[diversity] "Free speech" in the RIPE Code of Conduct

Hi -
I was involved with creating the first version of the Code of Conduct!
 We did not have an expert help us -- if I remember correctly, we read
a number of CoC's of organizations and conferences, tried to write
down some of the things we love about the RIPE community, to show what
we want to encourage (Free speech and diversity of views was really
meant in the most positive of ways!  We didn't want to discourage
people from having frank discussions on IPv4 allocation strategies,
for example). We then wanted to clarify what was definitely NOT okay.

So, this may be that best intentions had unintended consequences :(

Leslie

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:22 AM Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out and for sharing your concerns about the
> current wording.
>
> I just looked back through the various versions on the website, and as
> far as I can tell, this sentence has been in there from the beginning
> (in 2016).
>
> However, this is definitely something we can discuss in the Diversity
> Task Force. We're planning to have our next meeting during RIPE 77 in
> Amsterdam.
>
> Cheers,
> Mirjam
>
>
> On 09/09/2018 14:02, Sasha Romijn wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I noticed the following in the RIPE mailing list and RIPE meeting Code
> > of Conduct (emphasis mine):
> >
> >> Please treat each other with tolerance and respect. *_Free speech_*
> >> and an open exchange of ideas *_is encouraged and celebrated_*.
> >> Demeaning, intimidating or harming other community members is wrong.
> >> We are especially sensitive to behaviour that offends based on gender,
> >> sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnic origin, or other
> >> perceived social, cultural, or personal differences.
> >
> > Earlier, the CoC also mentions "diversity of views”.
> >
> > My concern with this wording is that, in my personal experience, “free
> > speech” and “diversity of views” are often used as arguments by people
> > to justify sharing discriminatory views, or demanding that space is made
> > for their ideas. It makes it seem like CoC decisions are taken in a way
> > where free speech and the diversity of views are balanced against harm,
> > rather than just saying that harmful statements are not ok. Even in the
> > more restricted European legal interpretation of free speech, there are
> > many statements that are inappropriate and harmful for a community that
> > aims to be inclusive, yet most certainly within the legal bounds.
> >
> > By making free speech and diversity of views seem equally important to
> > the incidence of harm, I think the current wording allows too much
> > freedom, and can reduce the reporting rate. Increasing the reporting
> > rate is a general struggle for communities, and anything that makes
> > people more hesitant to report weakens the CoC. Personally, I’d be
> > reluctant to report anything non-physical under a CoC that mentions free
> > speech and diversity of ideas as values.
> >
> > If my memory serves me right, the text of the CoC was decided by the WG
> > chairs. Was there an actual expert involved? And what was the reason for
> > the chairs (or whoever else was involved) to mention free speech and
> > diversity of views this way? Did they consider the potential negative
> > impact? Writing CoC language is quite difficult and sensitive, and small
> > changes can have large impacts.
> >
> > Sasha
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > diversity mailing list
> > diversity at ripe.net
> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity