OTFR stands accused of having used her judgement. Well, that's what you have a moderator for, as against having a totally unmoderated forum, which is always a possibility for those who can't stand the idea of any limitation on their wonderful spontaneous selves. Nothing that OTFR stands accused of bothers me in the slightest.

Any good principle, such as free expression, can be defended to the point of mania. Usually the slippery slope argument will be invoked. There are valid slippery slope arguments, but they have to be used carefully, and in most cases they are used very carelessly.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 03, 2000

Answers

Peter you dumb fuck censorship is the issue. Free Speech is not allowed on this board unless it goes with the flow.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), May 03, 2000.

Peter,

How do you feel about gun control? The basic argument is that since some (perhaps only a few) people do not handle firearms responsibly, the State should limit the rights of the general public. Is it permissable to preemptively deny the rights of citizens? Or should rights be denied only AFTER there has been due process and just cause shown?

When the sysop "protected" Diane Squire's site... he/she preemptively denied my right to make a choice. It is the exact same mindset that wants to preemptively limit my right to purchase a handgun. I know full well some people will misuse handguns... and free speech. This is the price of the liberty. Personally, I think the benefits of the freedoms outweigh the costs.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.

Ken, In all fairness, Diane's forum was there for you to access from the moment she started it. All you had to do was look. Is it that you really aren't interested in Diane's forum and are using this issue to press some "hot" buttons, or are you really that interested in what Diane has to say? Honest answers gain you respect, sos well... it'll get you the same (sos that is... not respect).

-- (look@lusenet.listings), May 03, 2000.

"When the sysop "protected" Diane Squire's site... he/she preemptively denied my right to make a choice."

And what if Diane had asked OTFR privatly for help? Does Diane have rights? We already have Flint's answer to that, which is no she doesn't because she "badly mistreated" some people as a forum admin on the old forum. What do you think of that?

-- (y@x.x), May 03, 2000.

Diane has chosen to put her forum on Greenspun's LUSENET. LUSENET is open to the public. I don't see any problem with posting the URL and identifying it as Squire's forum, even if posted in a way that someone perceived to be trollish. I just don't get it I guess.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 03, 2000.

Ken: Since you are an advocate of "zero-tolerance" censorship, which of the following would you not object to someone displaying here:

- Your address

- Your credit report

- Your sexual history (including fetishes and perversions)

- Your family's criminal records

- All miscellaneous sins you have committed since age 10

-- (@ .), May 03, 2000.

Does it make sense to start a public forum for discussion [and I quote]

The educational and research purpose for this Sustainable iForum...

Is to foster discussions and sharing among like-minded people who, for one reason or another, are all drawn to the idea of both living and working a sustainable lifestyle.

We expect it will grow organically as each of us invites our aware friends and associates to participate with us in this evolving, shifting and changing sustainable eCommunity.

Then ask links to be deleted that lead to that forum? Makes no sense at all.

But....Diane never really made much sense to begin with, did she? I looked in that forum [gag! full of froglicking, treehugging, earth-worship BS] All it is is cut/paste of skewed news articles, and diane answering them herself.

I give it two weeks.

-- Make Sense (as.you@go.through.life), May 03, 2000.

a=ra=sift=hmm=Porter

-- (we@know .it all), May 03, 2000.

"Look,"

Let's use the gun example. Whether or not I want to buy a firearm has no bearing on my RIGHT. This is how your post sounds: "Decker, I am not convinced you really want to own firearms. Are you are just using this gun control issue to press some hot button or are you really interested in owning firearms." I have can defend my rights without being obligated to exercise them. I can defend free of religion without attending a church. I can defend the right to bear arms without owning a gun. I can defend my right to visit Diane Squire's web page--a public site--without using it.

Diane has every right to make her forum a private club. She can even use the private EZB system. If she wants to limit access, you won't find me trying to bang down the door. Freedom of association. If she chooses to host her forum on a system supported by the public, she has opened the door to general access.

Now, on to my usual light work, "a." I support freedom of speech... and a right to privacy.

A private citizen (unlike a public figure) has a right to privacy as determined by the Supreme Court. A private citizen is not required to share protected information. It is not "censorship" for someone to choose not to disclose personal information, particularly in a public forum.

I do not have to share my address, credit report or criminal history unless it is required as condition of employment or of applying for a loan. Even then, it is my decision.

You have no RIGHT to my personal information. My refusal to give you this information is not an infringement on your freedom of speech.

I have made some personal information a part of the public record by allowing its publication on the Internet. Please note, I have never complained when you have engaged in empty-headed attacks on my position. If information is part of the open, public record then I have no objection to it appearing here. For example, "a," if you write a book on cyber-chocolate-licking fetishes... I think your perversions are a matter for open debate.

If personal information is gained illegally and posted... I think the sysop is justified in deleting it. This is an invasion of privacy and violation of the law. Under certain conditions, the right of privacy limits freedom of speech. Of course, this is all covered in the law.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.

Ken,

I was not saying that you didn't have the right to check out Diane's forum. I think you should check out her new home, just to satisfy your morbid curiosity. I think free speach is great, in fact I practice it every day. Have you ever thought that maybe just maybe that OTFR didn't want the new forum posted because he/she didn't want all of his/her gang going over to check out Diane's new home? Personally, I think what OTFR did was wrong but you don't find me constantly bitching about it? Oops... I just expressed freedom of speech didn't I? Maybe the link was deleted on the simple fact that Diane's new forum doesn't have one thing to do with Y2K. Maybe just maybe, OTFR thought that the post was pure tasteless and thought that it would bring grief to Diane as well as himself/herself. I don't know why OTFR did it, and really I don't care. What I do object to is numerous threads devoted to that subject.

If you and Flint wish to start a true honest-to-goodness free speech forum, best of luck to the both of you. I imagine that you'll get a few hits, but in the end the people will leave because they will soon tire of your "civil" attacks on them. You constantly degrade people for name calling and petty remarks, even though you constantly do same thinking you are "above" everyone else. You just do it in your own unique way. People see past that, and see exactly what you do. Hold yourself to the standards that you expect of others.

Oh BTW, if you really wish to see what Lusenet Forums that Greenspun hosts, try taking everything off past http://greenspun.com/bboard. That will show you all the forums that are hosted on his servers. Happy Reading Ken, oh, and please try not to bore the other forums to tears.

-- (Look@Lusenet.Listings), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

I believe the applicable right here is the right to freedom of the press, not the right to free speech. The only right to free speech guaranteed under law is that the government will not intercede to prevent you from exercising free speech.

You are making your free speech argument tacitly based on defining OTFR as an instrument or agent of the government, because the Greenspun servers are located at MIT and therefore this forum is government sponsored. I think that is a pretty far stretch. After all, the Congressional Record is a publication of the government, yet you may not publish one word of your extensive opinions in it. Try sue for your right to publish in it and your suit will be dismissed as frivolous.

Part of the right of freedom of the press is an editorial right to supervise content. Even if the Greenspun server could legitimately be described as owned or controlled by MIT, MIT is not constrained to publish you, any more than the Congressional Record is.

Just think how far you'd get in court once the opposing lawyer pointed oput that you could have started your own forum on the same Greenspun server, and published every scrap of whatever you pleased on it. Try getting anyone to agree that your right to speak has been abridged in light of that incontrovertible fact. It doesn't matter if OTFR deletes 99% of the posts, including all of yours. Your right to free speech is not impaired.

Get it?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 03, 2000.

The moderator can do two things that might clear up this mess.

1. Post specific guidelines as to exactly what types of posts will be deleted. I realize there are some guidelines posted, but they are vague.

2. If a post and/or thread must be deleted, a notice should always be placed there informing readers that the moderator deleted it. Nothing should ever be deleted without such notice.

The thing that bothered me the most about the TB2000 deletions was the way most of them were done without any type of notice. Several times I watched it as it was happening. In many cases, the "sysops" even denied doing it.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 03, 2000.

Brian:

I got it a long time ago. But you must admit that the Flint and Ken forum is better than the Elian forum :o)

At least, I think so.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Buddy,

I agree and noticed/didnt notice (smile) it was a 'sneaky' way to handle it. If you look at the thread AN URGENT REQUEST, you should see where this all began.

OTFR gave a 'warning' regarding the retard.

Retard took it from there, till now we are here?

And so it has been that more and more of posts regarding this subject till the point of 'tiresome' already, but hey, free speech right?

You suggestions are perhaps the best I've seen so far...hang around and lets see if anyone else can come up/ end up with some better.

We can all be critics, but WHAT about solutions. I offered up some, do this via email, but that didnt work. I'm still open.

Guess I just wish it would all end, so we can get back to normal and have fun? Debates, or am I missing something, maybe we are having fun.

----is lookin around for Capn Fun.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Hi Anita,

"Maybe the link was deleted on the simple fact that Diane's new forum doesn't have one thing to do with Y2K. Maybe just maybe, OTFR thought that the post was pure tasteless"

We, at this forum happen to think Diane DOES have something to do with Y2k.

What else does OTFR get to judge "tasteless?"

-- (Ernies @uto and body .shop), May 03, 2000.

"2. If a post and/or thread must be deleted, a notice should always be placed there informing readers that the moderator deleted it. Nothing should ever be deleted without such notice.

The thing that bothered me the most about the TB2000 deletions was the way most of them were done without any type of notice. Several times I watched it as it was happening. In many cases, the "sysops" even denied doing it

I second that, Buddy.

-- (Polly @ Wolly doodle .all the day), May 03, 2000.

Consumer,

Just workin' and lurkin',adjusting attitude on day off ; )

Z,

"But you must admit that the Flint and Ken forum is better than the Elian forum"

I'm beginning to wonder.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 03, 2000.

Ernie:

You might want to read the thread again. *I* don't know WHY the link to Diane's thread was disabled. Someone else suggested something about it not having to do with Y2k.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

Ken,

- Your address is in the phone book, unless you have paid money to have it suppressed.

- Your criminal background is available at the local courthouse, and increasingly, on the Internet.

- Your sexual persuasions (and judging from the way you supported bestiality on an earlier thread, we won't go there) are free game to any writer that can substantiate his or her story (see Clinton, William J.)

Your credit report is probably the only thing still somewhat sacred, Ken. That and the records of your video rentals from the corner adult book store.

-- (@ .), May 03, 2000.

Just my pennies worth.

about the only sacred thing is your credit report...NOT.

There are SOME of Us who Can access that information, with just a name.

Scarey, but true.

---not concerned about video x rated movies...not my bag..

---prefers whirlpools....can we Drop this already? Ok, guess not.

Since we are 'playing ball' who's up next...

BTW, celia I like the 'umpire' statement.

See you can 'argue' w/the umpire, but their decision Always stand, deal with it?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Brian... so I can have free speech on some other public street, but not the one near your house? As long as I can protest somewhere else, my right to protest is not abridged? Let me guess... not a member of the ACLU?

"a," I agree that the right to privacy has been diminished. As a libertarian (of sorts) I favor both freedom of speech AND a right to privacy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.