AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to aircooled :
You are right it is relevant to this topic, but it is also relevant over there! The responses there led to this point.
I will agree with you that the downvoting of you has gone beyond what might be considered a reasonable actioned based on some of your posts, but I will also say, the primary reason for it is because you have lost what might be called "the public trust".
As noted before, many of your statements were very relevant to the topic, but generally not stated well, or very vaguely and in some case rather aggressively and inflammatory (needlessly creating tension).
I have to say, at least to some extent, you seem to have gotten a bit better at posting things less aggressively in general, and I compliment you on that, but I think you have worn your welcome there at this point.
Relevant to this thread, you can think of that thread as a company, run by the readers of it (sort of a collective if you will). Those in the "company" no longer find your contributions worth considering and choose to ignore your statements, much like a company might legally fire you and suppress your speech, that they do not allow.
DirtyBird222 said:
As others have stated the right to free speech is to protect citizens of this nation from the government punishing you for sounding your voice. Under the 1st Amendment you should be able to condemn the President and other politicians and their decisions without fear of reprisal.
Excellent example. The 1st Amendment does allow you to express condemnation of elected officials, what it doesn't allow you to do is call for an incitement of violence against them.
In reply to aircooled :
Schenck v. United States was overturned, however the case, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not scrap the "clear and present danger" standard that was established by Shenck v. United States, but narrowed the standard to "imminent lawless action". I.E. if a statement does not express an immediate or imminent intent to do or cause violence than the speech can not be limited. If the speech rises above the level of mere advocacy of violence, then it is not protected. So, under this standard the statement made by Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States is now incorrect. However, one may still be held liable for falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic, as the 1st Amendment does not apply to False Statements of Fact. So the 1st Amendment would not protect a man falsely shouting "fire" in a theatre and causing panic.
Now, i'm not a lawyer, but I can do teh googles.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement
TLDR.. What Z31 said, just included the False statements of Fact provisions..
In reply to z31maniac :
I certainly agree with you post and it's points, but will still say Anthony's post is very relevant, at least to me, since it is very much the motivation and purpose to creating this thread.
I still, in general, think it is better to be aware of "incorrect" speech (excepting things like the points you noted). I certainty don't like or agree with many things people may say, but I still believe they should be able to say them, and really encourage as many people as possible be aware of them and of course make counter points to them, otherwise those that do listen might come to believe there is no opposition.
Anthony, If you don't mind, I would love to hear what you think of the information others have posted (and thanks for that BTW).
This is not some kind of trap, I am not trying to me condescending. What is you perspective?
You are certainly free to feel speech should never be restricted, that is you prerogative, I very much respect that, but legally, in the US, what do you think now that you have seen these points / posts?
aircooled said:
I still, in general, think it is better to be aware of "incorrect" speech (excepting things like the points you noted. I certainty don't like or agree with many things people may say, but I still believe they should be able to say them, and really encourage as many people as possible be aware of them and of course make counter points to them, otherwise those that do listen might come to believe there is no opposition.
Beyond the scope of the First Amendment, there is a general moral principle that needlessly suppressing ideas in the private arena merely because one disagrees with them is not a good thing to be doing. That's not a law, there are no rights, no guarantees or protections, but most people generally believe that allowing such speech in privately-owned but semi-publicly-accessible areas is desirable, at least up to a point.
That point is where the speech changes from being "merely disagreed with" to something more, something where the opinions being expressed start to damage the reason that the privately-owned forum was created in the first place. At that point the property owner is morally right to step in and take some action to tell the person in question to knock it off. The owner of the private property has absolute property rights in this regard.
One of the first amendment issues that i find most annoying is the current trend to misconstrue the establishment clause, which prevents Congress from establishing a state religion, and asserting that it means that no discussion of religion is to be permitted with regard to governance, and increasingly, that no "religious" person may participate in government.
No less a Constitutional scholar than John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/
And so here we are, with greed and corruption in corporate boardrooms and every level of government.
Honestly, if I hear another person parrot the phrase "separation of church and state!" I will gently pray for them.
aircooled said:
In reply to z31maniac :
I certainly agree with you post and it's points, but will still say Anthony's post is very relevant, at least to me, since it is very much the motivation and purpose to creating this thread.
I still, in general, think it is better to be aware of "incorrect" speech (excepting things like the points you noted). I certainty don't like or agree with many things people may say, but I still believe they should be able to say them, and really encourage as many people as possible be aware of them and of course make counter points to them, otherwise those that do listen might come to believe there is no opposition.
Again, I have NEVER stated people shouldn't be allowed to say what they want, as incorrect as they may be. That seems to be continually in reference to me, even though I have never stated it and don't agree with it.
Hence pointing out that people say the Earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, we didn't land on the moon, there is a connection through the Earth from the North Pole to Antarctica, etc.
However, if you say continually make nonsensical, misleading, or factually wrong statements.......I will take anything else you say with a ton of salt.
In reply to z31maniac :
so you're not buying a tesla tomorrow?
1988RedT2 said:
One of the first amendment issues that i find most annoying is the current trend to misconstrue the establishment clause, which prevents Congress from establishing a state religion, and asserting that it means that no discussion of religion is to be permitted with regard to governance, and increasingly, that no "religious" person may participate in government.
No less a Constitutional scholar than John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/
And so here we are, with greed and corruption in corporate boardrooms and every level of government.
Honestly, if I hear another person parrot the phrase "separation of church and state!" I will gently pray for them.
"The most damning evidence of a non-Christian past is a humiliating 1797 treaty with the Barbary Pirates. President Adams sought to stem unremitting Muslim raids against Mediterranean shipping and protect American sailors from African slavery. This obscure treaty submitted, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/09/25/was-america-founded-as-a-christian-nation/?sh=3ed382d94e7b
VolvoHeretic said:
In reply to aircooled :
You are correct and I don't remember Anthony being down voted over on the EV thread even though there is some very mean talk taking place.
Seriously? It's almost every single post. It's childish. The whole downvote thing is childish and is being used by certain people to gang up on members they somehow dislike etc.
We run a bar.
If someone comes in and starts shouting radical political slogans, or loudly telling everyone at the bar about how fluoridation is a secret plan by the lizard people to mind control us, or declaring people of Himalayan descent to be the supreme master race - they will be asked to leave. If they do not leave, we will call authorities to Ford Econobox them out.
The authorities might choose to charge that person with trespassing or something else based on their physical actions, but they will not be charged for any of the things they said.
In reply to z31maniac :
I have no doubt that there is no shortage of verbiage written in support of either claim. Still, if you had read the entire article from which you pulled your quote, quite out of context, you would have gotten to these words:
"America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation and many of our beloved Forefathers sadly were not, yet America was largely comprised of Believers. Liberty allows us to worship freely or not at all per conscience. America was never meant to be theocratic or homogenous religiously, but Christianity has always been indelible to our social fabric.
The Founders, even non-Believers, considered that a blessing."
Bill Flax
I am a Christian, a patriot and a defender of liberty who tries to keep a sense of humor through the madness. "
Edit: If you'd like to read further on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Forged-Faith-Shaped-Nation-1607-1776/dp/B004AYCX4S
bobzilla said:
Seriously? It's almost every single post. It's childish. The whole downvote thing is childish and is being used by certain people to gang up on members they somehow dislike etc.
While I agree it is childish, I actually like upvoting/downvoting in a contrarian manner. Please don't rag on the downvote, it's the only way we have to express ourselves without being attacked!
Beer Baron said:
If they do not leave, we will call authorities to Ford Econobox them out.
This is my favorite outcome of the recent profanity filter changes so far.
ProDarwin said:
Beer Baron said:
If they do not leave, we will call authorities to Ford Econobox them out.
This is my favorite outcome of the recent profanity filter changes so far.
As one who is not given to using profanity, what dubious expression results in the application of the term "Ford Econobox?"
ProDarwin said:
This is my favorite outcome of the recent profanity filter changes so far.
It is rather good, although I somehow imagined Beer Baron using the phrase, "officer, please Fiesta this man out", followed by an unexpectedly jubilant departure by the unwelcome guest.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled censorship. <duck>
Self-victimization is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
1988RedT2 said:
ProDarwin said:
Beer Baron said:
If they do not leave, we will call authorities to Ford Econobox them out.
This is my favorite outcome of the recent profanity filter changes so far.
As one who is not given to using profanity, what dubious expression results in the application of the term "Ford Econobox?"
Esc0rt.
I think it was a change they made when the board kept getting flooded by spammers advertising esc0rt services in Dubai.
z31maniac said:
.....However, if you say continually make nonsensical, misleading, or factually wrong statements.......I will take anything else you say with a ton of salt.
Absolutely. Cetainly agree, and entirly rational and reasonable, and something that those that make such statements, should be aware of.
It would just suggest for some leeway and understanding they they may not realize they are "wrong" (yes, a loaded word there). But, to follow on what you are saying, if they continue, irationally, then, at least being suspicious, is certainly a good course of action.
1988RedT2 said:
In reply to z31maniac :
I have no doubt that there is no shortage of verbiage written in support of either claim. Still, if you had read the entire article from which you pulled your quote, quite out of context, you would have gotten to these words:
"America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation and many of our beloved Forefathers sadly were not, yet America was largely comprised of Believers. Liberty allows us to worship freely or not at all per conscience. America was never meant to be theocratic or homogenous religiously, but Christianity has always been indelible to our social fabric.
The Founders, even non-Believers, considered that a blessing."
Bill Flax
I am a Christian, a patriot and a defender of liberty who tries to keep a sense of humor through the madness. "
Edit: If you'd like to read further on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Forged-Faith-Shaped-Nation-1607-1776/dp/B004AYCX4S
It was founded by people who were Christian, never denied that, but they put in the "separation of church and state" to prevent the US from turning into a Theocracy.
I think it's interesting that we're on page two and no one has quoted the First Amendment fully yet.
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.
The "Congress" part of course has been ruled to mean "government" but as pointed out does not apply to the non government sector.
I have no issues with the owners of this board wanting it to be a nice place to hang out, and to reflect as a positive on their business vs a negative. It's their playground, they make the rules.
That being said, the "rules" are very inconsistent sometimes based on who is posting, and I think we lost some interesting people over the years because of it. The upvote/downvote is 100% a popularity thing since you can't see who is voting and there are a few people here who downvote any person that do not agree with vs the actual post. Show the names of who votes, and the pattern would be obvious.
I think the issue of people asking to lock threads because they do not agree with the subject is odd, no one is forcing you to click on it.
SV reX
MegaDork
7/12/23 5:28 p.m.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
I don't think requests to close or lock a thread are generally based on not agreeing with the subject.
I think they usually happen when it is clear the thread has ceased to be productive and useful. Often by the OP of a thread.
I have requested the staff lock a thread when it threatened the safety and security of my family (I realize that is an extreme example, but any casual observer could easily have assumed the thread was closed because someone didn't like it, but didn't know the true motivation for closing was a specific request that had to do with safety)
We don't always know what is going on behind the scenes, and sometimes it's none of our business.
