Our open forum.......

[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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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.

And if it's not a First Amendment issue, then it has to be a matter of what's best for the community. Having slanderous comments and false accusations swirling around the message board can hardly be considered to be good for the community.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

And if it's not a First Amendment issue, then it has to be a matter of what's best for the community. Having slanderous comments and false accusations swirling around the message board can hardly be considered to be good for the community.

I think that being able to speak freely is what's best for the community. Not some biased arbiter making choices about who can say what about whom.

I absolutely avoid the CU boards because of the censorship I've seen over there. I don't care to have that type of environment over here.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

I think that being able to speak freely is what's best for the community. Not some biased arbiter making choices about who can say what about whom.

I absolutely avoid the CU boards because of the censorship I've seen over there. I don't care to have that type of environment over here.

No one would want to see it become like the CU boards, CU obviously has their own agenda. But knocking out the most egregious slander is still a reasonable thing to do, especially if it is causing court cases or unjust harm to people's reputations. Everyone will still feel free to post, they just won't be able to write false accusations about people. That isn't trampling on anyone's rights - in fact, it's the rights of the people who are being slandered that are being trampled upon.

[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

[ALR-bishop]

What are natural rights anyway ? Is there a list of them somewhere ? If I think my natural rights are violated what is my remedy ? When did natural rights begin ? Who determines the parameters of natural rights ? Is Leon the source of natural rights on this board ?

[teetwoohsix]

If you do not know what natural, God given rights are then you will never understand.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

If you do not know what natural, God given rights are then you will never understand.

Sincerely, Clayton

Puhleese, let's leave the "my god is mightier than yours" nonsense out of this discussion of baseball card chat board policies. Assuming arguendo there is a god, I don't think she cares about what is posted here.

But I digress. Leon, you are doing just fine with this board in terms of content of speech. About the only speech that needs to be regulated are (1) posts threatening other people, and (2) posts by scammers seeking to rip off people. Those things are damaging to the community and in violation of the rules already. The rest is fair game as far as I am concerned.

I also think that whoever it was who pitched the hissy fit needs to grow a pair. Ten seconds after the post is put up no one is really going to care that someone made #2 on your auctions unless you really are dirty. In all candor, most of the ranters who see conspiracies under every rock on Ebay or at a TPG and post about it incessantly sound demented inside of a few posts. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

[HRBAKER]

I am always amazed at the number of Constitutional scholars involved in the hobby. Interesting thread.

[teetwoohsix]

Here, maybe this is more fitting for some of you guys:

1. Obey
2. Do as we say, not as we do
3. Obey
4. Pay up
5. Obey
6. Do not resist
7. Obey
8. You can't say that
9. Obey
10. You can't do that
11. Obey

Do I fit in yet?

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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

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

Clayton, I absolutely agree with your sentiments. That being said I guess it's not totally free speech on here. If someone goes completely ballistic or starts talking about someone's family, you can bet I or another mod will step in. But for the most part it is a very open forum and will stay that way.....along with the privacy policies. regards

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Leon

Clayton, I absolutely agree with your sentiments. That being said I guess it's not totally free speech on here. If someone goes completely ballistic or starts talking about someone's family, you can bet I or another mod will step in. But for the most part it is a very open forum and will stay that way.....along with the privacy policies. regards

Completely understandable Leon.

I think you do a great job balancing this forum, and I think conversations like these are always interesting to me. And, to anyone I disagree with-I still respect your opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

And, to anyone I disagree with-I still respect your opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

Same here. The one sentiment we seem to share is a lack of funds for this auction, lol.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

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

By "limits", I only meant that a person can break the law by simply saying the wrong thing, in the wrong place. Of course you're "free" to say whatever you want, and will sometimes suffer the consequences for doing so.. but again, you are free to commit any crime you want and similarly face the consequences. This measure of "freedom" and the subsequent consequences is no different in any country or walk of life.

What I think differentiates us (the American ideals people think of when "freedom of speech" is mentioned) is the fact that we allow much more (almost anything) to be said, drawing the lines of legal speech much more loosly/openly than a more oppressive regime might. We can march (ideally after securing a license first), we can protest, we can write nasty letters to newspaper editors about our mayor/governor/congressman/president, etc. There was no room for similar politicized speech under Stalin or Mao... and even in modern "1st world" R****a (I'll let you fill in the gaps) several reporters/lawyers have been assasinated apparently for criticism of those in power. Clearly in those instances, freedoms are far more limited than we experience, and the line of what can be said is much more strict.

Separately though, I totally agree in that I am also a big "common sense" guy, and do get tired of a total reliance on written law to guide and/or judge one's actions. Many things said or done totally defy common sense and are wrong, legal or not... but I married a lawyer so there you have it

[WhenItWasAHobby]

This thread has really gotten sidetracked. Yes, there are definitely legal limitations of what can be communicated, mainly for public safety issues and that rarely applies to what goes on here. However I do recall recently reading someone making a physical threat on another person on this forum and the laws may vary from state to state, but in Texas that would very likely be regarded as assault. See post #209

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...162027&page=21

See Sec. 22.01.(2)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.22.htm