Our open forum.......

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I laugh when people try to use the old "can't yell fire in a theatre" thing to justify putting limits on free speech. And then you talk about "the American Way"? Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I laugh when people try to use the old "can't yell fire in a theatre" thing to justify putting limits on free speech. And then you talk about "the American Way"? Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

Sincerely, Clayton

I know what the first amendment says, but that's not how it's applied in America today. The limits override that... It is U.S. Law as it exists today.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I know what the first amendment says, but that's not how it's applied in America today. The limits override that... It is U.S. Law as it exists today.

How it's applied?

The first amendment is what it always was. Nothing overrides it. You can be held accountable for what you say- but, you DO have a right to say it.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

How it's applied?

The first amendment is what it always was. Nothing overrides it. You can be held accountable for what you say- but, you DO have a right to say it.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, sorry buddy, but you're mistaken. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country. Just saying otherwise doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't think I can go any further with you on this.

[Wymers Auction]

I agree with Leon, but I think as we post on this board we should be careful of wild speculations that could hurt the livelihood of others. For example, I have seen many times where people come on here about Ebay sellers and feel like they have been shilled only to have it pointed out by others that it was not the case. Yes it was corrected, but that person's reputation has been questioned and for what reason? I like most of what I read, but I will admit there are a few people that do not believe there is a single honest AH or Ebay seller. I do not think we should change the way the board here is ran, but we do have a responsibility to be fair and honest in our statements as it deals with others.

[barrysloate]

I make a distinction between Freedom of Speech, something we are all constitutionally guaranteed; and intelligent speech, something we all need to develop. I suppose we can say any crazy thing we want to, but we are all better served if we think first and say something worthwhile.

Everything posted on this board may be allowed, but it's not always intelligent.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I make a distinction between Freedom of Speech, something we are all constitutionally guaranteed; and intelligent speech, something we all need to develop. I suppose we can say any crazy thing we want to, but we are all better served if we think first and say something worthwhile.

Everything posted on this board may be allowed, but it's not always intelligent.

"That's what she said!" - Michael Scott

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Clayton, sorry buddy, but you're mistaken. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country. Just saying otherwise doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't think I can go any further with you on this.

cyseymour,

Sorry buddy, but I'm not mistaken. Actually Barry is correct. But, according to your logic, Rock Master Scott must have been arrested every time he performed this song live, right?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5B2Fzumzo8

I don't think I can go any further with you on this either. I hope people never buy into the theory that there are "limits to freedom of speech". You can be held accountable for what you say (example: seditious speech) but you are still free to say what you please in America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[wolf441]

1. Leon, I believe that you've handled the situation correctly.
2. I never thought that a topic could actually make me look forward to a new Zone91 thread!

[nolemmings]

Clayton, your knowledge of the First Amendment is about as extensive of your knowledge of the Second Amendment, that is to say, limited.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on free speech, just as there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Your "rights" to these freedoms are not unfettered. The Supreme Court has said as much for years. Basically, you have no "right" to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre--such conduct can in appropriate circumstances be considered a crime. You have no right to instigate a riot. The rights of others to peaceably assemble trumps any "right" you may think you have in those circumstances. Moreover, if you go out and criticize your employer you have no "right of free speech" to claim when you get fired (absent certain whistleblower protections). You have no right as a felon to carry a weapon. Banks, schools, churches and others can prohibit you from carrying a weapon--you have no "Second Amendment right" to assert there.

I would agree with you in this statement that you made earlier though:

Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

[Section103]

Maybe its been said upthread, but the 1st Amendment does not apply to Net54 in any way, shape or form. It only guarantees that "Congress shall pass no law". Congress isnt about to pass a law regarding Net54. You are not guaranteed the right to say whatever you want here, at your workplace or anywhere outside of the public arena. This is a private enterprise.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Clayton, your knowledge of the First Amendment is about as extensive of your knowledge of the Second Amendment, that is to say, limited.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on free speech, just as there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Your "rights" to these freedoms are not unfettered. The Supreme Court has said as much for years. Basically, you have no "right" to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre--such conduct can in appropriate circumstances be considered a crime. You have no right to instigate a riot. The rights of others to peaceably assemble trumps any "right" you may think you have in those circumstances. Moreover, if you go out and criticize your employer you have no "right of free speech" to claim when you get fired (absent certain whistleblower protections). You have no right as a felon to carry a weapon. Banks, schools, churches and others can prohibit you from carrying a weapon--you have no "Second Amendment right" to assert there.

I would agree with you in this statement that you made earlier though:

Thanks for the compliment Todd.

The right to free speech and the right to bear arms, aside from being Constitutionally protected, are Natural rights. People have the right to say what they want, and the right to protect themselves, naturally.

Are you refering to the same Supreme Court who says it's ok for the government to make you purchase something by calling it a tax? Or, the same Supreme Court that says a "corporation" is a person?

I understand all of the legal jargon, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I believe we have natural rights.

Don't be so quick to assume I have limited knowledge when it comes to the first and second amendment. I may just have a different outlook on life than you do. My mind is free.

Sincerely, Clayton

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I don't think I can go any further with you on this either. I hope people never buy into the theory that there are "limits to freedom of speech". You can be held accountable for what you say (example: seditious speech) but you are still free to say what you please in America.

I'm entering this conversation late, but the above statement is almost like saying "we all have the right to rob a liquer store, however may be held accountable for doing so". That said, though I don't know Clayton, I enjoy and agree with most all he posts and appreciate that most seem positive.

As mentioned by many others, there are limits to freedom of speech, as well as just about every other 200+ year old constitutional law.

I do think this topic is a pretty slippery slope. People in this business can truly be hurt by others' sometimes misguided words/attacks, but I don't think it is necessarily the duty of the forum moderator to enforce this. By law, I'd believe this task would fall into the hands of the one being slandered. And also believe anything said, which is untrue and could hurt peoples' reputations and businesses is probably not legal, free speech or not.

In an instance where gross/unawarented/known false attacks have been made, maybe there's an expception when the moderator steps in more heavily, but I think Leon does a great job holding this together. Thank you for all the good and presumedly sometimes hard work.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I'm entering this conversation late, but the above statement is almost like saying "we all have the right to rob a liquer store, however may be held accountable for doing so". That said, though I don't know Clayton, I enjoy and agree with most all he posts and appreciate that most seem positive.

As mentioned by many others, there are limits to freedom of speech, as well as just about every other 200+ year old constitutional law.

I do think this topic is a pretty slippery slope. People in this business can truly be hurt by others' sometimes misguided words/attacks, but I don't think it is necessarily the duty of the forum moderator to enforce this. By law, I'd believe this task would fall into the hands of the one being slandered. And also believe anything said, which is untrue and could hurt peoples' reputations and businesses is probably not legal, free speech or not.

In an instance where gross/unawarented/known false attacks have been made, maybe there's an expception when the moderator steps in more heavily, but I think Leon does a great job holding this together. Thank you for all the good and presumedly sometimes hard work.

Thanks Ian.

It just boils down to common sense. The same common sense one would use to know that you shouldn't use profanity around children. "Freedom" and "limits" together sounds odd to me. Like "water" and "oil", they don't mix. You either have free speech or you don't. I prefer to think that we do. The same way you can never convince me that a corporation is a person- and I don't care who said that "it's the law". A person is "a person".

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

[Shoele$$]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

Pretty much in a nutshell...

This isn't the only open forum with the same policies on the web. It's been working roughly the same way since web based message boards first started in the mid 90's with the dawn of the Internet age. This really isn't anything new.

Leon you gave the best response possible, it was handled the right way.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Leon, you did the right thing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

The concern stated in this thread is not a matter of the consequences for the slanderer, but for the consequences for the slandered.

[Rich Klein]

That one of the best things about this board is the right to defenc yourself by knowing exactly whom is saying certain things about you.

That is an American belief and as such, as long as the person puts their name behind their beliefs then I'm OK with what is being said.

In the case of someone such as Ken Thimmel (I never got my lithograph either for signing up); the evidence against him is overwhelming,,

Leon, it sounds like you are dead on and enjoy the weekend.

Rich

[Texxxx]

There are many restrictions on the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. It does not allow anyone to say anything they want. Some examples that have been upheld in courts are:
1. Obscenity - Many restrictions here.
2. Speech in schools - Kids cant wear anything on there clothes, etc.
3. Political speech - Anonymous advertising, etc.
4. Commercial speech - Must be truthful, etc.

That being said I go along with Leon policy of having a open forum. I also believe that anyone that makes statements towards other people should have there name up front. Full name not names with symbols. People that continue to liable other people without proof should be dealt with in some manner.

[cyseymour]

sorry, double post - was working off my cellphone. Pls delete. Thanks.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

I totally agree.

I believe this forum has been a major asset to the hobby and has been highly instrumental in alerting people of many of the problems in the hobby.

If someone just cuts loose with malicious attacks, they will likely be sued. The fact that Leon requires full identity disclosure seems to minimize that problem. There are checks and balances in all of this.