MP admins censoring forums

Old lady H wrote: "In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[30] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[31] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[32][33]"

Just one of many examples where the law begs to differ with your opinion.

EDIT to add: this is not a group of us standing on a street corner, shooting the breeze, anyway. Nick is entirely within his rights to expect, and enforce, any level of civility he chooses.

Best, Helen

Dred Scott vs Sandford (1857).  Plessy vs Ferguson (1896).  Buck vs Bell (1927).  Wickard v. Filburn (1942; same court as the case you mentioned).  

Those four cases are all morally unjust.  Yet the Courts ruled in favor for it.  Only three out of four have been overturned to this day.  The case you mentioned is pretty screwed up too. Rather Orwellian to police speech under the guise of the doublespeak "fighting words."

What is also interesting about the case is that this is one man of a fringe minority at the time lashing out at the police: "damn fascist and a racketeer."  Sounds like the language that Black Lives Matter uses.  How should this be applied today?  Should all those protesters talking about dead cops be arrested?

Man is not perfect, nor is the law.

This post violated Guideline #1 and has been removed.

This post violated Guideline #1 and has been removed.

jg fox wrote:

Dred Scott vs Sandford (1857).  Plessy vs Ferguson (1896).  Buck vs Bell (1927).  Wickard v. Filburn (1942; same court as the case you mentioned).  

Those four cases are all morally unjust.  Yet the Courts ruled in favor for it.  Only three out of four have been overturned to this day.  The case you mentioned is pretty screwed up too. Rather Orwellian to police speech under the guise of the doublespeak "fighting words."

What is also interesting about the case is that this is one man of a fringe minority at the time lashing out at the police: "damn fascist and a racketeer."  Sounds like the language that Black Lives Matter uses.  How should this be applied today?  Should all those protesters talking about dead cops be arrested?

Man is not perfect, nor is the law.

There are plenty of laws that are either unjust, or, much more commonly IMO, are applied unjustly. I would hardly disagree with that. My aim was merely to point out to Ryan, that the law does care about speech. There are quite a few classes of speech that are not protected.

I realize you can not reply at the moment, that's unfortunate.

Just a reminder, I'm on the side of as little moderation as reasonable, and in fairness, I think I've argued for ​that plenty often on here.

Still, bottom line? We are visitors here. It's Nick's house, he can decide as he sees fit.

Hope your time out is short, sir!

Best, Helen

I was moderated recently and I liked it.

Who wants to fight?

Cheersdmt 

Ryan Swanson wrote: Why did you ban Mr. Fox?

He called someone smug

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Pretty much

Colonel Mustard wrote: I was moderated recently and I liked it.

Some people pay good money to get Flogged (flagged) on any given night of the week.

Only, Locals wrote: Who wants to fight?

Cheersdmt 

Silly Question.
But then again, why raise the name of he who shall not be mentioned.

Burchy?  You tuned in here?

Tony B wrote:

Silly Question.
But then again, why raise the name of he who shall not be mentioned.

Burchy?  You tuned in here?

Tony, you do know that "Only, Locals" is Burchy's new handle, right?

Mike Robinson wrote:

He called someone smug

Might have been name calling, might have been a description.  Who knows?
If that's it I would not moderate, but I can't see the context.

I probably would have deleted your "F^%" name calling since it was not a description, btu I would have left "smug" alone, as it's not so much of a profane slur.

Just goes to show that it's subjective.

I got moderated once when I went after Ellanor.  I think the context had something to do with something that I wouldn't do if she was the last woman on earth.
I deserved it, in hindsight.  I got a personal note from the moderator about where the line was crossed and to sum it up, yeah, I was deliberately being obnoxious.
It didn't bug me.  It's his office. 

Tony B wrote:

Might have been name calling, might have been a description.  Who knows?
If that's it I would not moderate, but I can't see the context.

I probably would have deleted your "F^%" name calling since it was not a description, btu I would have left "smug" alone, as it's not so much of a profane slur.

Just goes to show that it's subjective.

I got moderated once when I went after Ellanor.  I think the context had something to do with something that I wouldn't do if she was the last woman on earth.
I deserved it, in hindsight.  I got a personal note from the moderator about where the line was crossed and to sum it up, yeah, I was deliberately being obnoxious.
It didn't bug me.  It's his office.

Yeah..subjective for sure...and words are someti.es taken out of context and someti.es they aren't...I personally feel like nothing should be deleted...cuz if I or anyone else says something offensive and ultimately embarrass them selves in front of the community they should be left exposed and not protected by deleting a stupid comment

Mike Robinson wrote:

Yeah..subjective for sure...and words are someti.es taken out of context and someti.es they aren't...I personally feel like nothing should be deleted...cuz if I or anyone else says something offensive and ultimately embarrass them selves in front of the community they should be left exposed and not protected by deleting a stupid comment

There would be far less moderation if people posted under their real names.

It's easy to say stupid, offensive, threatening or otherwise hateful things while hiding anonymously behind a username.

And so the moderator(s) have to clean up a bunch of garbage that wouldn't exist if people had to own it.

My .02

John Barritt wrote:

There would be far less moderation if people posted under their real names.

It's easy to say stupid, offensive, threatening or otherwise hateful things while hiding anonymously behind a username.

And so the moderator(s) have to clean up a bunch of garbage that wouldn't exist if people had to own it.

My .02

How would this be enforced?

The interest in peoples real name is weird.. People just want to FB stalk each other. 

Floyd Eggers wrote: The interest in peoples real name is weird.. People just want to FB stalk each other. 

If you're talking to me, I don't do facebutt, And I'm not interested in people's identities.

I do however assert that some people won't act stupid if they think their mom or boss can connect them to their words.

It also amuses me when people using an assumed name say something really good and never get the credit for it..... ;)

John Barritt wrote:

There would be far less moderation if people posted under their real names.

It's easy to say stupid, offensive, threatening or otherwise hateful things while hiding anonymously behind a username.

And so the moderator(s) have to clean up a bunch of garbage that wouldn't exist if people buhad to own it.

My .02

This is true

Did Nick delete the thread about the deleted thread about the guy that free solos with a sport rack? 

C Archibolt wrote: Did Nick delete the thread about the deleted thread about the guy that free solos with a sport rack? 

I can’t find the thread any longer.

To be honest, this may not be the forum for such a thread.

That said, there definitely should be such threads somewhere.  What’s a more appropriate forum, do you think?  Reddit?  Might already be a thread there about that dude/phenomenon.