Freedom of Speech!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

Recently (5 minutes ago) the thread AS/Fundamentalism was locked out. 1ST Amendment!

The first amendment does not entitle you to insist that ohter members are sinners and are hellbound. You have ignored a direct instruction to stop offending other members - if this continued I will have no option but to start deleting posts. Knock it off and re-read the site policy please chadmaster.

luckily, the BNP aren't in the States, otherwise they'd undoubtedly be pleading the first amendment too. and no, i'm not accusing anyone of being BNP-esque, before anyone starts shouting at me. not yet, anyway...

As far as I was aware, having freedom of speech also measn being responsible enough to be aware of when one's words may curb other people's freedom.

e.g. preachers who stand on street corners preaching that "God hates fags" and "queers will burn in hell" and other such delightful messages of love and forgiveness, whilst they enjoy the freedom to say those things, they also have the responsibility to know what they say causes emotional pain - to the point of depression + potential suicide. This is quite clearly curbing someone elses freedom.

Amyway, I suppose what I'm saying is with freedom comes personal responsibility, and without an understanding of one's responsibilities to others people need to be careful of what they say / do.

The British National Party is a far-right political organisation. It's widely held to be part of the Neo-Nazi racist thug culture.

Queerpuppy ... Not sure if this has anything to do with responsibility.

The First Amendment is about what kind of laws Congress can pass.

If you're in my house and you say my mum will spend eternity wearing corduroy because she smells like a pineapple, I can ask you to leave.

If duncvis decides a thread is offensive, it's his prerogative to take action. Thats what a moderator does.

Neither example is subject to the First Amendment.

Please pay attention. This is not Comedy Central. This is a forum with a clearly stated site policy which is not up for discussion. If you post further offensive comments people won't have to read them - because they will be edited, and I have no intention of allowing any member to run ther mouth at the expense of other members. Further deliberately provocative remarks in the manner exhibited in the fundamentalism thread will not be tolerated.

You are correct that you can't be LEGALLY punished for expressed ideas. What you are missing, though, is that being banned from PRIVATELY HELD forum, or having your posts deletted on the same is NOT a legal punishment. Technically speaking, a mod is allowed to drop a coin and randomly ban people/delete posts on their own amusement. For instance, there are forums where you lose a regular member status if you don't post for a very long period of time. Now you aren't going to complain that it is a violation of freedom of speech that they are making you post regularly. Thats because no one is "making" you do anything. You have a right to express whatever ideas you want, but AT THE SAME TIME, the moderator has a right to ban whomever they want. Since being banned from private forum isn't a legal punishment, you can't complain that your freedom of speech is violated.

The moderators follow the site policy and to some extent their own judgement when deciding if action needs to be taken on a thread. Also, as explained in the site policy, a procedure is followed before a member is banned from the site, which only happens in extreme circumstances. Threads are not edited at random. I did not find this amusing; it annoys and frustrates me when members refuse to show respect for others. The rules are there for all to follow, to reduce conflict and hostility on the boards and to encourage all members to feel comfortable posting. I am not going to comment further on this matter, I feel I have made myself pretty clear hopefully.

Dunc

You are correct Roman; I was trying to clarify my reasons for taking action regarding offensive comments when necessary.

The only reason I responded this way was that he was appealing to First Amandment.

Understood, no offence taken.