonblack and nonbrown penises”? And then ”...who have penises but use them or think about using them only in certain ways.”?

And is a candidate’s claim to have a penis automatically accepted, or do candidates have to prove it? And if the latter is the case, what do we think about the inspectors of qualifying evidence?

Just asking.

@Jeruba

”...who have penises but use them or think about using them only in certain ways.”?
lol
I like

No, they’re all a bunch of hateful idiots. Period.