Should websites that pimp "Free Speech" be held to that, or shut down for lying?

[Luk]

"made asked?"

Lolwut?

You don't add the "?' to "lolwut", dummy.

 

[Que]

You don't add the "?' to "lolwut", dummy.

#You're not the boss of me.

It's funny how bots like this idiot have such trouble when the words are not written for them.

:nods:

 

[Unabatable]

Now that the false advertising, "Free Speech" bullcrap has once more been focused at so magnificently that even the most progressive lemmings cannot even begin to disingenuously pimp that actual free speech is allowed here, let's turn our attention to the other issue: how that totally regulated speech is ENFORCED/ALLOWED; ie: is the enforcement of that unarguably "Regulated Speech" equally/justly applied to all posters (as the same ones who've pimped the "Free Speech" bullcrap all these years just as intentionally deceitful or naturally ignorant maintain), or - as a virtual full boatload of examples prove - is the GB's totally regulated speech wholly dependent upon not what a poster posts, but actually matters a lot on who the poster is. Eg: I've personally been instantly banned at least a dozen times for doing nothing but other poster's words VERBATIM. Of course, those posters' words - as they were originally posted and as I simply quoted - were never censored or removed, nor was that poster ever even warned, let alone banned.

But, hey: why would anyone believe some attention whore bozo who's had at least 28 previous usernames banned, eh? I could also report the other numerous times I've posted about a certain poster here who directly threatened others, but - for some strange reason - those posts are completely erased and I'm banned for them, without a word of them violating any posted Forum Guideline at all; of course, the poster who posted those INTOLERABLE words was treated differently.

Or, I could mention again that time I posted a thread that was almost immediately erased and I was instantly banned for, with the justification being threats against others, but not a single word of it was threatening and, the more pushed, the banner admitted that it and I were zapped simply because too many other posters complained. Yep, again: not a single word violating Forum Guidelines, and GB "Regulated Speech" fully applied at subjective, bias will.

I've also been banned at least a half dozen times for posting images that were again, that's right, not in violation of any posted Forum Guideline at all. Other posters simply were offended by them, reported them, they were erased and I was instantly banned once more.

And then there wer those...ah, you know what: being banned a minimum of 28 times - no doubt at least 22-24 of for violating no posted Forum Guideline whatsoever - I'm naturally going to have a lot of examples to post. But, after all this ain't about me: it's about if those Forum Guidelines (when they even apply) are enforced equally over ALL posters in general on the GB.

So, to actually investigate that further, we need to find examples of posters posting the exact same things and then observe if they're treated differently (in case you missed it, see "at least a dozen times" above for redundancy)...

Recently, a notorious progressive female poster (who adores habitually kissing progressive "kitty mama" ass) totally unleashed on another, equally infamous socialist poster (commie cat fight!), who obviously appeared to her as if he had a natural target between his eyes because, well, MALE. Now, while you read her quoted words, just imagine progressive she was actually RWCJ he, and he was telling "kitty mama" ass-kissing she the exact opposite-sex equivalent about what he'd do to her:

if i had power over you, i'd cut your cock off with your own hands and shove it down your throat. then i'd cut your fingers off and shove them up your asshole.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88365285&postcount=38

Evidently, the one who rules over the Regulated Speech GB doesn't find that any more threatening/violent than aother progressive female poster who infamously posts about how she'd hurt - even kill - others.

Now, I reposted with commentary the highlighted post above, so I know the post isn't unread, automatically excluding the it wasn't reported bullshit that is ALWAYS offered as first excuse when such blatant violations of Forum Guidelines are exposed. I remember once reporting a progressive female poster here for her pronouncing exactly how she'd kill a guy with an axe: that was permissible, the Board was told, because everyone knew she was just kidding...

Which was total bullshit because shortly before that a humorous thread was erased that sought suggestions on ways to kill another poster; the reason for the thread nuke, the Board was told, was because any talk of killing anyone - JOKING or NOT - is not allowed on the GB per Forum Guidelines.

So, back to the issue: is the totally Regulated Speech GB regulated equally over all?

If you want, reread the quote post above, in which the psychotic, sexist, "kitty mama" ass-kissing, progressive Blurt Bitch vet goes crystal meth-mainlining Lorena Bobbitt on some poor, totally femotionalized cuck...

...and then compare it too the following posters offering their insights into unarguably far, far less physically torturous assaults, albeit just as deadly:

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

Last edited by Laurel : Today at 05:21 AM.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88381938&postcount=13

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

Last edited by Laurel : Today at 05:21 AM.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88382070&postcount=15

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

Last edited by Laurel : Today at 05:22 AM.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88382178&postcount=18

Oh, well, at least the Regulated Speech GB ruler subjectively just censored their words...

Imagine what would've happened to a poster as I if I would've posted what they or the psychotic, progressive "kitty mama" ass-kisser from hell posted.

https://imghaven.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/otlogo.png

VALIDATED:
Post hosts not a single instance of ANYTHING that could possibly be deemed in violation of this website's posted Forum Guidelines.
Thus, any censoring of it, or any action against its author for it, simply more proves the POINT.
Rule: Catch friggin' 22

​

 

[Colonel Hogan]

For someone whose speech is severely suppressed, you sure do mouth off a lot.

https://i.imgur.com/3VZl4lw.gif

 

[Wok]

...or walk away and make a web site that has the rules you like.

 

[Unabatable]

...or walk away and make a web site that has the rules you like.

Not the POINTS, part-timer.

Pimping | - Free Speech, No Spam! - | when that's pure spam itself, is a POINT. I can only take your meek silence on that POINT as you either agree, or don't care.

Pimping the ruling of this Regulated Speech site is equally just for all, or not (as is demonstrated), is a POINT. I can only take your meek silence on that POINT as you either fully agree, or don't care.

Regulated Speech site where the rules apply totally subjectively, weighed almost fully to the pro-progressive side of the biased scale.

Now that we've determined the POINTS as valid, perhaps we should move on to contemplating whether this site - with it's obvious ruling bias - is also guilty of clear discrimination and might even be classified as a HATE site against certain political ideologies?

My, my, my...

How far the self-exalting tolerant, equality-loving, open-minded, all-inclusive, It takes a village progressive people have downright dived.

https://imghaven.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/otlogo.png

VALIDATED:
Post hosts not a single instance of ANYTHING that could possibly be deemed in violation of this website's posted Forum Guidelines.
Thus, any censoring of it, or any action against its author for it, simply more proves the POINT.
Rule: Catch friggin' 22

​

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I think the government should have a light hand on the internet as far as regulation goes. That being said yeah if your gonna tout that your free speech then they should be made to practice what they preach. Free Speech is a high bar and if your going to claim that, you better dam well be doing it, otherwise you're just another partisan hack site trying to skate on fake credentials.

Conservatives say that companies should have a right to do what they want on their own property.

Then Conservatives say that companies should be punished for doing what they want on their own property.

It seems that snowflake Conserviturds only have a problem with fraud when it offends them.

 

[richard_daily]

Now that the false advertising, "Free Speech" bullcrap has once more been focused at so magnificently that even the most progressive lemmings cannot even begin to disingenuously pimp that actual free speech is allowed here, let's turn our attention to the other issue: how that totally regulated speech is ENFORCED/ALLOWED; ie: is the enforcement of that unarguably "Regulated Speech" equally/justly applied to all posters (as the same ones who've pimped the "Free Speech" bullcrap all these years just as intentionally deceitful or naturally ignorant maintain), or - as a virtual full boatload of examples prove - is the GB's totally regulated speech wholly dependent upon not what a poster posts, but actually matters a lot on who the poster is. Eg: I've personally been instantly banned at least a dozen times for doing nothing but other poster's words VERBATIM. Of course, those posters' words - as they were originally posted and as I simply quoted - were never censored or removed, nor was that poster ever even warned, let alone banned.

But, hey: why would anyone believe some attention whore bozo who's had at least 28 previous usernames banned, eh? I could also report the other numerous times I've posted about a certain poster here who directly threatened others, but - for some strange reason - those posts are completely erased and I'm banned for them, without a word of them violating any posted Forum Guideline at all; of course, the poster who posted those INTOLERABLE words was treated differently.

Or, I could mention again that time I posted a thread that was almost immediately erased and I was instantly banned for, with the justification being threats against others, but not a single word of it was threatening and, the more pushed, the banner admitted that it and I were zapped simply because too many other posters complained. Yep, again: not a single word violating Forum Guidelines, and GB "Regulated Speech" fully applied at subjective, bias will.

I've also been banned at least a half dozen times for posting images that were again, that's right, not in violation of any posted Forum Guideline at all. Other posters simply were offended by them, reported them, they were erased and I was instantly banned once more.

And then there wer those...ah, you know what: being banned a minimum of 28 times - no doubt at least 22-24 of for violating no posted Forum Guideline whatsoever - I'm naturally going to have a lot of examples to post. But, after all this ain't about me: it's about if those Forum Guidelines (when they even apply) are enforced equally over ALL posters in general on the GB.

So, to actually investigate that further, we need to find examples of posters posting the exact same things and then observe if they're treated differently (in case you missed it, see "at least a dozen times" above for redundancy)...

Recently, a notorious progressive female poster (who adores habitually kissing progressive "kitty mama" ass) totally unleashed on another, equally infamous socialist poster (commie cat fight!), who obviously appeared to her as if he had a natural target between his eyes because, well, MALE. Now, while you read her quoted words, just imagine progressive she was actually RWCJ he, and he was telling "kitty mama" ass-kissing she the exact opposite-sex equivalent about what he'd do to her:





Evidently, the one who rules over the Regulated Speech GB doesn't find that any more threatening/violent than aother progressive female poster who infamously posts about how she'd hurt - even kill - others.

Now, I reposted with commentary the highlighted post above, so I know the post isn't unread, automatically excluding the it wasn't reported bullshit that is ALWAYS offered as first excuse when such blatant violations of Forum Guidelines are exposed. I remember once reporting a progressive female poster here for her pronouncing exactly how she'd kill a guy with an axe: that was permissible, the Board was told, because everyone knew she was just kidding...

Which was total bullshit because shortly before that a humorous thread was erased that sought suggestions on ways to kill another poster; the reason for the thread nuke, the Board was told, was because any talk of killing anyone - JOKING or NOT - is not allowed on the GB per Forum Guidelines.

So, back to the issue: is the totally Regulated Speech GB regulated equally over all?

If you want, reread the quote post above, in which the psychotic, sexist, "kitty mama" ass-kissing, progressive Blurt Bitch vet goes crystal meth-mainlining Lorena Bobbitt on some poor, totally femotionalized cuck...

...and then compare it too the following posters offering their insights into unarguably far, far less physically torturous assaults, albeit just as deadly:








Oh, well, at least the Regulated Speech GB ruler subjectively just censored their words...

Imagine what would've happened to a poster as I if I would've posted what they or the psychotic, progressive "kitty mama" ass-kisser from hell posted.

https://imghaven.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/otlogo.png

VALIDATED:
Post hosts not a single instance of ANYTHING that could possibly be deemed in violation of this website's posted Forum Guidelines.
Thus, any censoring of it, or any action against its author for it, simply more proves the POINT.
Rule: Catch friggin' 22

​

You're coo coo for caca puffs.

 

[Emerson40]

Now that I have established I am a whiney bitch.

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif

Now, I reposted

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif


So, back to the issue: eeyoye still whining.

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif

If you want, reread all my posts. They read like:

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif

...and then compare it to all my other posts:

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif








Oh, well, at least the Regulated Speech GB ruler subjectively recognizes all my posts by their pitiful, whiney desperation:

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif

Imagine what would've happened to a poster as I if I would've posted what they or the psychotic, progressive "kitty mama" ass-kisser from hell posted.

You got it, more of me whining:

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Crying-baby.gif

VALIDATED:
Site hosts not a single instance of ANYTHING that I could possibly be whining about, but I do, constantly, because I’m the childboss’ Bitch.
Thus, any other posts from this whining author, simply more proves I am a tedious, whining bitch.


​

Whiniest bitch on the boards.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Now that the false advertising, "Free Speech" bullcrap has once more been focused at so magnificently that even the most progressive lemmings cannot even begin to disingenuously pimp that actual free speech is allowed here, let's turn our attention to the other issue: how that totally regulated speech is ENFORCED/ALLOWED; ie: is the enforcement of that unarguably "Regulated Speech" equally/justly applied to all posters (as the same ones who've pimped the "Free Speech" bullcrap all these years just as intentionally deceitful or naturally ignorant maintain), or - as a virtual full boatload of examples prove - is the GB's totally regulated speech wholly dependent upon not what a poster posts, but actually matters a lot on who the poster is. Eg: I've personally been instantly banned at least a dozen times for doing nothing but other poster's words VERBATIM. Of course, those posters' words - as they were originally posted and as I simply quoted - were never censored or removed, nor was that poster ever even warned, let alone banned.

But, hey: why would anyone believe some attention whore bozo who's had at least 28 previous usernames banned, eh? I could also report the other numerous times I've posted about a certain poster here who directly threatened others, but - for some strange reason - those posts are completely erased and I'm banned for them, without a word of them violating any posted Forum Guideline at all; of course, the poster who posted those INTOLERABLE words was treated differently.

Or, I could mention again that time I posted a thread that was almost immediately erased and I was instantly banned for, with the justification being threats against others, but not a single word of it was threatening and, the more pushed, the banner admitted that it and I were zapped simply because too many other posters complained. Yep, again: not a single word violating Forum Guidelines, and GB "Regulated Speech" fully applied at subjective, bias will.

I've also been banned at least a half dozen times for posting images that were again, that's right, not in violation of any posted Forum Guideline at all. Other posters simply were offended by them, reported them, they were erased and I was instantly banned once more.

And then there wer those...ah, you know what: being banned a minimum of 28 times - no doubt at least 22-24 of for violating no posted Forum Guideline whatsoever - I'm naturally going to have a lot of examples to post. But, after all this ain't about me: it's about if those Forum Guidelines (when they even apply) are enforced equally over ALL posters in general on the GB.

So, to actually investigate that further, we need to find examples of posters posting the exact same things and then observe if they're treated differently (in case you missed it, see "at least a dozen times" above for redundancy)...

Recently, a notorious progressive female poster (who adores habitually kissing progressive "kitty mama" ass) totally unleashed on another, equally infamous socialist poster (commie cat fight!), who obviously appeared to her as if he had a natural target between his eyes because, well, MALE. Now, while you read her quoted words, just imagine progressive she was actually RWCJ he, and he was telling "kitty mama" ass-kissing she the exact opposite-sex equivalent about what he'd do to her:





Evidently, the one who rules over the Regulated Speech GB doesn't find that any more threatening/violent than aother progressive female poster who infamously posts about how she'd hurt - even kill - others.

Now, I reposted with commentary the highlighted post above, so I know the post isn't unread, automatically excluding the it wasn't reported bullshit that is ALWAYS offered as first excuse when such blatant violations of Forum Guidelines are exposed. I remember once reporting a progressive female poster here for her pronouncing exactly how she'd kill a guy with an axe: that was permissible, the Board was told, because everyone knew she was just kidding...

Which was total bullshit because shortly before that a humorous thread was erased that sought suggestions on ways to kill another poster; the reason for the thread nuke, the Board was told, was because any talk of killing anyone - JOKING or NOT - is not allowed on the GB per Forum Guidelines.

So, back to the issue: is the totally Regulated Speech GB regulated equally over all?

If you want, reread the quote post above, in which the psychotic, sexist, "kitty mama" ass-kissing, progressive Blurt Bitch vet goes crystal meth-mainlining Lorena Bobbitt on some poor, totally femotionalized cuck...

...and then compare it too the following posters offering their insights into unarguably far, far less physically torturous assaults, albeit just as deadly:








Oh, well, at least the Regulated Speech GB ruler subjectively just censored their words...

Imagine what would've happened to a poster as I if I would've posted what they or the psychotic, progressive "kitty mama" ass-kisser from hell posted.

https://imghaven.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/otlogo.png

VALIDATED:
Post hosts not a single instance of ANYTHING that could possibly be deemed in violation of this website's posted Forum Guidelines.
Thus, any censoring of it, or any action against its author for it, simply more proves the POINT.
Rule: Catch friggin' 22

​

All of those posts got hit with warnings and were removed. What exactly are you butthurt about?

 

[Que]

All of those posts got hit with warnings and were removed. What exactly are you butthurt about?

You don't know?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You don't know?

Great question.

 

[about_average]

And not one word of Thanks! from you to me for intentionally being The Reason you can claim that.

Now where's your "thanks" for me intentionally posting a reply so you could thump your chest and claim victory?

You're so predictable.

 

[Que]

Great question.

Why would you say that?

 

[WoundedKnee]

Conservatives say that companies should have a right to do what they want on their own property.

Then Conservatives say that companies should be punished for doing what they want on their own property.

It seems that snowflake Conserviturds only have a problem with fraud when it offends them.

Cleary, you are mental.

 

[Hypoxia]

Conservatives say that companies should have a right to do what they want on their own property.

Then Conservatives say that companies should be punished for doing what they want on their own property.

It seems that snowflake Conserviturds only have a problem with fraud when it offends them.

Clearly, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Fixed for you.

This is a private, non-governmental website. The owner supports free speech but imposes fairly clear rules on what is and isn't permissible on the site she owns. But LIT is *her* site, and she can favor or ban whoever or whatever the fuck she wants because private property. Shitheads here shout CENSORSHIP when their filth violates her rules or patience. Sad.

 

[MagnusRichard]

Fixed for you.

This is a private, non-governmental website. The owner supports free speech but imposes fairly clear rules on what is and isn't permissible on the site she owns. But LIT is *her* site, and she can favor or ban whoever or whatever the fuck she wants because private property. Shitheads here shout CENSORSHIP when their filth violates her rules or patience. Sad.

Maybe the owner is a sado masochist, yes?

She gets off when he calls her names.

She gets off when she kills him.

She gets off when he comes back for more.

I like her!

 

[WoundedKnee]

Her?

He has no say? There are, by your admission, then double standards. People of your political purview can say whatever they want. Others, not so much. Is that not a mockery of the idea of free speech from an owner who proclaims "This is a place of FREE SPEECH? "

 

[RobDownSouth]

Her?

He has no say? There are, by your admission, then double standards. People of your political purview can say whatever they want. Others, not so much. Is that not a mockery of the idea of free speech from an owner who proclaims "This is a place of FREE SPEECH? "

Free speech is not an absolute, my situational Native American pal.

http://bfy.tw/FOmX

 

[Hypoxia]

Free speech is not an absolute, my situational Native American pal.

Alas, he's not yet pointed to an official announcement by LIT's owner that this is a free speech site. But he's welcome to start his own free speech site. Anything goes... till the death threats and fraudulent ads attract legal attention.

 

[richard_daily]

Her?

He has no say? There are, by your admission, then double standards. People of your political purview can say whatever they want. Others, not so much. Is that not a mockery of the idea of free speech from an owner who proclaims "This is a place of FREE SPEECH? "

Shut the fuck up you crybaby wannabe.

 

[ryan8558]

What kind of whine are we having today?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Why would you say that?

Great question.

 

[Hypoxia]

What kind of whine are we having today?

Champipple cocktail. Mix together bottles of Champale and Ripple. Then whine that it costs more than Right Time, the Ripple of stout malt liquors. And whine that liquor stores are all ripoffs, which explains that shoplifting bust. Then chug down some Mad Dog 20-20. Damn, sure are a lot of whinos around!

EDIT: Aw fuck, just skip the Champipple cocktail and go straight for Mad Dog. It's the perfect beverage for Tromp cultists.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Free speech is not an absolute, my situational Native American pal.

http://bfy.tw/FOmX

This is a really STUPID analogy, and people like you should stop making it. NOTHING with regard to Literoticas site owners' ALLEGED inconsistent application of forum rules comes remotely close to the potential danger of someone falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. Again, such a false equivalency is pathetically stupid.

This is merely about the Constitutional prohibition of the GOVERNMENT suppression of speech being a legal mandate in no way binding on individual citizens with respect to speech engaged in by other individual citizens regardless to whatever degree ANY of those citizens profess a commitment to the principle of free speech.

Absent a legal contract that WOULD bind one to such a position, "free speech" means the freedom to be hypocritical about your commitment to free speech, ffs.

Hypox isn't right about many things, but he nailed this one:

This is a private, non-governmental website. The owner supports free speech but imposes fairly clear rules on what is and isn't permissible on the site she owns. But LIT is *her* site, and she can favor or ban whoever or whatever the fuck she wants because private property. Shitheads here shout CENSORSHIP when their filth violates her rules or patience. Sad.