ATS Decorum for members and moderators : May 2023

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: JinMI

Not much has changed.

What too many people historically fail to understand is that the concept of free expression demands an equal and compatible amount of civility and manners.

The problem with online "free speech" is that there are rarely any real consequences. No consequences, no drive for civility and manners in order to avoid those consequences.

Half the things people say on these social media sights would get them into real physical fights in the real world and ostracized from the communities they must interact with. Online the worse that can happen is you get banned and can just move to the next sight.

Its a sticky wicket.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: yuppa

What happens to threads that violate accepted speech?

Then they are removed because thats the consequences of their speech. the ADMIN said no topic is off limits if it does nto break TOS.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: yuppa

What happens to threads that violate accepted speech?

Then they are removed because thats the consequences of their speech. the ADMIN said no topic is off limits if it does nto break TOS.

If the speech is censored (removed) because it violated an arbiters view of accepted speech, do you consider that 100% free speech?

Of speech is free, how can consequences of censorship exist?

a reply to: JinMI

You may remember me, or you may not. if you do, then you'll realize I'm no stranger to trouble. But a man has to choose his fights, otherwise, he's just wasting his efforts on unnecessary troubles.

I personally believe the fight for free speech is a worthwhile one, especially in the current political environment where censorship is on the rise. To that end, it behooves us, each and every one, not to provide our opponents, whichever side of the spectrum we may be on, with excuses to further curtail free speech.

The phrase "100% Free Speech" seems to be a bone of contention, but I submit that the difference lies in individual interpretations of what constitutes "free speech". One man's "100%" may not match with another man's definition, especially if the second man like to spit and throw scmittys along with his talking. That second person may see the spitting and hand-throwing to be a part and parcel of his "free speech", and without those, he feels he is afforded something less than 100%.

Now, my own personal opinion is that "100%" free speech" involves having an opinion, taking a position, and being able to effectively get one's point across. If those criteria are met, then I see no curtailment of his rights. By my definition (and I think it is amply backed up by legal and constitutional precedent), then all the ancillary spittin' and fist-tossing are actually extremely counterproductive to constitutionally guaranteed "free speech".

But, that's just my opinion.

.

a reply to: nenothtu

I understand the notion of consequences that arrive from free speech.

"You cant yell fire in a crowded theater."
"You cant incite violence."

I offer, what if the theater is on fire?
What if the incitement is political or a politician?

These arguments can be made.

My point however that if the consequence is censorship, how can a platform possibly be 100 percent free speech?

(No, I dont remember you, apologies.)

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nenothtu

I understand the notion of consequences that arrive from free speech.

"You cant yell fire in a crowded theater."
"You cant incite violence."

I offer, what if the theater is on fire?
What if the incitement is political or a politician?

These arguments can be made.

My point however that if the consequence is censorship, how can a platform possibly be 100 percent free speech?

(No, I dont remember you, apologies.)

Clearly your just playing Devils advocate here yes ?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Im not sure what you mean?

In regards to my initial statement or the one you quoted?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: yuppa

What happens to threads that violate accepted speech?

Then they are removed because thats the consequences of their speech. the ADMIN said no topic is off limits if it does nto break TOS.

If the speech is censored (removed) because it violated an arbiters view of accepted speech, do you consider that 100% free speech?

Of speech is free, how can consequences of censorship exist?

Constitutionally, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, in that the government is barred from censoring or curtailing it... however, there are certain modes of communication that, if employed in a basic bar room (especially around here in my neck of the woods!) will get one entirely lit-up by the community at large, no governmental intervention necessary.

Now, if someone's free speech involved talkin' trash about your momma, would your sense of free speech necessitate that you just stand there and take it? Or would you give him a swift pop in the yap if he were within arm's reach?

That's the dilemma. Free speech can get one absolutely lit up if not presented properly, not by the government, but by the community at large. Free speech carries with it a responsibility not to infringe someone else's rights while exercising your own.

As my high school English teacher taught us lo, those many years ago, "communication is the art of getting your point across. It doesn't matter what words you choose, it only matters how you use them. If you aren't doing that, then you aren't communicating, you are just moving air molecules around the same as any ape can do."

She was a wise woman, to be no taller than she was. I'd not have gone toe to toe with her back then!

.

a reply to: nenothtu

Even still, assault is illegal.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nenothtu

Even still, assault is illegal.

Illegal in general, but not if you can justify it. Furthermore, that distinction only matter if charges are brought - if no charges are brought, then the legality of the action is moot. If no charges are brought, then as far as the law is concerned, it never happened, because the law doesn't have to deal with it.

But in that vein, and going back to another of your points, you said "You can't incite violence. But what if the incitement is political?" That would depend on whether you are inciting to vote, or inciting to, for example, firebomb a political headquarters. One is "violence", and the other is not. Are you contending that both circumstances are equivalent or equally protected "free speech"?

.

Thank you for this thread. I’ve been a member for close to 18 years but have not logged in much the past couple of years so I missed the memo that ATS was sold in 2021!! IMHO, ATS is one of the most free speech sites out there. If people want to grumble and groan over ATS having some rules, they should take their sunny dispositions on over to Fakebook, Tic Toc, You tube or some other social media site where there’s REAL CENSORSHIP. I commend the new leadership team for explaining the why behind recent changes! Human decency, kindness and civility must prevail and I feel comfortable that those values seem important here!! a reply to: ats admin

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: JinMI

Not much has changed.

What too many people historically fail to understand is that the concept of free expression demands an equal and compatible amount of civility and manners.

The concept of free expression historically has had wars fought over it, duels fought over it, empires overturned over it.

Here on ATS the only weapons we have are words.

Rather ironic that the OP brings up the 2nd Amendment while the Mud Pit has gone away now (a way to use our weapons) and New/Old/Whatever civilities are going to be reinforced... once again taking our verbal weapons.

I don't mind a verbal duel. I relish it. Being 50% pure intellect, 10% opinionated and 62% a sarcastic twat an actual free speech debate includes fighting back with the weapons we have against The Top 10 Logical Fallacies.

THAT is an actual debate.

I am allowed that in YouTube comments, FFS.

But now, while the world is crumbling around us, I have to be civil in a debate against someone who has used all these fallacies time and time and time again, and I am not allowed to use those same tactics against them on ATS?

Noted.

a reply to: nenothtu

Illegal in general, but not if you can justify it. Furthermore, that distinction only matter if charges are brought - if no charges are brought, then the legality of the action is moot. If no charges are brought, then as far as the law is concerned, it never happened, because the law doesn't have to deal with it.

Can you cite a case where the assault was waved over words?

But in that vein, and going back to another of your points, you said "You can't incite violence. But what if the incitement is political?" That would depend on whether you are inciting to vote, or inciting to, for example, firebomb a political headquarters. One is "violence", and the other is not. Are you contending that both circumstances are equivalent or equally protected "free speech"?

Voting isnt violence.

However to your point, it goes to show the double standard on a social level.

Moreso, politicians asking supporters to commit violence sans any legal action is readily available information.

"FREE SPEECH" is handing out COPIES of thoughts and feelings without limits.

Be careful handing out copies of the DEMONS, especially if you have no control over them.

Others might.

originally posted by: JinMI

Can you cite a case where the assault was waved over words?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean can I provide an example where someone refused to assault someone else in retaliation for their words?

Voting isnt violence.

However to your point, it goes to show the double standard on a social level.

Moreso, politicians asking supporters to commit violence sans any legal action is readily available information.

Can you see here how I'm not going to take that bait?

.

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean can I provide an example where someone refused to assault someone else in retaliation for their words?

No, Im asking if you can cite an instance where assault was dropped because it was justified against using words.

Can you see here how I'm not going to take that bait?

I assure you, im staying within good faithed territory.

My point being the double standards as it applied to the squeakiest of wheels.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

A Bloody Hell YES!!! This place to me is one of a kind! We have brilliant people coming together & sharing info in their favorite topics or top scientist & specialist in their fields speaking out in so many categories making ATS a great educational place...specialist in every category...that's the Craic!!!

I feel like those of us that have been here for a while respect each other & to me it is like a family...i.e. Phage has been heavily on me mind for a while now cause I have not seen any post from him in quite some time & I pray he & family are safe & well.

ATS is special & so different, Welcome to ALL the new people!!!

Cheers
Ektar

originally posted by: JinMI

No, Im asking if you can cite an instance where assault was dropped because it was justified against using words.

No, but only because I don't have the legal citation at hand. I know of two cases personally that occurred in Rockingham County, NC, in the mid 1990's, but since I don't have the legal citation. I'll have to retract the initial claim for lack of evidence.

I assure you, im staying within good faithed territory.

My point being the double standards as it applied to the squeakiest of wheels.

I reckon I can work with that. There is most definitely a double-standard in society at large, as the most casual observer should be able to see. I fail to see, however, how that should apply to ATS, or how or why we should claim that privilege for ourselves.. i.e., I fail to see the relevance.

In other words, we should definitely work on government to rectify that situation, but just because Jack does it, why would Jill want to do it too since it affects the perception of her level of honesty?

.

a reply to: nenothtu

No, but only because I don't have the legal citation at hand. I know of two cases personally that occurred in Rockingham County, NC, in the mid 1990's, but since I don't have the legal citation. I'll have to retract the initial claim for lack of evidence.

Ill take your anecdote for arguments sake.

Now, thats 20 years old and arguably a massively different world.

I reckon I can work with that. There is most definitely a double-standard in society at large, as the most casual observer should be able to see. I fail to see, however, how that should apply to ATS, or how or why we should claim that privilege for ourselves.. i.e., I fail to see the relevance.

In other words, we should definitely work on government to rectify that situation, but just because Jack does it, why would Jill want to do it to since it affects the perception of her level of honesty?

I dont think ATS should be 100% a free speech platform.

I simply think the rules should be plain, present and equally enforced.

However I think people should be 100% pro free speech...if that makes sense.