Our open forum.......

[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.

[cubsfan-budman]

Too subjective. Leave it as it is.

Who defines "most egregious"?

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

Too subjective. Leave it as it is.

Who defines "most egregious"?

Well, there's moderators for a reason. Sort of like with Adrian's posts... why a fifteen post limit? Why not ten, or twenty? Or forty? Who can define it? Ultimately, you go with the best judgments of the moderators... that is their job and role within the community. Certainly, deleting scandalous or libelous posts would fall within that role.

[ALR-bishop]

How does one know when normal everyday slander becomes egregious ? Who determines when something is slander in the first place ( actually in this case libel). Is truth a defense ? Who determines the truth. Leon---you sure have your work cut out for you

[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.

[Rickyy]

Fine as is Leon....you do a really fine job of keeping the riff raffs to a minimum... besides we seem to have all the guys (and gals?) with legal backgrounds chime in when we are edging towards the ledge of trouble... I feel safe and warm in here most days...

Ricky Y

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

Where the heck did that come from? He said "God given rights" - that could be any god of any religion. If you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to Seattle.

[teetwoohsix]

"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."

What a way to twist my words around. You must be a lawyer.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Freedom of Speech is a natural law, but so is the right to defend oneself and one's property. So when two natural laws conflict, which one prevails? In cases of slander or defamation, US law generally believes that it is a limit to free speech and the right to defend one's property (by extension their reputation) would prevail.

But to each his own opinion...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by runscott

if you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to seattle.

lol

[Shoele$$]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to Seattle.

lol, good one...

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Where the heck did that come from? He said "God given rights" - that could be any god of any religion. If you have such a problem with someone believing that there is a god, you should move to Seattle.

Why does it have to be a god at all? Why does a god have to intrude into the discussion?

To answer your question, where my comment came from is my frustration at seeing a discussion of board policies degenerate into a religious statement that was used to close out the discussion by, in essence, telling anyone who disagrees with the concept of a god-given right that he is wrong. The problem I had with that statement is not that Clayton believes in god--though that is the canard that the religious often resort to when confronted with the intellectual problems of the belief-based underpinnings of their arguments as to secular issues--but that he asserted a so-called natural set of rights which he postulated derive directly from a divine being as the basis for his intellectual position in a discussion of what subjects should be allowed to be discussed on a baseball card chat board.

As for your commentary, first, I am not sure what Seattle did to merit your apparent disdain--I've never been there--but I guess I can take your word for it that it somehow sucks sufficiently to serve as a destination for people with whom you disagree. Just how bad is Seattle? Are you saying that all non-believers are to be concentrated in Seattle? To what purpose or end, if I might ask, should we be exiled to that terrible place? Surely, it cannot be just to prevent us from posting on N54; although I've not been there, I assume that Seattle has internet service and people who live there could in theory post to N54? Is that wrong? Can anyone from Seattle stand up, JoJo Who style, and let us know that a person's a person, no matter how Seattle-based?

Setting that issue aside, yours is an interesting and [in my view] logically challenged position to take. What you wrote in essence is that if I do not believe in god I have to go to a place that you presumably find distasteful or unwholesome. If that is not what you meant to write, by all means please clarify your position. If, however, I have accurately deconstructed your statement, then I have to ask whether you also agree that I can with equal validity hold the opposite view, namely that if you have a problem with someone not believing in religions or gods maybe you should move to somewhere like Tehran? If my suggesting that you go to Tehran because you are not an atheist is a problematic concept for you to swallow, perhaps you should rethink your statement.

[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

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by 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

Do you collect T206s?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Do you collect T206s?

Yes

Sincerely, Clayton

[Shoele$$]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Do you collect T206s?

LOL.....I mean that's the only thing that matters right?

[Texxxx]

I think this was all a ploy by Leon just to get a heated discussion going. He misses the fights from a couple of months ago.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

I think this was all a ploy by Leon just to get a heated discussion going. He misses the fights from a couple of months ago.

I just wanted to make my one post, didn't think I'd end up on the defensive. But, I'm having fun- I'm glad Leon is cool enough to allow us to say what we want. Thanks Leon

Sincerely, Clayton