Opinions on a small part of 'freedom of expression'

[bootwhistle]

I am curious to know what people think about a little section regarding freedom of expression and the right to say what they want without having it censored or altered.

Let us take:

"Wat dey did wuz whack 'cause it be fronting fo bad reasons"

as a comment...
is that part of expression or is it ignorant of spelling and writing skill?
Changing to:

"Their actions taken to misrepresent themselves were ultimately for the wrong reasons"

While it may be good English, is it taking away expression from the person who wrote it originally?

My personal opinions aside, I'd like to know what you guys/gals think about it.

[avich]

Hmmm... To me an expression is conveying your beliefs and opinion to your target audience. Grammar and writing skills doesn't really matter as long as the other party understands what message that person is trying to portray.

Like for example, If we try to use 'lol' a decade ago, we cant consider it as an expression because even though the meaning would be 'laugh out loud', it would fail to serve its purpose if the majority doesn't understand. Now that it is widely used, even though it is grammatically wrong, 'lol' will be considered as a valid expression by many.

[Bindu1000]

Hmmm ..not sure if I understood exactly what Chiva said but I think that if the people reading the comment do not understand it, then then the author's freedom of speech is kinda pointless
I think correcting it to be easily understood by others is okay. The responsibility is with the person re-writing it. They need to be totally neutral and be careful that their own biases and opinions do not come thru in the translation, or that its not over corrected as in the example given

[russj]

huh? i dont get this thread......

from what i understand, you're saying that no matter how a person writes/talks its his freedom? and we dont have the right to change it??

dont get it.. but basing from your example, ppl pays attention to stupid details such as that.
if it gets the msg across without a problem then why bother changing it?

[FluffynpinK]

Freedom of expression doesn't have anything to do with grammar.
At least in my opinion.
Freedom of expression is sharing your opinions.

Although I really do not think it exists.

[bootwhistle]

Hmm, interesting points so far, the issue is rather complicated so I tried to just narrow it down to a small section regarding corrections. Also probably didn't define the question well enough..
Chivas I think your point was pretty good, as long as it is understandable anything written should be kept intact... I guess that depends more on the 'culture', I guess a good example is appropriate use of language depending on situation. One wouldn't speak gangsta at a classical music performance and one certainly wouldn't speak formal Queens English at a Snoop Dog concert.

Bindu and Russ your points are good as well - as long as a something written makes sense shouldn't really change it, and if change is necessary one has to ensure the original meaning is intact.

Fluffy I understand what you are saying, but people have told me that their 'style' includes bad grammar, again using Gangsta lingo as an example... a person may believe (wrong or not I can't say) that the way they speak or write is part of who they are, and any changes will take away from that identity. Sometimes the language in which you couch your opinions says more than the opinion itself...
Though I have to agree that true freedom of expression doesn't exist.

There is no real right or wrong answer about this issue, but it is good to hear many different opinions on it. I'm beginning to think it really is a kind of appropriate situation thing... like not singing anime theme songs at an aunt's funeral or playing a funeral dirge at a wedding. Applying it to what one writes, or comments, it could be the venue in which they write, the subject or the manner in which it is expressed but they should fit into a certain appropriate or acceptable idea of what can be said...

I guess the question then is, who can really decide what is appropriate to say? (Aside from OS moderators of course ;)

[Bindu1000]

Yr very right in that every situation is different and the answer is subjective. In that case it would depend on the rules decided on at the beginning
For example OS rules say everything should be PG-13 therefore it gives the moderators the right to delete what they think does not follow those guidelines. To demand otherwise would then go against the creator's rights. Even in cases where there are no written rules, then the culture and people's common sense would dictate the unwritten rules.
If you send in a letter to Reader's Digest with bad language and they dont publish it - you cant get upset, can you?