I have an idea for forums that call themselves "for free speech"

[LJ_Reloaded]

I know I read somewhere on here that this was a 'free speech' forum so I thought I'd throw out this totally innocuous idea that is in no way a demand of any sort so cool yer jets folks, m'k?

How about "we don't ban users unless someone has called the cops and they said it's probably actionable."

So if you're banned from a 'free speech forum' then you know you'd better lawyer up.

 

[Conager]

No blood; no foul? I can live with that.

 

[about_average]

Even the first amendment isn't without limits.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Even the first amendment isn't without limits.

Its limits are pretty close to what I'm suggesting. But I'm only suggesting this, and only on a forum that prides itself on supporting free speech.

 

[mark_j]

Its limits are pretty close to what I'm suggesting. But I'm only suggesting this, and only on a forum that prides itself on supporting free speech.

Free speech doesn't equate to anarchy... you ought to know that.

 

[Conager]

Its limits are pretty close to what I'm suggesting. But I'm only suggesting this, and only on a forum that prides itself on supporting free speech.

I have rarely heard an exception other than "fire in a theater" or the fact you cannot say the word "bomb" or even joke in that direction with the airlines. Every time I hear speech that sounds to me like it is inciting violence or at a minimum disorder, it seems to be protected speech.

Whenever I hear "there are limits to free speech," it seems to be about limiting free speech that the speaker doesn't wish to hear expressed in their presence.

I laugh at the campus protesters from the 60's that grew up to be professors on committees establishing free speech "zones."

 

[Fala]

I know I read somewhere on here that this was a 'free speech' forum so I thought I'd throw out this totally innocuous idea that is in no way a demand of any sort so cool yer jets folks, m'k?

How about "we don't ban users unless someone has called the cops and they said it's probably actionable."

So if you're banned from a 'free speech forum' then you know you'd better lawyer up.

I was just heading to bed when I saw this....

First of all, unless you have paid for a membership here, ram your lawyer up your ass. You have lost nothing.


That is all. good night.

 

[Wrong Element]

In 13 and a half years, I've never once been under the impression that I have an equal say, or frankly any say, in how this place is run.

Those who believe it should be otherwise are welcome to keep pissing into the wind.

 

[Paendragon]

In 13 and a half years, I've never once been under the impression that I have an equal say, or frankly any say, in how this place is run.

Those who believe it should be otherwise are welcome to keep pissing into the wind.

Fuck. I just now realized I've been here for 13 and a half years.

 

[Conager]

Fuck. I just now realized I've been here for 13 and a half years.

You gotta be vested in the 401k by now, right?

 

[Paendragon]

You gotta be vested in the 401k by now, right?

I'm not sure. I received my 10% ownership stake in 2012, though, so that's something.

 

[Conager]

I'm not sure. I received my 10% ownership stake in 2012, though, so that's something.

I plugged that into my Texas Instruments scientific calculator from circa 1989 and it says, "undefined."

 

[hashtag45]

Such a complicated matter, indeed, LJ:
- on one hand you have hateful speech that incites violence etc. Or comments that cross the line - from being occasional personal attacks to systematic online harassment
- at the opposite end: you could end up with a witchhunt against those who are a bit more outspoken (or who are simply not liked by certain individuals)

Nevertheless, imo there are 2 straightforward situations, as you suggested, too:

1.comments that would be potentially actionable:
as you said: "How about "we don't ban users unless someone has called the cops and they said it's probably actionable."
- if cops said a user's comments were "pretty actionable", that would also put the website/owner at risk, too. Of being either prosecuted or shut down. But mind you, I take your comment as meaning that the user should be banned Before calling the cops.

2.but I also add to that: repeated accusations of paedophilia
I kind of agree with Laurel here: Child abuse is too serious of a matter to be taken lightly.
((nb - in the case of the eyer-Recidiva situation: I wasn't around then to have an informed opinion, so I want to keep out of it no longer taking sides. Nevertheless, I read Laurel's + a few others' comments and I think what they meant was: if people weren't primarily interested in board drama, they'd handle it differently.
I tend to agree.))

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How about "we don't ban users unless someone has called the cops and they said it's probably actionable."

Clue: "WE" don't ban anybody because "WE" don't own the domain.

Once YOU own a domain, YOU can make any rules for it you wish including having US vote on who should or should not be banned based on any vast range of criteria.

M'kay?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

AND you can apply the rules selectively as I have learned in the past.


Democrats who go after non-democrats can troll for literally years upon years using the same language that eyer used against Reci and that Ish used.

It is what it is. Look at how many years busybody ignored the rule on copyright violation before something was done about it...



.... and he's still doing it.

 

[anchoredinocean]

AND you can apply the rules selectively as I have learned in the past.


Democrats who go after non-democrats can troll for literally years upon years using the same language that eyer used against Reci and that Ish used.

It is what it is. Look at how many years busybody ignored the rule on copyright violation before something was done about it...



.... and he's still doing it.

When you repeat your own lie over and over, do you just begin to believe it or?

Sorry for asking, I've just never been on the level of stupidity and paranoia you are.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Which lie is that?


Are you actually another Throb alt? You're the only person here who is nasty enough to those they do not agree with.

 

[anchoredinocean]

Which lie is that?


Are you actually another Throb alt? You're the only person here who is nasty enough to those they do not agree with.

I see you've selectively ignored the dozen plus times I've said, even when I've 'interacted' with you that the things Rob said were downright disgusting and despicable, much to your insistence that anyone on his side of the political aisle as him.

Also, please show me where I've been nasty? Have I called women a cunt like you have? Nope. Have I called Asians 'Oriental Fish Wife' like Ish has? Nope. Have I made statements that my Dad died of AIDS from raping me like Ish's son did earlier tonight? Nope.

Just because I call out people on their misogyny, bigotry, and things of that nature doesn't make me nasty. Unlike you, I don't have to resort to attacking the gender of a poster I disagree with.

Now of course I wonder why I am wasting saying all of this but hey, I'm bored.

 

[Bert Notorius]

I see you've selectively ignored the dozen plus times I've said, even when I've 'interacted' with you that the things Rob said were downright disgusting and despicable, much to your insistence that anyone on his side of the political aisle as him.

Also, please show me where I've been nasty? Have I called women a cunt like you have? Nope. Have I called Asians 'Oriental Fish Wife' like Ish has? Nope. Have I made statements that my Dad died of AIDS from raping me like Ish's son did earlier tonight? Nope.

Just because I call out people on their misogyny, bigotry, and things of that nature doesn't make me nasty. Unlike you, I don't have to resort to attacking the gender of a poster I disagree with.

Now of course I wonder why I am wasting saying all of this but hey, I'm bored.

post some pictures of your hairy back.

 

[anchoredinocean]

post some pictures of your hairy back.

Sorry but I'm really not interesting in flirting with you, Ann.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Sorry but I'm really not interesting in flirting with you, Ann.

who the fuck is ann. another of your ex's?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The rules don't apply to me. I come by the attitude honestly. Ancestor Samuel Johnson was an Anglican cleric who told JAMES I, to his face, to go fuck himself. JAMES had Sam whipped with 300 plus lashes. I say whats on my mind consequences be damned. Most people benefit from knowing theyre stupid shits.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

AND you can apply the rules selectively as I have learned in the past.


Democrats who go after non-democrats can troll for literally years upon years using the same language that eyer used against Reci and that Ish used.

It is what it is. Look at how many years busybody ignored the rule on copyright violation before something was done about it...



.... and he's still doing it.

OF COURSE, you can apply the rules selectively.

An internet domain is YOUR personal soapbox in cyberspace. THAT is the essence of the free speech nature of it. You need not share that platform with anyone, and if you do, you are totally within your RIGHT to set whatever rules you wish for sharing that space.

 

[phrodeau]

Literotica still flies the banners for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and the Free Speech Coalition.

I think these groups have a more informed opinion of Free Speech than can be found among our posters.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Such a complicated matter, indeed, LJ:
- on one hand you have hateful speech that incites violence etc. Or comments that cross the line - from being occasional personal attacks to systematic online harassment
- at the opposite end: you could end up with a witchhunt against those who are a bit more outspoken (or who are simply not liked by certain individuals)

Nevertheless, imo there are 2 straightforward situations, as you suggested, too:

1.comments that would be potentially actionable:
as you said: "How about "we don't ban users unless someone has called the cops and they said it's probably actionable."
- if cops said a user's comments were "pretty actionable", that would also put the website/owner at risk, too. Of being either prosecuted or shut down. But mind you, I take your comment as meaning that the user should be banned Before calling the cops.

2.but I also add to that: repeated accusations of paedophilia
I kind of agree with Laurel here: Child abuse is too serious of a matter to be taken lightly.
((nb - in the case of the eyer-Recidiva situation: I wasn't around then to have an informed opinion, so I want to keep out of it no longer taking sides. Nevertheless, I read Laurel's + a few others' comments and I think what they meant was: if people weren't primarily interested in board drama, they'd handle it differently.
I tend to agree.))

Yeah, we'd call the cops.

And the cops would say stop wasting their time because they don't even have an IP address to investigate.

Which would bring us back to taking it up with Laurel. Which would go absolutely nowhere as has been demonstrated: Recidiva is still here.