Laurel's Free Speech Dilemma

[Whispersecret]

Laurel, I tried looking for the topic where you discuss your "censorship" dilemma, but I couldn't find it.

I know that you value free speech, as do most of us. People have a right to say and write what they wish. I don't think many will dispute that fact. I applaud you for attempting to uphold that.

However, did it occur to you that in not posting objectionable posts, you aren't actually inhibiting their right to say their piece? There are PLENTY of other places they can say what they wish. They can go spout off on the street corners, make flyers and distribute them on windshields, set up a website, etc. Free speech doesn't mean you PERSONALLY have to post it here. I don't think deleting the useless harmful posts is taking away anybody's right of free speech.

Here's an idea. Warn the offensive people. If they get three warnings and continue to misuse the BB, they're outta here. They may still choose to speak freely somewhere else, or even here, if they choose to conform to a bare minimum of mature behavior. If you set up a warning system, this leaves them free to choose what action to take.

Another idea someone mentioned already. (I can't remember who suggested it.) Make it so only registered people can post. Realistically, I don't see how this will really make a difference, because we're all writing under pseudonyms, but for some strange reason the real weirdos seem to need that extra level of anonymity that non-registration gives them.

Barring any changes made by you, I think the shunning idea someone mentioned in some other thread was a good one. It's still basically ignoring, but lends a harsher connotation. The problem with shunning, is that everyone has to abide by it. As long as one person continues to react, even in a comic way, the harrassers will continue to post.

What do the rest of you think? I think Laurel wants this BB to "belong" to us, so let her know how you feel about banning offensive posts and/or their authors. If we demand a modicum of decent behavior here, are we denying people a basic right? I'd like to know.

(This has been another long-winded post by Whispersecret.)

[This message has been edited by whispersecret (edited 03-09-2000).]

 

[Guest]

I believe I'll paraphrase Norm MacDonald on this one: "Or as I now call it, Nazi Germany."

So how are things in sunny California? Are they rounding people up yet?

"Most" people like free speech, huh? Well that's just fucking brilliant. Most people are morons. Like you.

 

[DrTom]

Although free speech is one of the basic tenents that this country was built upon, keep in mind that you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre if infact there is no fire. That would create a clear and present danger to all in that theatre as they rushed to get out and possibly injuring someone in their haste. What the hell does this all mean?? Just as we have the right to speak our minds, we must all act responsibly and think before we talk.

 

[Lasher]

I'll go you one further, whisper. Someone who posts in an objectionable manner HAS exercised their right to free speech. What the first amendment doesn't do is protect the speaker from the consequences of exercising that right.

Examples:

Say you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and nothing happens..no big deal, right? Ok, say then that you yell "Fire!" in a crowded threatre, it causes a stampede and dozens are injured. I guarantee you that there will be criminal and civil action taken in that situation.

As an American you have the right to sit here and say that Bruiser fucks sheep. Bruiser could then bring a charge of slander against you. Now, if Bruiser can prove that he's been damaged by this statement, he can win his case. So, again, you would be punished for the consequences of your actions, (damaging Bruiser's reputation), not for the actions themselves.

So, really, if someone wants to take the time to post a statement here such as, "You all suck and I hope you die", the moment he clicks the submit button, he's exercised his 1st amendment rights. Now, if Laurel decides he's crossed a line and deletes his post, he's not been denied anything. Instead, he's been punished for the consquences of his action, i.e. pissing off the moderator.

Of course, as someone else has pointed out before...Laurel's not bound by the constitution in running this little BB.

 

[Tawny T]

Fake Name, why don't you register - afraid to??? Afraid some one will write back to YOU?

To quote your own words:

"Most" people like free speech, huh? Well that's just fucking brilliant. Most people are morons. Like you."

Sorry your words, not mine!

By your posts we all know you are erudite, learned, scholarly, and so fluent in the English language.

I even know your inimitably eloquent riposte - "Go Fuck Yourself - Douche Bag"!

Thank you Kind Sir, I think I shall! OHHH,it feels soooo damn gooooood! Again, please!!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

And then Little Red Riding Hood said, "No you're going to eat me like it says in the book!"

 

[Growler145]

Truly as some have said we have a right to
free speech,,it takes maturity to exercise that right with restraint,,,Before the internet there was radio,CB,Ham,,where one had to obtain a license to use the "Privilege",,

In high schools american goverment class my term paper was titled "The Socialistic Democracy of The United States" exercising
my right to Free Speech,,it not only was not accepted, I was given 24 hours to turn in another topic or recieve a failing grade.

Like so many other things the founding father
did NOT want a Democracy,,because it is rule by Government, not by the people.

So as I stated previously,,most of our rights are Privliges not "Absolute" undenieable "Rights".

C'mon slut_boy ,,this should be a good topic for you

 

[Nogard]

wispersecret: An old saying to consider:::
Who is going to watch the watchers?

 

[Slut_boy]

I have said before that the urge to say something is human and so too, unfortunately is the reluctance to listen to others. By listening we can learn. That is one of the arguments in favour of free speech. To avoid a situation where, as in olden times, "men fear witches and so they burnt women".

But not all speech is beneficial to people. Sometimes we need to balance the right of the individual to say what he may, against the right of society at large. That means that we have to first consider what the interests of society are.

Now, free speech is not the only right which people have. People also have the right to privacy and the right to their dignity. When one person exercizes his right (say to free speech) in such a way that it infringes upon another persons fundamental right (say to dignity) then we must balance these rights against one another. The difficult part, I guess, is trying to decide which right ought to prevail.

The interests of the community must, in a stand off situation, prevail - well in my opinion. No individual is bigger than society. Does anyone agree? Even your American constitution does limit the right to free speech. One of the limitations is where the speech is designed to cuase harm ie. 'hate speech'. Isn't that what Fake Name was up to. Wouldn't Laurel perhaps be justified in limiting his right under these circumstances?

 

[Slut_boy]

Growler, I have just read your post again. It sounds pretty interesting - the type of thing that could absorb me for a long time. Perhaps it threatened the delicate balance?

 

[DrTom]

Slut-Boy...You are obviously an educated and intelligent person, and it is refreshing to see someone that make the distinction of a person's rights vs. the greater good of society at large.

 

[Flagg]

Americans really are obsessed with the constitution and the first amendment aren't they? I wonder what it is like to believe in something to such an extent and to base your everday lives and decisions on it.

This is a porn site with lots of interesting people having a mixture of sexy/interesting/dull conversations on a bulletin board. We have a parasite on the BB that is threatening the "harmony" of the board and could provoke the departure of some of the "respectable" characters of the BB.

Mind my french, but fuck your omnipresent first amendment and free speech morality issues and just rid yourself of the problem. I really don't understand the need to go running to a pseudo-utopian political system for help here. Someone said something about the importance of a free and healthy society over a free and healthy individual and I'd have to agree.

Delete away, don't give him a leg to stand on. Suppress him, oppress him, tear away his rights - who cares!

(Was that over the top? I'm havinbg a really shitty day today...)

 

[Slut_boy]

Flagg *laughs* no you are not over the top at all. Don't forget that you,in England, have a Westminister system of parliamentry sovereignty. So you don't really have the same value system when it comes to constitutional rights. I still see your point, however, and I am not even American.

The only thing which a bill of rights does which you didn't do - even though we came to the same conclusion of deleting the troll - is that we were forced to reach our decision through normative reasoning rather than to simply base it on a gut feel.

Free speech is never an unfetterable right, as Growler pointed out. Public policy dictates that we must be able to place a limit on what people say - if it can be justified to do so in a free and open democracy.

Here is a classic example: Companies should not be allowed to make false representations when they advertise a product. The right to the free speech of the company is outweighed by the interests of the public not to be misinformed to their prejudice. So, the moment we accept that free speech is not a sacred right, then that is when we begin to change the angle on people like Fake Name.

A constitution is there to protect the rights of the people, so that society may, as a whole, function adequately. It is not there to offer a veil behind which delinquents ought to be allowed to hide when launching destructive attacks detrimental to the community.

 

[Lasher]

I think some of you are missing the point here. Let's take a look at what we're talking about

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, the part we are concerned with in this thread is: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,

Now, take our newest, bestest buddies claim there that he was denied his rights because he couldn't turn in his paper in High School...I feel bad for him, but that's not a 1st Amendment issue. Read the Free Speech clause again...Did Congress pass a law prohibiting him from handing in his paper? Did any court issue an injunction prohibiting from handing in his paper based on existing law? I don't think so. Did our newest, bestest buddy take the time to submit his high school paper anywhere else for publication? Did he stand up on a soap box somewhere in public and attempt to read it?? I'm guessing not, in which case it wasn't that he was denied his right to Free Speech, he just chose not to exercise it.

Now, slut_boy, you made the following statement...Even your American constitution does limit the right to free speech. One of the limitations is where the speech is designed to cuase harm ie. 'hate speech'. And that's not exactly true. Nothing in the US Constitution limits the right to Free Speech. Congress, in recent years has passed laws against 'Hate Speech' based on it's interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Again, look at my original post on this subject. It's the consequences of actions in 1st Amendment related issues that are punished, not the actions themselves. If I stand in the middle of the woods in scream "Nigger" 1000 times, and the only things that here me are the birds...does that constitute a hate crime? It may be insane, but it's not a crime. Now, if you change that so that I'm sitting in the centerfield seats at Three Rivers Stadium, and the Cincinnati Reds are in town, and everytime Ken Griffey, Jr takes his position in centerfield I stand up and scream "Nigger!" for the entire inning...how long do you thing that is going to be tolerated?

You need to think about the context in which you are saying things. DCL made some outstanding points on this subject in another thread that I started. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee you the right to use a cb, or a ham radio, or a printing press, or a computer. You should be fully capable of exercising your 1st Amendment rights without the use of technology.

Umm...Growler...I'm assuming by our founding fathers you mean Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton..those guys? I'd love to know where you got this idea from:

Like so many other things the founding father did NOT want a Democracy, because it is rule by Government, not by the people

Read "The Federalist Papers" (I have a copy if you need to borrow it), look at the Constitution they wrote, (Senators elected by the state legislatures!). The only thing they argued among themselves was whether to have a strong central government, or strong state governments.

Oh, and finally, about your little high school paper. If you take a look at Social Contract Theory, unless you had reached the age of majority when you were handing it in, you didn't have any rights. (BTW, Social Contract Theory also explains why animals do not have rights)

 

[Greg Lee Hunt]

Bravo flagg!

I've always thought that we Americans could learn much from our British Cousins.

It seems to me that this or (these) 'parasite(s)' have certainly had more than a fair opportunity to exercise free speech rights (or as Growler145 points out) privileges. In other words, they've had their shots and are contributing nothing but chaos and venom and been an otherwise disruptive influence contributing nothing to the discourse. We're literally being 'hacked' or 'hijacked" from within.

I am a believer in the broadest possible interpretation of free speech. After all this is a 'porn' site. I personally draw the line at censoring speech when it is intended to inflict harm on some other individual or group. We have court rememdies for libel and slander. As some one else pointed out, we cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded room, and the advocacy of killing, causing harm, or inciting to riot, certainly have consequences in the criminal justice system.

Calling whispersecret, a 'nazi' or a 'bitch' may be inaccurate and reprehensible, but it certainly falls within the guidelines of protected speech, i.e. 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me'. Knowing whispersecret, she'll let those roll off her back and shed them without giving it much thought. Do these current intrusions meet my own guidelines as to what should be censored? - Probably not, but because of their repetitious nature they do come perilously close to that line. They've had their chance, they've been given a forum -- if they've got nothing more or better to contribute -- 'cut em off' and, if you don't do that 'ignore em'! We just don't want to listen anymore <GLH exercising his right to diatribe>

[This message has been edited by Greg Lee Hunt (edited 03-10-2000).]

 

[Slut_boy]

Lasher, I am not sure that I agree with you. You say that there is nothing in the US constitution which limits the right to the freedom of expression. Now that just isn't so.

Rights aren't necessarily limited in the instrument (the constitution itself). Because I know that there isn't a legislated limitation clause in the US constitution. The limitation takes place in the jurisprudential reasoning of the court. Otherwise, how else would the court balance the rights of the parties.

You said, Lash, that there is no limitation on free speech in the US. Well, I have a copy of 'American Constitutional Law' second edition by Professor Lawrence Tribe (I think that it is kinda like the American constitutional lawyers bible). Chapter 12 of the book deals with the right to expression. I have recently read the very detailed discussion on the case of United States v O'Brian. The case involved a man who burnt his draft card in a public display of opposition to the Vietnam War. He sought to rely on his right to express himself. There can be no doubt that this was an expression of some type - the court held that his constitutional right to free speech could be justifiably limited here. The court held that this type of expression would not be in the interests of the state and his right to free speech was denied.

Now on the 'hate speech' point, your US courts recognise a doctrine called "the clear and present doctrine" which is concerned with distinguishing protected advocacy from unprotected incitement of violence or hate or illegal conduct. For example: in the case of Feiner v New York, the court denied the right to free speech to a man who addressed a crowd in such a way as to arouse negro people to rise up against and fight against white people. The court said that you may not rely on the right to free speech where your intention is to cause hate or where violence may be threatened.

So, I don't think that I was wrong Lasher. If you can get a copy of Tribe, then its an interesting read.

As for the social contract - well I love the liberal democracy of John Locke. I have in fact quoted him before in these threads.

 

[Guest]

Look what I found. What happened to you? Why the change?

 

[miles]

?????

This is not a "public" place when it comes to free speech. The website is owned by someone. If you call CNN's Larry King Show (sorry - couldnt think of another example)and start using language CNN disapproves of, what do they do?

They pull the plug.

If Laurel disapproves of a post she has the right to do the same. It's her website.

 

[sweetfeet]

I am relatively new to Literotica, and reading a few posts here and there, I feel like the person who started a new job and gets to hear right off the bat all the gossip about people in the office.
Could someone define what "objectionable" would be? I have felt that there have been a few posts I've read that were "objectionable," however, I don't know exactly how my definition of the word and anyone else's would match up. I am not a smartass, or a rabble rouser, I just want to know what is going on with all of this, because since I have discovered this website, I have been on almost daily, and I will continue to do so.

 

[scylis]

the first amendment is there to keep the GOVERNMENT from taking away your right to free speach, press, religion, assembly, and to complain.. it never says anything about limiting any of that on PRIVATE PROPERTY by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS...

let's say that i own a mansion (which i NEVER will).. if somebody breaks onto my property and starts threatening me and saying shit like "you fucking retard! i hope you die! go fuck yourself, you...uhh..fucker!!" anything i do to him is good an legal... that's why paranoid rich people have armed guards with attack dogs roaming their property.. they can be sued for wrongful death, but they can't be charged with murder due to this little thing called "self-defense"..

technically, this is Laurel's private property.. so really she has the right to boot anybody she feels like booting.. why she doesn't is another reason entirely: she wants to keep people posting here..

 

[Ambrosious]

sweetfeet

Nothing is objectionable. This is just some sour grapes airing dirty laundry. This thread is real old, I think someone is trying to make a point. I mean, have you read Sparky's "Anal Pumping' thread? Say whatever you wish, my sweet.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I personally think that Laurel is handling the boards very well. She gets rid of death threats and she keeps minors off the boards, everything else is up to us to deal with. Which is just fine. There really shouldn't be any reason for free speech on this particular board to be moderated by Laurel. The reason being that while feelings are hurt and emotions are riled by Trolls and their stupidity, they really aren't hurting anyone.

Something that has been overlooked is responsibility. Yes, we have the right to free speech. With rights comes the responsibility to maintain them. Not to get into the whole gun control thing again, but to make an analogy, when one has the right to bear arms and owns a gun one has the responbility to maintain and use the gun in a safe and considerate manner. Free speech is the same, we have this right, we have the responsibility to use it in a safe and considerate manner.

We have the right to spout erotic poetry, we have the responsibility to not spout it in an elementary school. We have the right to say whatever we want, we have the responsibility to be not step on the rights of others by using it. On this board, we have the right to post what we want, and we should be responsible enough to moderate our own behavior, including reactions to persons who have no such personal accountability, react to a post they don't like and juvenilely start bellowing Nazi, bitch, and whatever. Or do I expect a Utopian board?

I forgot my point again. *sigh*

 

[Slut_boy]

Muffin, you know the penalty for forgetfulness. Now take them off .... please ..... and give them to me.

 

[Whispersecret]

Look what I found. What happened to you? Why the change?

<in her best Robert DeNiro voice> You talkin' to me? <laughs> If you were, I don't even get what your point was. I find it amusing and flattering that you took the time to research my posts. You free Saturday night? <winks>

 

[Nobody Special's wife]

Why

Am I the only americain that feels that we have no freedom...We just think we do?? Or is it that so many politians are ruleing are lives ...This is scary to me even or speach is considered wrong....I mean hello if I walked up to the President and said your a fucking asshole ...What would happen to me??

I think are Rights are very limited...Because we are stilled ruled by others but yet the people of the United States are supposed to have the power of this ?? Yet I feel we don't ..So far we have proved to have the most Hatred in this country ...I feel that If the People would get to gether we could take back are country that is rightfully ares...


THE WIFE