Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:36:06 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 12:32:52, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 12:06:10, John R. Menke, Sr. wrote: > >>If we don't believe in freedom of speech for people who we disagree with, we >>don't believe in it at all. >>--JRM > >Even U.S. law prohibits certain types of freedom of speech. One cannot yell >"Fire" in a crowded theater without paying the penalty. > >It is not a matter of banning people for disagreeing. > >It is a matter of banning people for not abiding by their original agreement. >And reasonable people do not get banned. Abusive people get banned; and with the >current moderators, after warnings and bending over backwards to get them to >understand the consequences of their actions. > >Certain liberal type individuals often claim that their rights are being abused >and their freedoms trodden on whenever they hear that some people are being >disciplined for inappropriate behavior. These individuals are entitled to those >beliefs, but it does not make those beliefs valid. > >Personal responsibility should count for something, both on this forum and in >the world. If people want to behave irresponsibly (be it criminal or just plain >malicious), then there has to be a mechanism to protect others from that >irresponsibility. > >You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Besides, banning here is not like the >death penalty. A person's rights are not PERMANENTLY taken away. A banned poster >can easily come back in here under another name and post responsibly again. In >fact, it happens all of the time. It's practically a revolving door. Except that they never do post responsibly. Those that come sneaking back under an alias invariably are trouble-makers who get progressively worse. There was a woman who would go to a church service on a weekly basis. When everyone started singing, she would stand up and sing whatever she wanted at the top of her lungs. Since it was not the song requested, it was very disturbing to the other patrons. Finally they had to get a restraining order to prevent her from doing it. It went to various levels of the courts and was finally decided that free speach does not allow you to make a whinging twit of yourself whilst disturbing all those around you. Sound familiar? Just around the corner, at news:rec.games.chess.computer, we find an unmoderated forum. Over there we find such fascinating topics that I really can't begin to describe them. I do read and post over there from time to time. Anyone is free to say anything that is legal to say over there (even an unmoderated forum does have *some* limits on decency, though I'll be darned if I know what they are). Those calling for "free speach" don't seem to even comprehend what a moderated forum is. If anyone can say anything at all here, why bother with moderation? It seems people have forgotten what a rancid cesspool r.g.c.c had become (it's not quite as bad as it used to be, with the exception of a few easily killfiled idiots).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.