I checked out the #OccupyPhoenix Facebook page today and there was a statement that their forum page was up and running again. I didn't even know they had a forum page up since in the past there was sign saying coming soon. Just to clarify, when I say in the past I mean as early as 11/14 there was no forum on the site. In any event, on the Facebook page there was a comment a woman made that gave me a bit of pause as to the possible abuse of the forum. The woman had a question about this phrase on the registration page -

Most people, myself included, probably would have clicked OK and gone on to sign up without reading the small section that says the notification of the ISP is determined by them. What exactly does that mean, in terms of determining what can be sent to the ISP? I liken this to the recent voter initiative in Mississippi where, if passed, personhood was determined at conception. If you just think about it on a gut level, there can be a plausible and possibly somewhat reasonable argument made that a person begins at conception, again that would be IF you thought about it in a quick observation. In reality, had that passed it would have been a nightmare because if an egg is a person, a miscarriage could be homicide, birth control almost non existence because of the mechanics of birth control, and since fertility clinics need to fertilize a lot of eggs, would it be homicide if they got rid of the excess eggs used in the procedure?

These are questions that don't have to be asked because the law didn't pass, but thinking about the long term consequences caused many people to change their minds from the long held beliefs they had about the law and it's effects.

The #Occupy movement is about distrust in a government that seems to answer to unseen forces, be it financial or politically connected families. I might be overstating the fear of the wording of the forum, but having seen arguments escalate in face to face meetings at #OccupyPhoenix, how hard would it be for it deemed to be threatening if someone in a heated discussion on a forum said something threatening? Go to any newspaper website and check the comments some articles and you will see some very hateful speech. Sure, they could be banned but sending information to the ISP they run from? You have, in the case of #Occupy movement, a structure that is leaderless. I'm not everyone will have access to the administration of the forum, but who will have that power? It's one thing to have a moderator, it's one thing to flag someone for banning and leaving it at that, it's quite another when an unknown person, without any training, can deem someone such a threat they are reported for the 'free speech' they make on a forum.

Believe me, with recent events, sitting on the sideline and passing the buck when hate speech and physical crimes are committed is not something acceptable. When you see wrongdoing it should be acted upon right away. The concern is in judging someone as a threat because of words, then reporting that person to their ISP seems too much like Big Brother, especially when what would constitute turning them in and who is turning them in is cloaked in secrecy. Maybe if things can be more transparent, by outlining training guidelines or even examples of speech that might be considered enough of a violation that an ISP could be contacted, would give some parameters and maybe will allow for adjustments to the procedure if needed.