Free Speech on On-line Forums -- The Delusion of Entitlement
In many countries of the world, the right to free speech is protected by law, especially here in the United States. We enjoy a freedom that people in other countries do not but the right of free speech comes with responsibility and with consequences.
I am not an attorney. As most of you know, Im a hydrogeologist. This, then, is not a legal document, but an attempt to take legalese and turn it into plain English, where most of us can easily understand our rights, freedoms, and responsibilities on a private website.
There are some legal restrictions on free speech, whether or not one is online, such as copyright infringement, libel/slander, obscenity, child pornography, perjury, blackmail, and criminal behavior, among others. Free speech protection, however, does not extend to private homes or businesses. You may have the right to say what you like in a public forum, but when you enter a private forum, such as NewsTalkers, it is the same as if you were entering a private home or business. In these situations, your rights of free speech are subject to the discretion of owner of the private forum.
For many of the on-line sites you enter, you agree to contractually limit your right to free speech when you join the service. It is a contract agreement, whereby you agree to limit your free speech to abide by the rules of the website. Many websites call them Terms of Service, as a condition of your registration. Here at NewsTalkers, it is called the Code of Conduct.
Many on-line services have some sort of catch-all clause that gives them the right to censor you, however they see fit. The clause is present on almost every website of today that includes a Term of Service contract agreement.
This is not a draconian conspiracy between owners of on-line communities, but it is simply that an on-line community is a business. The business incurs costs of operation, depends on ads for revenue, offers some form of moderation, and, most importantly, accepts the liability of its members comments and behavior, and how it is represented to the world .
From an owners standpoint, it is a bad idea to allow unbridled free speech on a website. As one of the authors of the articles researched states:
Allowing unbridled free speech on my website would be a very bad idea. Its easy enough to predict what would happen because I know what our moderators deal with on a daily basis, and Ive seen what happens to other forums that have done that. Within a few months, the site would be overrun by spammers and marketers looking to promote their wares. Flame wars would flare up on a daily basis, and threads beyond a certain length would be quickly derailed by juvenile comments and trolling by drama addicts. The quality of discussions would go down the drain, especially when it came to sensitive personal topics. Id take one look at the mess and quickly pull the plug. Our forums would not be able to fulfill their purpose under such conditions
Remember, when you visit an on-line community, you are an invited guest. It may be wise to cultivate that attitude, and legally, you are bound to do so.
Heres an attitude I suggest you adopt when it comes to participating in online communities. When you visit someone elses online community, youre a guest in the owners online home. Behave accordingly. Your participation is a privilege subject to the owners discretion.
Is this fair? Maybe you feel it to be unfair. I think that the sense of unfairness stems from a misguided feeling of entitlement from the members. You certainly are not guaranteed fairness in someones home or business. When you enter someones home or business you are subject to the rules that the owner stipulates. Under certain situations, specific laws may apply. But, in general, whoever owns the house, makes the rules. Remember that fairness is a privilege that people may bestow on othersit isnt a right.
Thanks for stopping by!
Researched Links:
Free Speech on Online Communities: The Delusion of Entitlement
Tweets of Rage: Does Free Speech on the Internet Actually Exist?
Freedom of Expression on the Internet
Frequently Asked Questions The First Amendment
Tags
Who is online
419 visitors
Is Free Speech an illusion to which we all subscribe?
Yes.
What we ALL have to realize is that we are guests here. We really have NO rights, and must behave accordingly.
I'm pretty tired of all this, as I'm sure, you can imagine.
I think what bugs me the most is that this is NOT a political thing, it's a common sense thing. It has nothing to do with what someone's politics are. If one is defending someone else from bullying, then make that the title of the article. Using the term "Free Speech" to defend one's own bad behavior is bs.
Thank you, RW. I tried to do some real research into this, and, not being a lawyer, got a little bogged down, here and there.
I put it down as: Smoking is legal, but you don't get to smoke on my property or in my house, no matter how legal smoking is. Because I own the property and home and I don't want it to happen. That's why and that's a good enough reason.
Newstalkers is private and not a place where the U.S. Bill of Rights applies.
Yes, it is.
No shooting of dogs on my property. My dogs are my family-- you may as well just shoot me. That's the rules here. I keep my dogs under control, you don't shoot them.
Bruce, I didn't make this up. This is a legal opinion, that is echoed by many different sites. Perrie should be answering this question, not me. I am only a moderator here, doing the best job I can.
However, I will say this-- your complaints about heavy-handed moderation have been duly noted.
Personally, I am very appreciative of the attitude you have displayed towards all the moderators on the site-- it lets all of us know just what kind of guy you really are.
Thank you for your considered opinion, Bruce. It really feels all warm and fuzzy to know you're more of a drama queen than a lot of the others here.
Perrie agreed with that decision, Bruce. So, put a cork in it. Robert G's article was not deleted, and is still standing. Comments are closed. If he wishes to take his article over, he is welcome to join HD. I haven't visited it since. I'm sure Perrie, who is the creator of HD, will gladly let him in.
I personally have NO regrets about closing the comments down.
Have a nice day.
Ladies and Gentlemen--
I must go to a band concert for my son. I have temporarily suspended comments until I can return.
Thank you.
Dowser
I re-opened it because I have to go do something...
I'm baaaack! (I know you're all so thrilled...)
Here is a little lite music for your entertainment:
Your absolutely right, it has reached the point of site vandalism, very well planned site vandalism.
If I was a mod I would archive every article from now on. What is interesting is they are being posted, then deleted.
At some point, proof is going to be needed as to what is now occurring..
I would have voted that yes she does...but after playing K.C. and the Sunshine Band I'm not so sure anymore....
Like Marx wanted to go back to an agrarian craftstman society cause he hated industrial progress, what is disliked is growth, growth that cannot be stopped. A serious yearning for the earlier simpler way.
It's all very 19th century like, and sad...
LOL, Mike!
They were playing this at the restaurant while we ate dinner, and I hate to be
"old", but I started chair dancing to it... My husband looked at me as if I'd lost my mind! Probably have.
Proof exists. Although articles get deleted, an archived copy generally exists. Not always....sometimes we all forget to do our due diligence in this regard, but generally, articles are copied and pasted before being deleted.
I think some people take their own articles down, to be honest. As far as Robert G's article, there was no need to archive it-- it's still up.
"Good. Then there will be no misunderstanding when I call you out on poor moderation choices, like the one you made with Robert G's article."
However, just because you say it is poor moderation doesnt mean it actually is. Hopefully there is no misunderstanding when we moderate you for willfully straying outside the comfortable confines of our CoC as you are wont to do from time to time.
Is TheNewsTalker community losing advertisers due to unsavory commentary? Or to much control?
And for those who disagree with this article, don't waste your time - just go start a newsite with your own rules, or no rules if you want it to turn to shit. You won't be missed. Without your constant complaints about it this site might just become more attractive to a lot of potential members.
I am not criticizing reasonable dissent - I am just saying that if you don't know when it's time to quit it's about time you did.
I don't know, dear One. But we have a LOT of members who don't participate. That's a shame!
And stop playing games with people... While we're at it. Right?
Ayyy, "If the SHOE FITS!!!"
ZACTLY! (as perrie would put it)
Hey, my husband was in high school, and I was in college when this came out-- They played it so much, for a long time, I was tired of it. Now, Yeah, it's catchy again!
Get down to-night baybee!
Guilty as charged. I participate, but not regularly. And when it comes to drama, I have something else to do. I'll offer my point of view(pov), but I don't participate here to sway the masses to that pov. Not my style.
'Dear' Dowser, I've been a fan of yours since the other place. You wear "moderation" well here though. It has brought your Southern charm and wisdom to a more assertive Southern Belle. I remember a Dowser who didn't like politics, religion and the like. Now you wade right in, Bravo young lady!
I just thought people would tone it down, if the site was in jeopardy of losing ad revenue.
Mike, you may be amazed, but I see your point. Really, I do. Without all the stupid crap that went along with it, I really did see your point. (I'm watching Magnum Force... Do you feel lucky tonight? Haha!)
I think you have a really good point, and I am very willing and open to discuss it-- calmly and rationally, and totally without any malice or political bent. I think most of us would-- if it were presented calmly and rationally, and without all the drama. This whole "protest", (for lack of a better word), was mis-handled and wrong . It resulted in multiple violations of the CoC. It used another member as a tool. We don't do that here-- we have rules. Nor do we treat the site as our own personal playground.
The point of this article is that we can't just behave any way we want, and expect to not have consequences. We really don't have the freedom of speech that we take for granted out and about in the big world. Legally. We really are subject to the terms of service and must abide by the CoC. All of us.
And if everyone is bored with the hydro-- hell, don't worry. I get bored with it too, sometimes.
Tell you what-- name a subject, and I'll try to write an article about it. I'll try. It probably won't turn your crank, but I'll try.
"Is this fair? Maybe you feel it to be unfair. I think that the sense of unfairness stems from a misguided feeling of entitlement from the members. You certainly are not guaranteed fairness in someones home or business. When you enter someones home or business you are subject to the rules that the owner stipulates. Under certain situations, specific laws may apply. But, in general, whoever owns the house, makes the rules. Remember that fairness is a privilege that people may bestow on othersit isnt a right."
Dowser,
comparing what a person can do in a home is different than what a person can do in a business. While I agree with you that a home owner makes their OWN rules in their home, a business is regulated by the government. and laws. NewsTalkers is a business NOT a private home. and as a business NewsTalkers can make their own rules However the rules MUST apply equally to everyone. If one group is NOT allowed to post or seed articles sharing their religion with others then in FAIRNESS and so NOT to discriminate against anyone the other people or group should NOT be allowed to post or seed any articles that try to disprove religion.
Dear One, you have been my friend for years, I am very happy to say. I still don't do politics and religion all that much, but have to moderate, so I end up reading all of it. Thanks for your understanding that at times, it is difficult for me.
One would think, right?
There are those who are very adamant about posting at the top of their lungs.
But for the love of God, don't "BAN THEM"!
Why not? Besides it was only from the front page. Works for me. I voted for the ban. If the ban from the front page had passed, then those who didn't like it were free to leave. I mean you weren't drafted.
Hold it-- this is not a discussion about religion, dear LR. It is a discussion about free speech.
According to the law, which, I did not write, and can only research, in this case, (Freedom of Speech), it seems that home and business is considered to be the same...
I, personally, don't like to have religious pamphlets thrust at me through my door at home, but I don't sic my dog on them or anything. I smile and politely say, Thanks, and then shut the door firmly. Which, if we're not interested in that, seems to me that we have the right to not participate here, as well. I consider myself to be of a Christian faith, and try to be one. Seems to me to be a lot more polite to just leave each other be. Or am I asking too much?
Dear LR, I guess the whole point of this article is that we can't just say and do anything we want without suffering the consequences. It's not our site.
Barking dogs rarely bite. Its the quiet ones you gotta watch.
Dowser, I comment is about free speech. I used religion as an example because of the vote recently taken down. In my home I can say Jews can talk religion but Mormons must be silent. In a business if I say Catholics can speak but Baptists must be silent that is Discrimination pure and simple.
Yeah, I remember that. Had a lot of my comments collapsed. know exactly what your taking about Mike.
I know for sure exactly which two articles were at issue. one was a clear violation, and Bruce has even agreed that it was, but no one complained about it and it was discussed in a rational and civil manner so let it go. no harm no foul, if the commenters couldn't see why it was wrong who are we to create an issue where there wasn't one. But yes it was a clear violation.
The second article wasn't in violation of anything, it was about a religious discussion, but it was tagged as proselytizing. Which a posted noted and complained in the article about. It wasn't even an article about proselytizing. I don't understand why he tagged it that way. that was breakdown #1
No one reported the mis-tagging to Perrie, who would have instantly recognized it and removed the offending tag, issue resolved. No one bothered reporting it, breakdown #2
Then others, who I don't know exactly, but not the liberals complained to Perrie and complained in such terms which caused her to essentially take a short cut and post the poll. Breakdown #3
But Perrie rightfully knew that the meta over such an issue would arise all on it's own. and didn't want to be the source of it.
So what all this has arisen from is minor crap that nay one with a lick of sense would recognize and let go.
No, most everyone has to go into their political assumptions blaming the other side, they are destroying the site, free speech, being tyrants and on and on and on. now it turned into a free for all breakdown #4 Everyone decides to demand their "Rights" on a private site.
And it devolves into what we have now...
All because some think they have the right....
No one is limiting anything, you should know by now that I would be squawking about it if they were. I think all parties are now well aware that proselytizing is not allowed. I'm a big believer in it is what it is when you see it. and you will know what it is. proselytizing is already a no no it is in the CoC and site policy what is the issue with putting the word actually in the CoC? it's already there.. as has been pointed out repeatedly.
the rest of it represents an agenda that I'm not going to get into. But the actions from here on out are being tracked and recorded and screen capped.
It will be up to Perrie to decide how to deal with the rest of it which is way beyond the initial issue at this point.
But it is a concerted effort to deliberately embarrass the Moderation team. And it is my opinion that it has gone way beyond the point of needing dealt with...
So I can appreciate your position. I really can. But this cannot be a free for all and as the site grows the rather liberal CoC will get more and more specific as the site grows larger. It is just the way it is, and with the actions and antics that have gone on the last few days, all ya'll have done is prove the need for greater control..
Not less freedom, but definitely more consequences...
Not an apt comparison. The vote was to keep proselytizing off from the Front Page. Anyone would still be free to create their own groups or blogs and preach to those who want to hear it. Anyone who didn't want to hear it wouldn't have to. When I was still working I didn't have to hear preaching from any religious organizations, because I was at work and preaching about any religion was forbidden and people were fired for it.
Bruce, I don't want to get into this, because this is between you and Flame. All I ask is that you don't commit murder on my article, please.
Here, are some words that may make you feel better-- ok? I know you like these words, and they are in no particular order, but maybe, just maybe, they'll make life a bit more bearable for you:
tit, boob, ass, AR 15, ammo, gunpowder, ballistics, titty, DD cup, exotic, automatic weapon, etc.
See? I'm really your friend- you just don't think I am.
Oh no, Bruce-- I meant please don't get into a knock down, drag out fight, that's all... It was just an expression, Bruce.
I promise I didn't mean REAL murder.
lmao
OOooooo, very true!
There is no need to vote for that . It is already allowed .
Mike,
On the banning of content that does not violate laws or ethics, we pretty much are in agreement; but between the tenets of propriety and impropriety are many shades and degrees of coming dangerously close to crossing the line separating the so-called "freedom of speech" and encroaching the freedom of others.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I mean it -- but the so called "satirical" piece that brought us to this discussion essentially asserted that the Jewish woman who owns The NewsTalkers website, banned Christianity from that website, and further, the manner in which that "satirical" piece was configured and posted, gave the impression that said assertion was was being made by a well known international Christian news organization!
Does anyone fail to see the potential fallout from that?
Whether or not any given content evokes sad recollections in an individual's mind, certainly colors whether or not that individual will deal with that content or move past it. But that all occurs within the individual -- no one else need be involved.
That is nothing like publishing content that defames another individual -- and further -- attributes the act of defamation to a well-known third party.
To directly address your analogies which, I don't find analogous to the issue that began all of this, a story or image that evokes pain by conjuring a bad memory within its reader/viewer, IS IN NO WAY ANALOGOUS TO A STORY OR IMAGE THAT ITSELF CAUSES POTENTIAL DAMAGE, and, not only to its victims, but also to those to whom the damage has been intentionally misattributed.
"Satire" pokes fun -- defamatory inaccuracies -- you tell me, Mike.
________________________________________________
Gang collapsing of articles and comments were agenda-driven and often malicious and orchestrated. How is "this" "that"?
But you think like a leftist at all times . Not everyone shares your warped view of the universe . Here is something for you to consider but you will probably ignore : Banning something has side effects .
Well put, A. Mac!
But we're not at work . BTW if you post something in favor of 1 religion while also stating opposition to another religion , that is not simple proselytizing ...
I have to agree with Mike on this.
Same here.
Which is how it is at every business I have ever heard of in the US. The same applies to private clubs and such. For instance if a person walked into a bar and started proselytizing, the management would certainly be well within their rights to make that person leave, It is after all, even though a public house, a privately owned club, not a house of worship and as long as the owner doesn't allow any proselytizing from any religion, the law is on his (or in this case, her) side. Now a person who likes to proselytize is certainly welcome to come in and have a beer or dinner and the owner could not turn them away because of their religion. Just so they don't try to foist their religion on people who don't want to hear it.
Take a break. and a deep breath.
Since we are not paid , it is not a business to us .
This is a business just like any other, and it is the same principle.
The same applies to private clubs and such, where people are not paid to attend, but in many cases pay to be there. For instance if a person walked into a bar and started proselytizing, the management would certainly be well within their rights to make that person leave, It is after all, even though a public house, a privately owned club, not a house of worship and as long as the owner doesn't allow any proselytizing from any religion, the law is on his (or in this case, her) side.
Here's how easy it is to deal with proselytizing without resorting to extreme measures like banning . Go on the article and leave sarcastic one word comments .
I just laughed my DD cup tits off!
Ignorance. That's my one word comment.
I am of the opinion that minimalist rules are superior to lengthy ones .
{waves @ Pat and Flame and Raven}
This always works for me:
"Speak Your Mind"
Actually, it ISN'T a business like any other. It is more like a private club. If it were not, then nobody could be banned, probably not even suspended. Those who own and/or run a private club have authority to set the rules and enforce them and by joining such a club a person accepts that those rules will govern.
Another thing is that LoneRanger uses faulty logic speaking about whether one group can do something while another cannot. The fact is that NO person is permitted to proselytize. In that respect we are all treated equally. As Mickey Mouse says, you want to be able to proselytize, form a group and proselytize on it to your heart's content. Invite your friends, you can proselytize to each other and anyone else who is interested enough to join your group, but the rule is - stay off the front page.
Using the term "Free Speech" to defend one's own bad behavior is bs.
I agree. Free speech has it's limitations, especially on a site that is privately owned. Speaking one's mind does not include insulting or attacking other member or calling them filthy names. It does not include posting thing you know to be lies and passing them off as real. Speaking One's Mind is not limitless free speech nor should it be and was never meant to be.
Satire is not the same as "lies" .
Why ban? Nobody has complained about the idea of restricting proselytizing to a specific group. I've always been in favour of using the groups rather than the front page for specific subjects. There is a group for Classic Cinema and it rankles me to see people using the front page to post an article that is suitable for the Classic Cinema group. It bothers me to see an FP category called Entertainment which when used transfers the article to the FP, and for me it's a disappointment to see an article about classic movies or their actors etc. appear on the FP. There is a category on the FP called Photography and Art, which does the same thing whereas I would be a lot happier if such articles were not spread out but found only on the Creative Arts group. So there's lots of room for the religious fanatics to form a group and proselytize each other - but as much as I don't want someone knocking on my door to give me a pamphlet because they're looking to "save" me, I don't want to see the same stuff on a page which I would want to browse through to seek my interests. Let them hand out their pamphlets in a public place while singing "Follow the Fold" (courtesy of Guys and Dolls).
I didn't say it WASN'T a business. I said it was LIKE a Private Club. Private Clubs are often registered as corporations, and pay taxes as well. It's not like having a few friends come over every weekend to drink beer and watch Hockey Night in Canada.
Mike L. is full of crap!
Hydrogeologists Rock! I will defend your right of freedom to say anything on the topic Dowser.
"The vote was to keep proselytizing off from the Front Page. Anyone would still be free to create their own groups or blogs and preach to those who want to hear it"
That sounds vaguely familiar. let me think, .....wait I'm still thinking, .... Oh yeah back in the early 60's they use to say "sure you can ride this bus, you just have to sit in the back...."
Sure you can share your religion with others here on this site, just don't do it on the front page (sit in the back of the bus...."
Really folks, all this talk about free speech etc, seems to be nothing but a canard. If you really need something to complain about, join a movement, pick up a sign, do a ''sit in''. Something that may make a change in our country. But to keep on whining about ''free speech'', when there is no such thing on this orany site, seems as all your wanting to do is stir the pot.
Rules are rules, if you don't like them, leave. At your work place there are rules, if you are in the military or ever were in the military there are rules. Here, if you leave, there is no loss of income, or other detrimental side effects. Your just gone, to complain somewhere else.
If you feel slighted, than you can voice your opinion, but to carry on like a bunch of 1st graders isn't helping anything, in fact IMO, it's hurting the site.
If you really want to protest, start your own site, put up your money, put in the hours it takes to run a site. Put up with azzhatz telling you how you should run your site. If your not willing to do that then STFU.
Now, that last sentence is me and free speech. Will it be deleted? If it is, it was because I agreed to the rules of the site before hand. (no one made me join) and if I did indeed violate the rules, than I have no complaint. It's that simple.
"Don't try to make oranges out of apples"
wrong it is not the same thing. in a bar the communication is verbal and require another person to listen,... on the internet all communication is visual it does NOT require a person to listen, it requires the person to first click on the article then read it.....
"We are guests here at on her private site at her discretion. She allows members to make the rules called the CoC."
Yet the is a sign at the top of the page with Large red letters that says SPEAK YOUR MIND.... it doesn't say speak your mind about current news events.... and it doesn't say speak your mind about non religious topics It says SPEAK YOUR MIND.
"don't change the price of the steak after the person has already eaten half the meal....
I just love water. Diddling with it, playing with it, just trying to figure out where it is and where it's going... Can't help it!
But, I can see where other people get tired of it!
Golly! Cute!
Bravo!
You're right, John.
If you sent a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, or, some video of an event you captured and deem important to a local TV news show, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THOSE MEDIA WHEN THEY FAILED TO POST YOUR LETTER ON THE FRONT PAGE OR, MAKING YOUR VIDEO THE LEAD STORY?
Amen Brother!
If I may add, it's been this way since the first site was put up on the internet. Yes it says speak your mind, but like anything and everything else,
Within The Rules.
Sites grow and what was once a small group of people that were able to shoot the shit at any time about anything has grown to the point where some control is needed for the benefit of EVERYONE. Even those who think Speak Your Mind is an absolute freedom.
AS used at the top of the page, it is a site slogan. it is in how we as members effectuate "Speak Your Mind" and that is because it is the way the site owner wants it.
There are growing pains, there are those that don't like change. I'm sorry that it has to change for you. But it is going to change. If not now then later.
Let me ask a question, who would you rather have make the change? a site op just saying this is the deal? Don't like it TOUGH!
Or have it discussed to preserve all of the freedom you have enjoyed in the past.
The choice is going to be made somewhere. I say let it be here out in the open and decided upon by the group. But that is life, we all suffer from the decisions we make. WE all have the freedom to be different, want what we want, do what we want. That will never change.
We may lose a few people when all is said and done, that is sad, that is life. We all make our own choices. You may lay blame anywhere you like to, we are all self effacing people.
But it is still YOUR choice.
I don't know how much freer we can make it...
Do you drive on the sidewalk?
Ever see a sign that read "SPEED LIMIT 45 BUT DON'T DRIVE ON THE SIDEWALK"?
"Ever see a sign that read "SPEED LIMIT 45 BUT DON'T DRIVE ON THE SIDEWALK"?"
You're punking us right??????
BTW: AMac that is "SPEAK YOU MIND!" with an exclamation point afterwards....
"LR seeds virtually nothing. His contribution is to come on threads and hector people with inanities. Sometimes a decent conversation develops, but usually not."
So John what's your point? Because I don't seed articles that makes me some how less of a person or member of this site. Does it mean my opinions have no value?
You know what the hell you can do with your JUDGEMENTAL opinion....if not I will be more than happy to tell you in HD....
!
If I posted a sign that read "anything goes!" -- would you take the punctuation mark to imply that LITERALLY ANYTHING you did in sight of that sign -- could be done without deference to law, common sense, conventional and implied limitations.
If I spoke my mind in such a way as to libel you f'rinstance "So-and-so Ranger" copulates with barnyard critters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" --
Anyway, although no such"SPEED LIMIT 45 BUT DON'T DRIVE ON THE SIDEWALK"?" sign exists, assuming you don't drive on the sidewalk -- why not?
Assuming there are lots of things you do and don't without the benefit of a single exclamation point what's up with that?
SPEAK YOUR MIND
SPEAK YOUR MIND!
Really You need me to explain the difference to you?
Do me a favor John, stop piggybacking on my comments. If you want to hammer someone do it on your own comment.
I mean be a man and stand up and speak your own mind.
Stop tacking on me, find you own line in the wind.
"If I posted a sign that read "anything goes!" -- would you take the punctuation mark to imply that LITERALLY ANYTHING you did in sight of that sign"
In Heated Discussions the sign reads No Moderation and anything goes..." and there are NO rule to follow. The CoC does NOT apply So why is it NOT reasonable to assume that the sign that says Speak Your Mind! means just that. we can talk about what ever is on our minds.......
I understand where you're coming from. I can open the article for discussion, but it's pretty far back on the board by now. It IS open for comments on the HD discussion group. You are welcome to go there, too.
It was a moderator group decision, Feronia. Not just me. Perrie agreed with shutting it down, as well.
If it was against the CoC on Tuesday, it is still against the CoC on Friday... It's not just holding it down to make a point-- do you see the difference?
LoneRanger1
Please explain something to me, because I'm not an American. Amendment 1 to your Contitution reads:
I am particularly asking about the meaning of these words:
Why does it not allow me to scream "FIRE!!!" in a crowded movie theatre?
LR, the point of this article is that we are all guests here-- guests of Perrie. This is a private site. We can't, legally, just say whatever we like-- we have to abide by the CoC. All of us agree to this when we joined the site.
What's the beef?
But it is, to Perrie. And she owns the site. It may not seem to be a business, but in all reality, it is, and is legally considered to be one.
I'm glad someone said it. It would be pretty hard to maintain the whole "Articles from across the web, as well as original member commentary, are brought here for in depth discussion and debate. " if we start cesoring anything that disagrees with you or rustles your jimmies in the slightest. Then it's just an echo chamber, no discussion no debate, just a circlejerk and patting each other on the back for how incredibly genius they all are.
In a world of over 7 billion people, there is bound to always be someone who disagrees with any topic you can think of. There will always be someone who is "offended" by anything you say because of, like this guy was saying, a bad personal experience. If someone's repeatedly doing something you don't like, why don't you do what you do in the real world and stop taking their bait and getting booty blasted, and just ignore them if what they have to say is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You don't ban them incase of the rare occasion they post facts or statistics that weren't posted or considered until then and contribute to helping seeing all sides of an arguement and helping neutral people draw their own conclussions based on the facts and view points of all parties involved.
If you start banning people purely because of trolling, baiting, or otherwise just being a jerk. The community widdles down to just a select group of people who only post the same thing agreeing with each other. Then you have an echochamber, and that isn't discussion or a debate. Look at the hivemind called "tumblr" with nobody even playing devil's advocate the community has become so fucked up that they have become the joke of the internet in how they take what started out as a normal political belief and took it to the extreme, have descended into madness and are condoning violence against anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. Much like our current adversaries in the middle east, huh? It's almost like political hugboxes and echochambers almost always disolve into this state where the people eventually abandon civility.
So I vote for no banning people based on hurt feelings, too. If you seriously do care about everyone and care about healthy discussion and debate, then you'll allow everyone to state their views and post what they know about the situation and listen to what they have to say, even if you disagree with them.
"Why does it not allow me to scream "FIRE!!!" in a crowded movie theatre?" It does NOT prevent you from Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. There is NOTHING to prevent a person from yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. the person if they do yell FIRE must be willing to pay the consequences for doing so.......
"LR, the point of this article is that we are all guests here-- guests of Perrie. This is a private site. We can't, legally, just say whatever we like--"
Perrie has invited us, members of NewsTalkers, to SPEAK OUR MINDS.
Because there are certain limits to "free speech" even with regard to the Constitution; a website, public or private can be held liable for disregarding those limits.
We've been down this road, LR.
And by the way -- what about "So-and-so Ranger copulates with barnyard critters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" --
Fair game (no pun intended)?
Then make her life miserable for false advertising-- what I'm describing is the way it is in life. When we signed on, we agreed to a terms of service agreement-- a contract. By joining the site, you willing gave up the right to 100% free speech. Just because you want to, you can't violate the terms of service agreement/contract.
None of us have the expectation of being able to say anything we want, all the time. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, for example. It's not as if we have ticker tapes attached to our brains, where all our thoughts are typed out... I think the only people allowed to speak their minds all the time are stroke victims, who can't help it. The part of their brain that acts as a filter on their thoughts is gone.
This is just the way it IS. I didn't write this, I researched it, and this is what I found.
Quick addition: When you go to the store and buy an all beef weiner, they don't really tell you what's in it, do they? I mean, there likely isn't much besides beef guts, innards, etc. But it's all beef, right? Because all that came from a cow.
I take it that Speak Your Mind means say what you think, but within the bounds of the CoC.
No such banning exists here. And no one has been banned here with possibly two exceptions maybe three years ago.
There are endless disagreements here and probably some hurt feelings as a result, but no one has been banned for causing either.
I guess that once I've learned my lesson by paying the consequences I would never do it again. However, as a mature intelligent person, I would have known there were consequences so I wouldn't do it in the first place. If I were a total idiot, an ignorant fool or a person with evil intentions I wouldn't care about the consequences and would demand my rights to scream and would do so.
Nothing other than common sense.
Laws are in part, intended to prevent the potential harm that could result from their violation.
Did I need to explain that?
In a perfect world, laws implemented to be deterrents are unnecessary; in THIS world, innocent people can be harmed by people who think only taping their mouths shut should prevent them from saying and doing irresponsible things.
Did I need to explain that?
"And by the way -- what about "So-and-so Ranger copulates with barnyard critters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" --
Fair game (no pun intended)?" what ever trips your trigger.....I have NEVER gone to a mod because someone said something bad about me......
OK, I'm not putting you off, but i have to go and pick up my son at school and take him to PT. I'll be back as soon as I can and answer-- ok?
I guess I worded that wrong, I meant I say we shouldn't start banning based on disagreements in viewpoints. I'm assuming this is over the whole controversy about whether or not proselytizing should be a bannable offense. Regardless, there was a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say, oh well.
No biggie, misunderstandings happen often around here. and in the world as well.
No one was banning anyone over anything here. especially about any differences of opinion. no one is saying that you cannot proselytize here either. Just do it in your own forum/group so most who don't want to deal with it don't have to.
That is where the issue started, it grew from there into something that brought out some old history that is getting a new chapter written as we speak...
It is old hat around here..
Welcome to the forum..
OK. I understand.
thanks, cap'n
Just do it in your own forum/group so most who don't want to deal with it don't have to.
100% agreement NWM. And welcome to the forum Stone. Or what do you prefer to be called? Just call me MM, like everyone else does.
That just comes back to what I was saying about creating an echo-chamber
And I don't care one way or the other about what you all want to name me or if you call me anything at all. I just want to play devils advocate with everyone.
Feronia--
I'm back! I can't be here too long, because I have yet another appt. to get to...
Ok, I guess this is what it boils down to. Robert G's article was, not in and of itself, a bad article, but the comments on it were becoming nastier and nastier. Perrie is on vacation this week, and does not have constant access to wifi, email, or all the other things that we all enjoy in our homes, as a matter of course. The mods got together, and decided to close comments on the article because, frankly, deleting all the comments that were a CoC violation was going to take a couple of hours... Perrie said she agreed. The article was closed to comments, moved to HD, but not deleted. It is here . I happened to be the one that did it, because I was here.
Let me explain something. We have, at last count, 7 mods. Of those 7 mods, most of us work, and we all have other responsibilities. We do this on a volunteer basis. We don't volunteer because we get a kick out of wielding power, or because we wish to push any kind of personal agenda. I can't speak for the other mods, but I volunteered because I love Perrie dearly, and, since I use the site, it was my desire, (obviously foolish), to give back to the site that has offered me so much joy.
Believe me, NOTHING could pay me for taking the kind of abuse we have taken this week. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Some of us have not been around much at all-- perhaps they, too, are on vacation. I don't know... It's all I can do to keep up with my schedule, much less anyone else's. So, at any one time, we're looking at 3-5 mods that come on the site at various times during the day and leave comments on the Moderator's Group.
It was a decision that we all made at the time. You also have to understand that we've been slammed all week, from one side to the other. Perrie carries a LOT of weight around here, and we can, in no way, replace her or the amount of work that she does.
Next, I don't think you realize how difficult it is to delete a comment. This may be like the "hobby gobby" of moderating, (hobby gobby is what we called the sorority 'ritual'), but I'm going to explain the process.
Now, do that on 5 pages of comments, even though not all of them are CoC violations, there are enough of them, that one can easily spend 2 hours doing it. With everything else going on, I don't have the time to wade through all that. Perrie agreed that it was a slam article. The comments bore that out.
I was trying to do Robert G a favor by moving it to HD, rather than delete it completely.
Now, why was this particular article taken down, when others were left up? We can't be here all the time. It takes awhile to build consensus as to what we should do in Perrie's absence. AND, in addition to being here as much as I can, I've been rather busy:
My personal feeling as to all this-- If you are so dissatisfied with the moderation, why don't you volunteer to be a mod? We can always use more mods, who are absolutely incorruptible, completely fair, and have the time to do it-- as well as go on record as to why their decisions were made. You have to understand that we are ALL doing the best we can.
Feronia, hope you have a wonderful evening! Me? I've got to go, get dressed up, and hit yet another funeral home visitation... Oh, boy.
yes.
" Did I need to explain that? "
" Did I need to explain that? "
If you want to explain it one more time for Buzz, go ahead and knock your lights out.... If you are trying to impress me with your legal knowledge, well you're barking up the wrong tree....
I haven't flown since August before 9/11, so I never see them...
Good!
LR - I stand by my last comment, for which you have no valid rebuttal. However I note that you must have this need to insult people which explains your comment to A.Mac.
"However, as a mature intelligent person, I would have known there were consequences so I wouldn't do it in the first place."
And yet you were the only person to ask "Why does it not allow me to scream "FIRE!!!" in a crowded movie theatre?" which by the way was answered. Is this where I get to say so much for your mature intelligence?
RHETORICAL QUESTION --
Feronia, I'm running out of message space, so I'm moving my reply to a new message, just so we'll all have room and not have to scroll so much.
The new message is Here !
Quickly, I think I've answered the question-- I was re-reading your message to make sure. WAs it an error? If so, all of us made it. We felt it to be the right thing to do. #1 CoC states:
"1. No Personal Attacks: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Address issues and arguments, not individual members. Comments or articles designed as personal attacks or those which in-and-of-themselves, are off topic, disruptive, abusive, threatening, harassing or offensive, unlawful, harmful, defamatory, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; are prohibited, and will be removed. "
If we've missed a few things, I am truly sorry-- none of us can be here, there, everywhere.
Feronia, this is the new message... Hang on, I've gotten the links messed up.
Fixed, I think.
Please accept my apologies for sounding exasperated-- I had just gotten home from his physical therapy and had about 30 minutes to answer.
I think I understand what you were asking-- you want to know why. We all thought that it was a slam article, especially on Perrie, who is on vacation-- and she deserves a vacation. That is why. It may seem like it was selective moderating but I can assure you, it wasn't done with that intent. None of us are on site all the time, and all of us are running around putting out fires.
None of us have the time to dedicate our full time to the site, and we must all reach a consensus to take an action, which is time consuming, in and of itself. Basically, it's sort of like putting a message in a bottle and waiting for someone to swim by. It take some time, and it takes some effort-- here's a head's up, we all go and check something out, and then we come back with our opinion. Perrie's opinion is really what helped us to come to a decision.
I was serious about being a moderator. I wasn't being mean or facetious. I think you would make a good one. Perhaps, too, if you saw how things work, it may help you to understand what I mean, better.
No one was doing anything to Robert G, because it was Robert G. That, I can guarantee you. I honestly thought that the article was written by someone else, in fact. I put it in HD as trying to do whoever wrote it a chance at keeping their article up. I closed the comments because that is what all of us agreed to do. There is a saying, that no good deed goes unpunished.
I'm really trying to answer you- I apologize if I sounded snarky in my first reply, I've been pretty busy. And the funeral home visitation wasn't that easy to do, either.
It's pretty hard to apologize for something that you don't think you did, you know? I don't see it as being directed toward Robert G, because it wasn't, nor do I see it as a bad thing to do. The mods agreed. Perrie agreed. So, in all honesty, what is the problem?
No joke, you should be a mod. I mean that as a compliment, not a slam.
I know this doesn't help at all-- but we are all just doing the best we can.
No one is trying to change the CoC, at least not that I know of. The confusion of inconsistent moderating is that several people are trying to do the job of one, and that the site is pretty deadly right now. We are really having problems communicating with one another...
I think some people are taking Perrie's absence as an excuse for a free-for-all, and for their own personal playground. I think some people really want to see how much mayhem they can stir up.
Please remember that this is temporary. Perrie will be back on Monday. Until then, if we can all just keep calm, and try not to disrupt the site further, maybe we can survive this.
Maybe not, too.
Bruce twisted Peters words in his blog to sy that. Peter said that the blogs were for original written posts, which it can be, but he did NOT say they were the only place they could be posted. Of course original articles by members can continue to be posted on the front page and Peter didn't say any different. That has not changed.
Unfortunately this is what is being exploited to create the holy mess we now have. It is agenda driven and directed against the moderation of the site and the direction it is taking. (ie. directed against Perrie)
It is unfair and deliberate.
I wish that too, but again unfortunately probably not going to happen cause the point is to push the moderation on the site till it falls apart. Till the Moderators get tired and either give up or quit.
Not gonna happen. And Perrie knows what is going on. She has been made aware.
Don't get down, it is a small group of people that wish to sow discord and that is all they want. it won't last.
NWM, your post is a perfect synopsis of events.
I do wish that people, members and purple pen-holders included
I am doing my best to kept my pen un-purple. As I always have. I believe in lite moderation. So far I have only deleted one posting since I became a moderator again and that was because it violated ning's ban on nudity. I had no choice.
OK in the middle of no where and I am piggy backing off of a hotspot, which I hate doing.. but I have no idea of what is going on, and frankly, I am a bit more than beyond freaked out. It's like madness descended on the site. I don't know how long I can keep this connection, but as long as I have it, I will try to get a handle on what's going on.
I needed no explanation.
Obviously LR doesn't understand the point I made with the well known (even to your SCOTUS) allegoricalscenario that NOTHING is absolute, even your First Amendment.
When I used the term "mature intelligent person" I didn't use it to direct at anyone in particular. Of course LR decided to direct his venom at me:
"Of course LR decided to direct his venom at me:"
Oh porrr buzz, you play the victim so well, I simply must cry a river of tears for you,....have a nice day....
"that NOTHING is absolute, even your First Amendment." Just so you know Buzzz, that is very UNTRUE....there are absolutes in this world......
I was wrong. Your insults aren't directed only at me. I compliment you on your skill at insulting people, LR, you're good at it - in fact you're the best thing that can happen to the Front Page, because you make the groups much more attractive to the membership, something I've been an advocate of for a long time. You can cry a river over me if you wish, but you can be sure I would never shed a tear over you.
Give it up, A.Mac. You can't turn shit into butter.
"LR, you're good at it - in fact you're the best thing that can happen to the Front Page, because you make the groups much more attractive to the membership, something I've been an advocate of for a long time."
Once again you seem to be putting your foot into your mouth. I seldom, not very often, post comments on the front page. I very seldom ever post or seed articles on the FP, and for the record I have NEVER, that's NEVER had a comment removed because it was of NO VALUE. I think in the 4 to 4.5 years I have been a member here on NT I maybe have been purple pend twice, maybe.
So buzz if I am the reason you do NOT frequent the FP then either your standard are so high you are playing God, or your complaint6 about me is without merit.
Stop it LR, you're drowning me.
Lets see Buzz, you said you made a point about NOTHING being absolute, and you failed at that, then your complaint about me was without merit, you can't seem to be able to distinguish between sarcasm and insults,... and the best you can do is post a picture,....
Maybe its Buzz that needs to STOP IT.....
Gentlemen, please, this article is about Freedom of Speech and what that means on a private blog site.
You can't just say anything you want, you have to abide by the rules of the Terms of Service and the CoC.
Please keep the personal insults to a minimum-- and Thank you!
It is easier to have productive discussions in a "moderated" or "peer reviewed" group than in a total "free for all". There is less harm in strongly-expressed points of view than in pointless trolling, personal references or spamming.
What is going on here is in part what NWM characterized, that compounded by egomaniacal, character-flaw attempts/tactics to discredit those among us who ask for credible participation and responsible citizenship.
A scorched-earth mentality herein would sooner see the site go to hell rather than either acknowledge culpability or back off of an unwarranted pissing contest!
very true, A. Mac.
Yeah, scratch your head about that one? A bit confused on how such can be true?
It's is because you don't know what goes into one of these sites when your the person who owns it and makes it go.
Then take a vacation out the BF Egypt somewhere without any way to engage in the site for a week. When you log on you get smacked with everything all at once. You have e-mail boxes that are full, you have multiple forums that have dozens of postings, you have hundreds of complaints to deal with. And that is when the site is running normal.
With the deliberate trash fest we have had over the last week? having a spotty connection that can drop any second?
You have no opportunity the get a handle on what transpired, get an overall idea of the situation.
Shes aware that the site has blown up that people have made it a pain to be here. that a deliberate attempt to trash her baby has taken place. She knows the basic outline and who has been doing what.
The specifics she hasn't a clue. This is what certain posters have left her to come back to. And then for all the Bluster and Bullshite. to bail out.
Absolute 100% disrespect, self serving hogwash.
If you had ever experienced it you wouldn't question her statement in any way.
I certainly don't question her statement! If I were Perrie, I would be tempted to not come back...
Yes!!! And when you sign on, you agree to abide by the CoC that discourages the "free for all". Thanks!
Sounds a bit paranoid, BF; but we can clear it up if you'll just post your headline and content that appeared below (logo/banner/trademark posting -- refrain from posting).
I already explained the purpose of the article; if you found it ironically timely, use it as a guideline.
Pro bono.
BF, this article is not about you. Only someone narcissistic would automatically assume it is only about you. I honestly don't think that everyone that has commented here believes it to be about you.
I was wondering about the limits/reaches of Free Speech on a private web site and this is what I found. Period.
On one such occasion I came back to such on one of my earlier sites and just pulled the plug. it wasn't worth even trying to recover. and the disappointment that what I thought were responsible adults was just overwhelming.
It happens. but you do find out who your friends are...
Well, that's true!
Glad to see you back, RW!
Dear Friend Dowser: Free speech is covered by law for public, not private areas.
In public areas free speech isn't an absolute right.
Incendiary, threatening, slanderous. libelous, defamatory, and other forms are illegal.
The golden rule looms large here. Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
E.
Voila-i stand corrected-
Cute avatar!