user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The concept of "free speech" means freedom to express one's opinions without interference from the government. It doesn't mean that someone who is running a private website should have to allow it to become the private conduit of someone espousing pathological ideas about racial, ethnic, and religous superiority.
And have you noticed that those who blather about the notion of "absolute" free speech are those who are most likely to want to limit the free speech rights of others?
I'd suggest you reread the parts of the Fountainhead that concern Ellsworth Toohey, the parasitic manipulator, who, incapable of producing anything himself, uses the work of others to spread his pathological philosophy and believes it to be his entitlement to do so.
Pretty much what cranky said. The free speech of the first amendment doesn't apply in private circumstances. Someone is free to publish and preach all the opinions they want, but if that someone starts comming into my home or website and starts verbally assaulting people with vile ideas, then I have every right to kick his ass out.
Any freedom of speech that you're granted on a website is soley courtesy of the webmaster.
Voted : Yes
LCD
If by "true" free speech zone you mean a place where all and any ideas are allowed to be expressed than I think only a website that requires it's partons to pay for participation can achieve this since the website would not need to worry about losing advertiser if controversial statments are made by users.Moreover if users become disenchated with the views expressed on the site (i.e racist)they will most likely stop paying for the site and leave thus negating the need for cencorship.
Voted : No.
One needs to be careful to separate true racism and hate from bias, alarm sounding because of concerns about a specific group (which many share), uncomfortable questions, or questions and comments that are politically incorrect (whether serious or jokes). True racism, anti-semitism, hate speech etc is obvious to most people. Without mentioning various banned users, we all know what they said was very racist and/or anti-semitic. I know it is a bit hard to define without giving examples (which I won't do). There are users who say things that others may view as prejudiced etc, over the top or politically incorrect. That doesn't mean they should be completely silenced. These things should be debated vigorously.
There is a big difference between a user who proposes a debate on a news story that may make a group look bad and a user who posts racist and/or anti-semitic epithets or who uses this or another website as a conduit for reposting material from a website that we can all easily identify as racist and anti-semitic. Most websites that allow people to post comments will quickly remove the blatantly obvious racist and anti-semitic comments while allowing debate on other stuff. This is done inconsistently on this site. Karma can be useful (mostly as a warning) but it often still leaves the material there. As the site owner cannot keep track of everything perhaps allowing more to wipe the blatant problems would be useful. The rules for this would have to be well defined. I can probably be of use with this.
The items you list in number 3 are the obvious examples of what I would definitely consider unacceptable. I would add a couple or more such as murder, espousing praise for gangs, and advocating the commission of crimes that are against the law in every civilized country.
True free speech? No. It doesn't exist in real life in any free speech country. We all know what isn't permitted (with good reason). You know what these are LCD.
I'll add that there are things that even cranky and herzog would agree are racist or cranky and I would agree are anti-semitic.
Sites like NAMBLA and pedo sites and rape sites need to be off the computer IMO
Voted : No.
^ What socal said.
Voted : Yes
Of course it's possible.
Voted : No.
Speech is never "Free". You may be able to say whatever you want, at any time, but ultimately, what you say will have an impact on events in the future.
For instance, a person caught in a lie is publicized, as a witness in a future complaint, even if they were truthful, who will believe them. They pay that price for "Free" speech.
I disaree with FFLSD on the users wiping ballots and comments based on what is "preceived" inappropriate content. Unless it is specifically defined in the TOU, anyone with wipe, can arbitrarially wipe every statement a user makes, denying them from equal debate.
All that is require is a disclaimer:
"Some of the contents on this site may be considered obscene or offensive to some viewers, Adult discretion is advised".
This site does not share or endorse the opinions expressed by the users of this site, nor is it responsible for the any liability it's use.
The contents of this forum is the sole responsibility of the authors, and BestandWorst.com, it's agents, representatives and internet servers reserve the right to refuse publication of any advertisements, solicitations or user post at it's sole discretion, without notice.
Something like that.
In the case of haters and sabotuers, The moderator of the forum (Ballot) should have the right to remove or prevent specific comments or users from interacting on their forum.
Problem solved.
^ Hurrah, let's hear it for the site's resident 'yes man'
^In my opinion, Fiddle should not have approved the above "anonymous" personal attack. Does that make me against free speech?
Well it may be "low", but considering some of the stuff I have seen you approve all I can do is shake my head. That guest comment may have been "personal", but it is hardly more offensive than a comment of yours (LCD) that I rated down.
Oh, and cranky... How do you know I approved it? Are you in cahoots with LCD?
Ironic that a comment gets karma blocked on a ballot about "free speech".
Well, fiddle:
I made that assumption because the karma blocked comment above appeared on your comments list. And since comments made by guest users show up on the comments list of the maintainer who approved them, that seemed like a reasonable conclusion. Are you saying you didn't approve that guest user comment?
Note that the karma blocked comment appears as the last comment on the above screen cap of fiddle's comments list.
cranky = 
fiddle = 
Why did you bother to go look? Did you research every possible culprit? That seems a little obsessive to me. But who cares.
Anyone who has seen what I block knows that this was an unusual incident. I approved it solely because this was a ballot about free speech. I actually did not expect to receive a negative rating for it. Normally I would block such a comment.
It didn't reflect my own personal opinion either.
"Why did you bother to go look?"
Because when I saw the comment I thought: "I'll bet fiddle approved this dig at Passiveson."
"Did you research every possible culprit?"
No, just you.
"I approved it solely because this was a ballot about free speech."
So, you wouldn't have approved it if it had been on any other ballot?
"I actually did not expect to receive a negative rating for it."
Who did rate you down?
( Anyone who has seen what I block knows that this was an unusual incident.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Sun Mar 11, 07 10:10pm)
I've seen what you block, and you became notorious for karma blocking the posts of anyone posting any kind of evidence against your claims on many subjects. Karma bombing was your most well known characteristic, and I never saw a public apology from you for poor behavior.
|
|
