Mods, why are you hiding, no guts to show yourself.
- Thread starter DrMary
- Start date
ericalauren
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Posts
- 3,449
Oh my.
Quip
Executive Janitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Posts
- 1,011
We do not wait crouched in the rafters like Batman. Time and space exist outside of Lit Chat, and we exist in that space the same as you. While we are happy to be of service, it is not our sole responsibility to drop everything we are doing to serve your demands. You PM'd me 18 minutes ago. You posted this 11 minutes after PMing me. You demanded a response 7 minutes after that, and 5 minutes ago now you're claiming your right to free speech has been violated somehow, which is not the reason you were banned. You have been PM'd as to why.
Yes, my right to free speech has been violated. I have not chatted about underage in any rooms. Just stated why I was in each room when I first entered, so other chatted would know why I am in the room, and what I want to chat about. I have every right to do so, according to the Constitution.
ToPleaseHim
JtohisPB/Brooke :)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Posts
- 7,990
So, you’re saying you don’t understand the constitutional right to free speech. And you’re really loud about how little you understand it? Wowza!
Quip
Executive Janitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Posts
- 1,011
You always have the right to free speech. This does not make you immune from consequences from expressing yourself. You may find this thread useful: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/the-right-to-free-speech.1589778/
If you don't, I can only encourage you to avail yourself of Literotica's Terms of Use, found here: https://www.literotica.com/stories/tos.php
I do hope you find this useful.
If you don't, I can only encourage you to avail yourself of Literotica's Terms of Use, found here: https://www.literotica.com/stories/tos.php
I do hope you find this useful.
You mentioned one of the reason I was banned was due to chatting about underage, I am still waiting for proof of this. It seems like you cannot come up with that proof. Am I right????? Thought so. So reinstate me immediately.
I have followed the rules of Lit Chat, but it seems like you are making up rules as you go along. Still waiting for you to come up with where I mentioned underage in any of the rooms.
Quip
Executive Janitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Posts
- 1,011
That is incorrect. What I said is you made references to young teens and daughters. The reason I cited for your dismissal was spamming. I also explained to you that this was the exact behavior you exhibited when your previous account was banned. I have already informed you that you will not be unbanned.
Where did I make references to young teens and daughters, in any of the rooms. I never did that. I want proof if you have any. By the way, there are other chatters that spam, but they are never banned. Guess you are just choosing who you want to ban and not want to. Which is very unfair. Also, If you do not know, people on cell phones cannot see profiles, that is one of the reason I let people know what I want to chat about. It is always about mature females, nothing else. So can you show me proof where I reference young teens, and non adult daughters in rooms. By non-adult daughters I mean younger then 18 years of age.
Quip
Executive Janitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Posts
- 1,011
You were banned for repeatedly spamming the line about cramping. As you were previously banned for under two previous accounts. You are correct! That part of the ban was indeed from something else. "Any moms experience extremely severe cramping periods?" which is the same info two other accounts were banned for as well in the past. You are absolutely correct in your assertion about the underage being misattributed. That was supposed to be listed on another user on the list. The dialogue of another ban got tangled together with yours. My apologies. You are being banned for spam alone.
friskylilkitten
Meow!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
- Posts
- 480
The ban was not for underage.
Do you realize, chatters that use cell phones to chat with, cannot view profiles without being disconnected. That is the reason why we put out information that is in our profile, so people know what we want to chat about. That way, we do not get messages from everyone, which is a nuisance. I an thinking you did not know that. So spamming is really unrealistic. And under the Constitution of Free Speech should be allowed. I have even witnessed Mods spamming but nothing is done to them. So the Lawsuit will stand.
friskylilkitten
Meow!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
- Posts
- 480
We will await your filings.
If you start to ban everyone who spams, there will be no one in Lit Chat. cause everyone does, as some point, even the Mods. That will be in the Lawsuit. Mainly singling out certain chatters. You, Mods, do not really have a foot to stand on when it come to this point. So either, reinstate me, or Lit Chat will be going away via the court system. It will be the Mods fault if this were to occur, no one elses.
Hope the Mods have some very good lawyers. Cause I do, including myself.
ToPleaseHim
JtohisPB/Brooke :)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Posts
- 7,990
You’re a doctor and a lawyer? And you’re going to file a lawsuit against a private website (not a government entity, so freedom of speech does not apply) and volunteer moderators for enforcing rules that you are clearly opposed to following? Good luck with your lawsuit!
It was first stated by Mod Quip that it was, Now you are back tracking, cause you know that was a false statement. But because it was stated at first by Mod Quip, and reiterated, again. That is a false accusation. Which is a BIG PROBLEM for the Mods, putting out false accusations.
Freedom of speech still applies, since the entity is in the United States of America. It does not matter if these moderators are volunteers or not. The lawsuit will apply to them as well, for false accusations. I am very positive I will win the lawsuit. The Lit Chat mods do not have a foot to stand on.
ToPleaseHim
JtohisPB/Brooke :)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Posts
- 7,990
No. That’s not how it works. You are very clearly misrepresenting yourself as an attorney if you do not have the most basic grasp on this concept.
I am thinking, you definitely are not an attorney, cause you really do not know what you are saying.
ToPleaseHim
JtohisPB/Brooke :)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Posts
- 7,990
I haven’t said that I’m an attorney. You said that you are an attorney.
Some clarification for you: Individuals have no First Amendment right to speak on social media (which includes message boards), since that's a right guaranteed against government censorship. In fact, courts have ruled that platforms have a First Amendment right to ban people they wish to ban.
