KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
I'm a big supporter of my own personal right to run my mouth off any way I see fit. Right, wrong, indifferent, whatever. I think others should have the same right to run off at the mouth. Whether I happen to like what they say or not.
I believe that when someone says something on these boards that I don't like, then I should be able to rant and rave at them, but I should not be permitted to silence them. I don't want to be silenced myself, what gives me the right to silence others?
Across the top of this forum is a banner.
This banner means exactly what it says. Free speech. Not free for some, but not others, free means free for everyone.
This board has some rules, mostly to prevent it from being overrun by spam and to prevent others from being opened up to potential physical harm. Beyond that, anything goes.
There are people here who don't care about others or anyone's feelings. There are people here who think it's fun to hurt people with their words. Should they be silenced? Should they be shut up and pushed out?
I say no.
Free speech means free for everyone or it's not free speech. Hanns steps over the line of common decency with just about everything he posts. He does not break the rules often and when he does those posts are edited or removed.
If he does not break the rules, why should he be silenced? Because the things he says hurts people? Makes people angry? What about p_p_man? Should he be silenced as well? He hurts people, makes them angry. REDWAVE goes beyond the pale with his wild accusations and indictments. How about Synthesist? Along with red, he constantly harangues certain posters about their "pedophilia". Should he be silenced?
Hanns makes people uncomfortable. He says hateful things for no other reason than because he can get away with and get reactions from people over it. If we silence him, it's not going to be any loss. But where does it end? Why should we silence Hanns, but not the trolls who make other posters uncomfortable? When does Literotica begin to legislate morality on these boards? Why should they?
I say that if you don't like what Hanns has to say, put him on ignore. You don't have to read his drivel. When it flies past because someone quotes him or he goes unregistered, let it go. You have a choice to make about what you read and what you see. You have choices to make about what you say. If we begin by silencing Hanns, you no longer have that choice, it's been made for you. And it's only the beginning. First Hanns, next Indigo Rose. A lot of people don't like her, she's says vicious, hateful things. Why shouldn't she be silenced, too? Then why not me after that? I say things that a lot of people don't like, too.
Free speech is only free when everyone has it. Free speech isn't just about saying what you want, it's about choosing what you want to hear on your own, by your judgment and morals, rather than someone else's.
Think about this. Do you want your behavior and what you have to say to be dictated by someone else's idea of what's acceptable or not? No, silencing Hanns isn't going to cause anyone else any grief, but it never stops there, not with just one. Harassment is evil, until someone accuses you of doing it and wants to shut you up.
It's very simple and very clear. If you agree with the banner you see at the top of your browser, then you'll never ask Laurel to silence Hanns. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your choice, your rights or your sense of security. Literotica supports your rights. If you want security, find yourself a Shiny Happy Poster Land.
I believe that when someone says something on these boards that I don't like, then I should be able to rant and rave at them, but I should not be permitted to silence them. I don't want to be silenced myself, what gives me the right to silence others?
Across the top of this forum is a banner.
This banner means exactly what it says. Free speech. Not free for some, but not others, free means free for everyone.
This board has some rules, mostly to prevent it from being overrun by spam and to prevent others from being opened up to potential physical harm. Beyond that, anything goes.
There are people here who don't care about others or anyone's feelings. There are people here who think it's fun to hurt people with their words. Should they be silenced? Should they be shut up and pushed out?
I say no.
Free speech means free for everyone or it's not free speech. Hanns steps over the line of common decency with just about everything he posts. He does not break the rules often and when he does those posts are edited or removed.
If he does not break the rules, why should he be silenced? Because the things he says hurts people? Makes people angry? What about p_p_man? Should he be silenced as well? He hurts people, makes them angry. REDWAVE goes beyond the pale with his wild accusations and indictments. How about Synthesist? Along with red, he constantly harangues certain posters about their "pedophilia". Should he be silenced?
Hanns makes people uncomfortable. He says hateful things for no other reason than because he can get away with and get reactions from people over it. If we silence him, it's not going to be any loss. But where does it end? Why should we silence Hanns, but not the trolls who make other posters uncomfortable? When does Literotica begin to legislate morality on these boards? Why should they?
I say that if you don't like what Hanns has to say, put him on ignore. You don't have to read his drivel. When it flies past because someone quotes him or he goes unregistered, let it go. You have a choice to make about what you read and what you see. You have choices to make about what you say. If we begin by silencing Hanns, you no longer have that choice, it's been made for you. And it's only the beginning. First Hanns, next Indigo Rose. A lot of people don't like her, she's says vicious, hateful things. Why shouldn't she be silenced, too? Then why not me after that? I say things that a lot of people don't like, too.
Free speech is only free when everyone has it. Free speech isn't just about saying what you want, it's about choosing what you want to hear on your own, by your judgment and morals, rather than someone else's.
Think about this. Do you want your behavior and what you have to say to be dictated by someone else's idea of what's acceptable or not? No, silencing Hanns isn't going to cause anyone else any grief, but it never stops there, not with just one. Harassment is evil, until someone accuses you of doing it and wants to shut you up.
It's very simple and very clear. If you agree with the banner you see at the top of your browser, then you'll never ask Laurel to silence Hanns. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your choice, your rights or your sense of security. Literotica supports your rights. If you want security, find yourself a Shiny Happy Poster Land.
), before her flock leaves her another forgotten deity.
