It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom Of Speech, ATS, and Ending The Eternal September

page: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


god I love that

say it again - please...




posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


I think what you're looking for is anarchy

like it or not - we agree as human beings about what can and can't do - together

some of us - on this planet - are not afforded the opportunity to agree or disagree - about anything

the best deal we can come up with - under the circumstances - is to agree to disagree - and not be jailed or killed for any of it

that's pretty much what we got - while admitting there are still a few bugs to be worked out - and it doesn't necessarily go as planned

that was sarcasm

to demand to say whatever you want however you want is not about freedom of speech - it's not about freedom of anything - it's just about being able to do whatever it is you want to do

so what is freedom?

are there any rules necessary to freedom?

are there limits?

should it be just a free-for-all?

manners and decorum are a small price to pay for being able to say anything you want



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
This reply has NOTHING to do with the thread started by Novus, but is just a general reply to the Freedom of Speech Issue addressing the Questions and Answers provided by Novus and SO.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Is ATS an arena for freedom of speech?



Originally posted by SkepticOverload
With absolute and unqualified certainty, yes.


In my opinion the answer to this question, is completely stipulative for many reasons. It is not simply yes, or no.

This is a FREE internet site, that WE are members of. We as members are granted the priviledge of posting, replying, and starting topics etc. With this membership comes responsibility. The responsibility of being accountable for what we post. Within the Terms and Conditions, are rules that we AGREED to when we joined. We agreed to uphold the T&C - and in return, keep our memberships. This is not a difficult concept - follow the rules or accept the consequences.

As this site is provided to us by the 3 Top Dudes, ultimately they make the rules. THIS is their playground - and we are allowed to play too - as long as we play nice. WHAT is so difficult for people to understand? None of us OWN this site, we don't have SHARES in this site - that means, it's not ours. We are just visitors at a friends house. Be respectful and follow the house rules - or - the front door might be calling your name.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundiDoes freedom of speech have limitations on it that I am not aware of?



Originally posted by SkepticOverload
"Limitations" is not the appropriate word ...(cut for content)... The appropriate word, or better yet, the ideal state-of-mind, is that of responsibility. Free expression is not a license to offend, obfuscate, or lie; it's an opportunity to stimulate, challenge, and transform.


Agreed. We have Freedom of Expression - without the intent to tread on anyone elses' rights. If I was a member of the KKK, do I have the right to express my beliefs by burning a cross? Even if this offends my African American neighbours? What about them? Don't they have rights as well? I have the right to express my beliefs - however - I do NOT have the right to make someone else feel threatened. I do NOT have the right to intimidate anyone else. I do NOT have the right to make someone feel inferior. I DO have the right and the responsibility to practice my beliefs - in an appropriate manner.

This is where the problem comes in. Who determines what is an appropriate manner? Who writes the definition? The Hosts, who clearly outlined what is, and what is NOT appropriate actions of members, in the Terms and Conditions we ALL agreed to, upon being granted our memberships. The rules are in place and clearly stated - it is no one elses' fault but the poster, if they were negligent or lazy and chose not to read them.

Now, its impossible for our favorite 3 guys to watch EVERY thread - they probably have lives outside of ATS *gasp*. This is where the Moderators come in. The Moderators have been granted the power to determine what IS and what is NOT appropriate topics. The reason they are moderators is becuase they have SHOWN that they can be trusted in this position. They have shown that they are capable of making these decisions. And as such - they are appointed the title Moderator and trusted in making these judgements.

Now, just like most court cases - in the even that you feel you have been judged unfairly - you have the right to an appeal. If you feel you have been penalized wrongfully - you could contact ANOTHER moderator, or perhaps on of our 3 site Guys directly and let them know your discontent. Could you not? If you truly believe that you have said something within the T&C, but you have been disciplined - I believe you have the right to contact another Moderator. A mod who is completely unbiased and will look at the situation as a neutral 3rd party - a mediator if you will.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundiIt needs to be made clear now: Is ATS an arena for freedom of speech or not? If it is, then in my opinion, no matter how classless or insensitive a post is, it should not be warned, removed or be subjected to moderator intimidation.



Orginally posted by SkepticOverload
We do not, will not, and should not remove posts or threads purely on a subjective measure of classlessness or insensitivity. We prefer to leave this entirely up to our members in their responses and flags. However, when members cross the line defined by the Terms & Conditions, we need to consider an appropriate response.


I believe this is a fair answer. The bolded section is what I believe really makes this answer appropriate. When the rules are broken - there are prices to be paid - as with everything in Life. Accepting responsibility is our role as members. We CAN say whatever we want to say - we just need to accept the consequences with open arms when they kick us in the butt - if we have in fact broken the rules.

Just a few thoughts...

- Carrot



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Ok everyone try to understand what I am saying I was wrong in assuming I could talk about whatever on these site with no regard to the rules.

BUT

S.O. Is wrong in saying we have freedom of expression by his definition and by mine.



Free expression is not a license to offend, obfuscate, or lie; it's an opportunity to stimulate, challenge, and transform.


I can very easily talk about Cannabis, as a whole which includes marijuana(which can be consumed as a medicine to aid patients with an array of symptoms) as well as hemp(which is the part of cannabis used to make clothing, paper, soaps, oils, ethanol, and many more things), without bringing up any sort of advocation of illegal activity.

Many people cant but I can. To say I can freely express my self but to limit what I can actually express is an oxymoron.


free·dom-
-noun
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.


As you can see the definition of freedom says that you are FREE from RESTRAINT or REGULATION. We are restrained in what we can talk about on this site and we are somewhat srtictly regulated.

Do you see the oxymoron between SO's statement that we do have free expression on this site and the actual rules that regulate what we can and cannot express.

My whole argument has changed, quote me on this, "do not say we have the freedom of speech or expression unless we truly have it and it is obvious that we dont have it. It is very rude, in my opinion, that he claimed we have free expression but the rules say otherwise, that is deceit."



[edit on 11-8-2008 by caballero]



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


While you make an interesting point you shouldn't get to caught up in the philosophical questions surrounding free speech . IMO you should post such thoughts on the Psychology, Philosophy & Metaphysics forum . In everyday life you face boundaries so there is no reason why ATS would be any differnt . Outside of ATS if some people took the same attitude towards other aspects of there daily lives the people in question wouldn't ever enter a retail outlet because they would cry foul at having to give up there right to there bags being searched without a warrant .

I am sure that everyone has seen the sign at the entrance to shops that state by entering you agree to let someone search your bags .



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I for one think it is absurd to remove any post simply because it attacks another. This is a part of life, and why we fight for our beliefs. I have had moderators not post my opinion just because they disagreed with my statement that "GOD" had something to do with it.

That in my opinion IS a limit on freedom of speech!

I have also been warned for replying in a funny manner, I think it was about whether or not a certain member should be allowed to carry a gun, and I tongue in cheek replied..."you look like Barney Fife, and are proly just as dumb, and I wouldn't give you even a single bullet".

That post was meant in jest to the original poster, but instead it was removed as an insult towards the OP and I was warned and levied with a 200 point deduction.

That is really a silly policy since this guy was asking whether or not he should be allowed to carry a gun and the people responding didn't even know him, so why was my answer so out odf line?

His originasl post was simply without a doubt 'stupid' since no one would be qualified to answer since they didn't know him from say Barmney fife.

I say mods and Skep, take a chill pill, and let the community be, unless it is extreme such as threats and abusive language.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
I have also been warned for replying in a funny manner, I think it was about whether or not a certain member should be allowed to carry a gun, and I tongue in cheek replied..."you look like Barney Fife, and are proly just as dumb, and I wouldn't give you even a single bullet".

That post was meant in jest to the original poster, but instead it was removed as an insult towards the OP and I was warned and levied with a 200 point deduction.

That is really a silly policy since this guy was asking whether or not he should be allowed to carry a gun and the people responding didn't even know him, so why was my answer so out odf line?


You may have found it funny...hilarious even.

Unfortunately it appears its the Staff who are also the judge of comedic value. The judgement was that its an insult, particularily the added bit of "and are proly just as dumb



I say mods and Skep, take a chill pill, and let the community be, unless it is extreme such as threats and abusive language.


...or...another alternative: Some more thought before people click that 'Post Reply' button may be beneficial...if it seems a tad dodgy then it might not be wise to post it. One mans comedic gold is another mans slap with a wet fish.


Peace.



[edit on 11-8-2008 by alien]



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   





posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
Do you see the oxymoron between SO's statement that we do have free expression on this site and the actual rules that regulate what we can and cannot express.

The rules, and reasons behind them, for restricting a very small subset of topics has been repeatedly explained. What is it that you're unable to understand?

Additionally, as pointed out, the idea of free expression is accompanied by inherent responsibilities. One such responsibility is the ability to respect the platform on which you practice your ability to freely express.




Originally posted by TH3ON3
I for one think it is absurd to remove any post simply because it attacks another.

We don't do that.

Much of the discussion on ATS contains passionate debate about provocative issues, and sometimes that debate can shift from a focus on the issue, to a focus on debate participants. Most often, things go just fine. But occasionally the personal focus shifts to insults or inappropriate comments for a civil environment... when that happens, the post may be subject to removal, and/or the post author warned.



I say mods and Skep, take a chill pill, and let the community be, unless it is extreme such as threats and abusive language

For the most part, we do let discussions flow on their own, and have no desire to become proactively involved. In fact, with an average of 6,200 posts a day (nearly 8,000 today -sheesh-), our actual involvement with threads is very minimal when you consider the volume of activity here.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I was penalized 20 points for just hitting the reply to quote button?


Again, you see the reasons we have found it a bit over zealous on your "staffs" part,...but again, consider it a badge of honor.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


You quoted the entire previous post, and added no commentary.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



Please read between the lines Skeptic. I think you will find my post.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Did you get a chance to re-read my "quote" post Skeptic? I did post my reply within the thread, sorta like a puzzle for you to find so to speak. Thought you and the staff liked hidden puzzles.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Like I have said before I am sorry for my attitude earlier, I lost my head and tried to fight a stupid fight.

For the most part I agree that you need some resposibility for free expression, but I believe that the responsibility would come from the person expressing their self not from an outside body. When the restrictions are coming from an outside body it is no longer free because freedom is defined as free from restraint or restrictions.

HOWEVER!

What I didnt take into account for was that many people cannot compose themselves in a respectful manner. Even people who can often slip like I did above. So I NOW understand that the rules are there for good measure. I guess I was just arguing for arguings sake.

I felt I brought up a good debate argument. As a final note I really do appreciate ATS for everything that it is. There is more acceptance and freedoms here than any place in the actual world. Though it might not have seemed like it for a couple of posts there I truly do respect ATS and all that it does. It is sort of like a fight with your parents for me, you just get so caught up in all of your emotions at that second you forget that no matter what you are going to love you parents til the day you die.



[edit on 12-8-2008 by caballero]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
... I think you will find my post.


'nuff said..


If someone has to 'FIND' your post,then it couldn't really be taken as an offence if it is removed.


Spare a thought for us poor readers when quoting HUGE sections of a previous post.
By the time we find/if we find any additional opinion,before we can reply we have to dust the keys for cobwebs.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Like I have said before I am sorry for my attitude earlier, I lost my head and tried to fight a stupid fight.

=
.............What I didnt take into account for was that many people cannot compose themselves in a respectful manner. Even people who can often slip like I did above. So I NOW understand that the rules are there for good measure. I guess I was just arguing for arguings sake.

I felt I brought up a good debate argument......


[edit on 12-8-2008 by caballero]



it wasn't a stupid fight - it was a different point of view - and it's just the sort of thing that should to be brought up over, and over, and over...

you weren't afraid to question something - or to disagree

and you're not afraid - or unable - to consider things from a new point of view

shows a lot of integrity - and the ability to actually think

we should never ever agree - just to agree

it's not at all important that we all agree



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The quote below suggests that even on ATS freedom of speech is limited when it involves politically incorrect speech. It is quite sad to see how a website supposebly dedicated to denying ignorance can't live up to its ideals when it involves the very viewpoints that matter most.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Could you perhaps discover something more contemporary? A three-year old thread announcing action taken against intense hate-mongering is hardly an example of your implication of habitual censorship.

However, here is an example of one of the items posted by the member referenced in that thread... which has since been removed. There are several places online to discuss the promotion of fiction-based distortions of historical events that promote various brands of ethnic/racial/religious hatred. We generally prefer that ATS not be one of them.

souce : www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker
 


Why are you harping on one three-year old incident of a disruptive (banned) member copying-and-pasting large amounts of hate speech as your only example of censorship?



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why are you harping on one three-year old incident of a disruptive (banned) member copying-and-pasting large amounts of hate speech as your only example of censorship?


... because this has nothing to do with hate. What you call hate, is just a rationally based alternative view on history and/or society. Merely calling such views hate, already is an Orwellian distortion.

I mind because I recognise at least some of my own views in those of the individual in question and I strongly object to this sort of censorship. I don't like to spend a lot of time on this forum to one day find out I'm being banned because the administration objects to politically incorrect views... especially when that same moderation claims to adhere to free speech and deny ignorance.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I've also been informed that threads dealing with hemp/cannabis or the legislation/decriminalisation thereof are systematically censored. Could you comment on that?




top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join