The case for free speech when discussing Amanda Knox
I have been following this case for a while, and it must be said that there is a certain level of shaming and attempts to limit free speech on both sides of the debate, from people who think Amanda is guilty and people who think Amanda is innocent.
There have also been some excellent writers who have disappeared, lost for egregious use of bans.
Now, the rules of this subreddit are clear.
- Civility. Be excellent to each other. No unwarranted or egregious personal attacks. Criticize the idea, not the user.
I would the to discuss rule no1. Civility, is something that should be expected from all sides of the debate. Not just, people who think Amanda is innocent, or guilty, but those who set the rules and moderate over them too. No one should be exempt. The idea should be criticised, not the writer. The people who set the rules must hold themselves to the highest standards, or risk looking like hypocrites, unable to fairly moderate and keep a balanced discussion due to their own temperaments and biases.
- On topic. Keep discussion and links based around Amanda Knox.
Some of the fantastic writers of the past who we have lost through bans would write extensively about Amanda Knox and would keep the subject absolutely straight as an arrow on Knox. They were told to start speaking more about Mignini, or Guede, but they stayed true to the rules of the subreddit.
- No spam.
You cannot fault a writer who feels passionate to write about a subject every day. If someone feels intimidated by their ideas, well then write your own post. Make your own contribution. Don’t fault someone because they like to write and feel passionate about the case. Communities like this one exist because both sides of the argument are represented. Those who think Amanda is innocent, and those who think Amanda is guilty. They are part of the ecosystem. If you start culling one side due to biases, the community will die.
No one knows the truth about what Amanda did that night, other than Amanda, Raffaelle and Rudy. To assume otherwise is folly (Although the court rules she was at the house, by her own admission) it is strongly likely it is the truth.
”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, would serve well as a rule in this subreddit.
Or perhaps this quote by George Washington
"For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter... reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter."