Our open forum.......

[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

[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?

[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 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?

[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

[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.

[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

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

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

Clayton,

Don't worry, I've got your back. We can hide out at Little Bohemia, about 25 miles north of here. It worked for Dillinger. You'll be safe there and I'll buy the first round (see below). Let me know your arrival time and I'll pick you up at the curb in the get away car (see below).

Frank

[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.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Clayton,

Don't worry, I've got your back. We can hide out at Little Bohemia, about 25 miles north of here. It worked for Dillinger. You'll be safe there and I'll buy the first round (see below). Let me know your arrival time and I'll pick you up at the curb in the get away car (see below).

Frank

Good one- thanks Frank. Sounds like a plan

Sincerely, Clayton

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

I think the limit on Adrian was done playfully more than anything else. I think that Adrian wasn't entirely familiar with general forum etiquette and the post limit helped reinforce that.

I do go with the best judgement of the moderators...he's chosen to have the forum be open and uncensored when it comes to topics and opinions.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

I think the limit on Adrian was done playfully more than anything else. I think that Adrian wasn't entirely familiar with general forum etiquette and the post limit helped reinforce that.

It wasn't done playfully... a lot of people were complaining about him... that's why it happened.

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

I do go with the best judgement of the moderators...he's chosen to have the forum be open and uncensored when it comes to topics and opinions.

He's asking our opinion because he's not sure he's doing the right thing, and in fact, he isn't.

[cardinalcollector]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

It wasn't done playfully... a lot of people were complaining about him... that's why it happened.



He's asking our opinion because he's not sure he's doing the right thing, and in fact, he isn't.

He did ask for opinions, most folks agreed with him. How can you blatantly state he isn't doing the right thing as a fact. Isn't that your opinion??

[ALR-bishop]

Darn. I totaly missed that this was a simple matter of fact. That makes it much more clear cut for everyone

[teetwoohsix]

How is Leon not doing the right thing?

His rules are clear, and people are accountable for what they say. What more do you want him to do?

Sincerely, Clayton

[Tobacco&Gum]

Fire!

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Tobacco&Gum

Fire!

Fire on the mountain.

[cubsfan-budman]

I think you've been reading the wrong thread.

Anyhow, to each their own. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

It wasn't done playfully... a lot of people were complaining about him... that's why it happened.



He's asking our opinion because he's not sure he's doing the right thing, and in fact, he isn't.

[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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by cardinalcollector

He did ask for opinions, most folks agreed with him. How can you blatantly state he isn't doing the right thing as a fact. Isn't that your opinion??

You're right, it is an opinion. I shouldn't have used the expression, "in fact" - would have been better off with "which" - but beyond the semantics, the larger meaning of the sentence remains.

[gnaz01]

Leon did the EXACT right thing here, no questions about it, IMHO.

[novakjr]

I think there's a large difference between flat-out accusing someone of doing something, and opening a discussion about things that they think may be questionable..

Aside from that though...

"Fair comment on a matter of public interest: arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected."

My belief is that comments made on THIS forum, about the hobby and/or anyone involved within the hobby(whether ultimately true or not, as long as they are speculatively legitimate), are made with the hobby's best interest in mind..

[Paul S]

This is the best egalitarian board of its’ kind around. Tolerates all to keep the common peace and Leon doesn’t even have to pull out a UZI(T) with a quarter next to it.

And, Cy, how do you know what “most” people think about Adrian? No poll, no empirical evidence. Maybe some largemouth bass. He threw a large stone into a sometimes stagnant pond and as far as I know every guppy responded and adapted.

[Runscott]

From the email exchange you posted, my guess is that he's guilty of whatever he's crying about.

Can he sue me for libel too?

[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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Paul S

And, Cy, how do you know what “most” people think about Adrian? No poll, no empirical evidence. Maybe some largemouth bass. He threw a large stone into a sometimes stagnant pond and as far as I know every guppy responded and adapted.

Paul, my friend, please don't misquote me. I never said "most" so I don't know where that came from. I wrote that "a lot" of people complained about Adrian, which was true.

[ALR-bishop]

I like Adrian. He grows on you after awhile

[Runscott]

Great thread-thanks, Cy and Clayton, for distracting me from my impending REA defeats, unless one of you is responsible for them.

[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.

[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

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Great thread-thanks, Cy and Clayton, for distracting me from my impending REA defeats, unless one of you is responsible for them.

Haha- not me, I'm broke (otherwise I'd be at the California show right now).

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

You've both given us a good example of how to disagree but to do it in a civil manner.

[tiger8mush]

i agree w/how Leon handled it.

"FREEEEDOOOOOMMMM!!!"

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Paul, my friend, please don't misquote me. I never said "most" so I don't know where that came from. I wrote that "a lot" of people complained about Adrian, which was true.

Cy: Bro', My bad. I was just anxious about the Knicks chances tonight. And NOW, they are losing at halftime. I had a Gone Fishin' sign on my front door when I wrote that. No bad blood among fish here, just cartilage. Let's all keep the faith.

[Gary Dunaier]

Since free speech has been part of the discussion in this thread, are you guys aware that the Yankees have taken a simple rule prohibiting foul language and indecent clothing and made it into a free speech issue?

On the surface, I can't see anyone objecting to such a rule. I don't. However, I do object to their making it into a free speech issue. This appears on the Yankees website, in Yankee publications, and even on the back of some Yankee tickets:

"Ticket holders acknowledge and agree that the Yankees' ban on foul/abusive language and obscene/indecent clothing does not violate their right to free speech . . . In addition, ticket holders further acknowledge and agree that by entering Yankee Stadium, they . . . waive, to the fullest extent that they may legally and effectively do so, any objection they may now or hereafter have to such ban and the penalties that the Yankees may impose for any violation of the same."

What's up with the Yankees' heavy-handed, holier-than-thou attitude toward their customers. Why can't they just say that foul language and obscene clothing will not be tolerated, and leave it at that? Why make it a free speech issue?

[Runscott]

It's probably some legal thing that their lawyers suggested.

[glynparson]

Has limitations on it. To pretend otherwise is to be rather naive.

[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

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Since free speech has been part of the discussion in this thread, are you guys aware that the Yankees have taken a simple rule prohibiting foul language and indecent clothing and made it into a free speech issue?

On the surface, I can't see anyone objecting to such a rule. I don't. However, I do object to their making it into a free speech issue. This appears on the Yankees website, in Yankee publications, and even on the back of some Yankee tickets:

"Ticket holders acknowledge and agree that the Yankees' ban on foul/abusive language and obscene/indecent clothing does not violate their right to free speech . . . In addition, ticket holders further acknowledge and agree that by entering Yankee Stadium, they . . . waive, to the fullest extent that they may legally and effectively do so, any objection they may now or hereafter have to such ban and the penalties that the Yankees may impose for any violation of the same."

What's up with the Yankees' heavy-handed, holier-than-thou attitude toward their customers. Why can't they just say that foul language and obscene clothing will not be tolerated, and leave it at that? Why make it a free speech issue?

It's basically a contract. If you buy this ticket, and you enter the stadium, you are entered into it and waive your right to free speech. It's just the Yankees covering their ass in case someone tries to sue based on free speech.

[MattyC]

I don't see it as the Yankees having an attitude, but more as a CYA move advised by their lawyers; people know the Yankees have money and in this litigious age they are a potential target. Strikes me as legal protection against a lawsuit.