(Thanks, I. :)

Reader I. sees it this way (and I'll respond, following):

***************************************************************************

Re: Reader, insult plus link to video: 'Kim Go....

Hobie, I take issue with the "insult" part. I sent this video to four of your agents, and, not one chose to post it...

***************************************************************************

(hobie here.) There are two things wrong with the "censorship team" idea. One is the notion that a bunch of us got together and made a conscious decision not to post certain topics and information. That never happened. Second is the idea that if we don't choose to post something, then it's being censored, as though one were to imagine RMN is here to act as a public bulletin board on which anyone's favored information has a right to be posted and the RMN Agents have obligation to do the work of posting it. That's not true, either.

The Agents are free to post whatever they find interesting and/or informative, 24 hours a day without any advance moderation, bringing to Readers' awareness whatever it is they choose to post. No Agent is required to provide a way to be contacted; no Agent is expected or obligated to post any email s/he might receive.

To choose not to post something is not the same as censoring it. All that's happening here, I'd suggest, is that several RMN Agents don't like or are wary of Kim Goguen's pronouncements. To oblige them to post that material anyway would be the sort of "compulsory speech" that Jordan Peterson spoke of when Canada was considering legislation to criminalize failure to use 'proper pronouns' as indicated by their students or others.

"If it's true everyone deserves to know or to decide for themselves" is a sentiment we might agree with, but there's nothing about it that obliges RMN to provide the opportunity for that to happen.

--hobie