General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries? [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)The reasons for wanting the post to be left can be varied; the poster can really believe what he or she is saying is valid and should be disseminated; the poster could be trying to "stir up shit" and would most definitely want the post left because they want to upset people (a troll on a jury would vote the same way); or the person could be one of those Free Speech Advocates who believes that anything and everything, no matter how offensive, should stand.
There's no more separation between the poster causing the kerfluffle by posting the "offending" post and the jurors, or the alerter objecting to the post causing the kerfluffle and the jurors. Everyone has a part in the little playlet.
That said, I agree with the concept iterated by others, that the poster of the "offending" material is the defendant, the alerter is the prosecutor, and the jurors are "the deciders." And here at DU, so far, anyway, with the 3-3 business, even a Naughty Poster gets the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder if those who are most adamant about changing the system are more or less likely to have perceptions of being victimized by the present one? I.e., do they alert a lot and find themselves presented with a great deal of 3-3 leaves?