Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court majority, wrote that the Bill of Right's First Amendment -
"....is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence."
Censorship is not the American Way.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
apodixisPosted:
Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:54 am
“WASHINGTON (AFP) – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China on Thursday to investigate cyberattacks on Google and other US companies and called on US technology firms not to support Internet censorship.”
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
apodixisPosted:
Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:26 pm
"Will Clinton Free The World From Software Dictatorship?"
Excerpt:
“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has clearly said that the US administration “stands for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas.”
Does this desire for freedom stop at the Internet door or does it go beyond that? Internet is one of the messengers of spreading knowledge and ideas.' There is a lot of technological dictatorship around which is equally responsible for 'censorship' and control.
Mrs. Clinton mentioned the increase in censorship in China and other countries. "In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the Internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained..."
"She also pointed out that, “Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day."
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
FashionistaPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:39 pm
apodixis wrote:
Free Speech benefits everyone.
Anyone want to discuss the free speech issues with the latest politically correct flap over the word “retarded” here ?
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 6750
Location: REFSTAGON
FashionistaPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:06 pm
Reminder
Freedom of Speech & Message Boards
Freedom of Speech. The U.S. Bill of Rights allows citizens the right to free speech in a public forum without limitations imposed by the State/Government. Most message boards are not actually public forums, but rather private forums open to the public. While you will find most communities allow free and open discussion, private communities have a right to limit what is discussed and how it is discussed, as well as defining what is appropriate behavior for their forums. Freedom of speech is not the right to say something anywhere you want, but the right to say it somewhere.
.
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 6750
Location: REFSTAGON
SchmertyPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:42 pm
Somewhere ,Out there
Beneath God's great big sky
There is a private forum
Where you can post with decorum..
Skipping along my own path.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 4286
apodixisPosted:
Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:36 pm
Schmerty wrote:
Somewhere ,Out there
Beneath God's great big sky
There is a private forum
Where you can post with decorum..
Internet board communities that provide for free and open discussion, such as RU, use different approaches to also facilitate decorum or civil discourse.
Some procedures work well – Such as the Heated Exchange forum that separates interpersonal disputes and flame wars from topical discussions.
Others techniques don’t work so well – such as the “ignore” button that was discontinued here at RU.
Since one of the best ways to ensure both free and open discussion, and decorum/civil discourse, is to treat participants on a board as self-governing responsible adults,, what suggestions do RU participants have for how best to facilitate free civil discourse here ?
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
resignedPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:42 am
apodixis wrote:
Internet board communities that provide for free and open discussion, such as RU, use different approaches to also facilitate decorum or civil discourse.
Some procedures work well – Such as the Heated Exchange forum that separates interpersonal disputes and flame wars from topical discussions.
Others techniques don’t work so well – such as the “ignore” button that was discontinued here at RU.
Since one of the best ways to ensure both free and open discussion, and decorum/civil discourse, is to treat participants on a board as self-governing responsible adults,, what suggestions do RU participants have for how best to facilitate free civil discourse here ?
LMAO - I think that train left the station a few bannings, multiple nics and hundreds of warnings ago....
I think the moderators do a wonderful job. I thank them for their time and efforts.
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 35990
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:55 am
Thank you, Pat.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10440
Location: France
apodixisPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:18 pm
Quote:
apodixis wrote:
Internet board communities that provide for free and open discussion, such as RU, use different approaches to also facilitate decorum or civil discourse.....
Since one of the best ways to ensure both free and open discussion, and decorum/civil discourse, is to treat participants on a board as self-governing responsible adults,, what suggestions do RU participants have for how best to facilitate free civil discourse here ?
resigned wrote:
LMAO - I think that train left the station a few bannings, multiple nics and hundreds of warnings ago....
How about it, other RU participants - Do you want to be treated here as self-governing responsible adults ?
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
paxPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:23 pm
Of course I want to be treated as a self-governing responsible adult. I am one and I'm treated that way here. I know you care about free speech. So do I and I'd guess so does everyone. Stop acting like you're the only person who cares about it. You're free to make suggestions on how to improve things here. There's a section for it at http://www.refugeesunleashed.net/viewforum.php?f=2 You're free to join the ACLU www.aclu.org You're free to start a forum. If you don't regulate it you might find yourself talking alone, with like-minded people, or with a few goofballs. That might not be mutually exclusive, lol. On topic regarding Citizens United, the Court was trying to balance competing interests. The interest of corporations and unions to advertise versus the interest of Congress to regulate special interest money in election campaigns. Anyone calling it solely a free speech case has failed to read it accurately and should brush up on the differences between corporations and individuals, which is discussed in both the five-person majority opinion and four-person dissenting opinion. www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 20553
Location: No H8
paxPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:30 pm
Schmerty wrote:
Somewhere ,Out there
Beneath God's great big sky
There is a private forum
Where you can post with decorum..
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 20553
Location: No H8
apodixisPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:16 pm
pax wrote:
Of course I want to be treated as a self-governing responsible adult. I am one and I'm treated that way here. I know you care about free speech. So do I and I'd guess so does everyone.... You're free to start a forum. If you don't regulate it you might find yourself talking alone, with like-minded people, or with a few goofballs. That might not be mutually exclusive, lol. On topic regarding Citizens United,...
The purpose of this thread was to provide a place for people here to discuss free speech in general, of which the "Citizens United" case was only one issue.
Have you noticed the number of views per reply of this thread? Looks like a lot of people are interested in it.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
ThePhoenixPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:54 pm
apodixis wrote:
The purpose of this thread was to provide a place for people here to discuss free speech in general, of which the "Citizens United" case was only one issue.
Have you noticed the number of views per reply of this thread? Looks like a lot of people are interested in it.
So few replies per views. Are they uninterested in what they read or are they afraid to join in?
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 725
Location: Rising from the ashes
FashionistaPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:48 pm
Please note that any posts/threads that are purely complaints about existing rules will be moved/removed/edited/locked, as would any threads consisting of complaints about specific moderators, or the moderating/moderators in general.
This policy has been in effect for quite some time now
Kay_The_Kitten wrote:
I just want to add a few things
1) if you disagree with something which has been done fine PM Joy and VC about it. If they seem to be away email or PM me and I will make sure one of them gets the message. Bitching about it in a thread and bashing the staff will just piss us off even more, and make it less likely that we will come around to your point of view.
2) At one point in the past there was an attempt to harass Joy and VC to the point that they would give up the board and pass it on to another group of posters who could then mold it into their "vision" of what it should be. At that point Joy and VC decided that there would be no "hand off of the board and that if it ever went to the point that it was totally out of control and that they had it with the board, then the plug would be pulled period.
<>snip for relevancy<>
Theer are 2 co-owners, Joy and VC. I am a personal add close friend of VC and take care of the Geek type stuff that keeps the board up. Other than occasionally posting offbeat stuff in the pub, I have no real interest in common with most of the posters here and only get involved as a personal favor to VC. <>snip<>
We have 2 Global Mods, Fash and YIF. <>snip<>
We may live in a democracy but never forget a board like this one is a benevolent (you hope) dictatorship.....
I hope this answers some questions and clears up some unfounded beliefs
Staff bashing as well as "passive~aggressive" Staff bashing = Bannable offenses
We are happy to explain why certain rules have been put into force via PM, but each one has already been carefully considered and discussed before it was added/enforced.
Thanks, and happy posting!
.
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 6750
Location: REFSTAGON
DocTarPosted:
Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:18 pm
I must admit that cudos go to RU for being the longest lasting forum that I have posted to, and my opinion for why this is true, is because RU has rules and enforces them.
I am a mod on another board, and it is one of the hardest things I have ever taken on.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 2701
Location: one toke over the line
paxPosted:
Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:21 pm
Yes, I really appreciate the mods here too. They do a great job and it's all volunteer.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 20553
Location: No H8
apodixisPosted:
Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:58 pm
"What Is the First Amendment For?"
Excerpts:
[ U.S. Supreme Court Justice ] “Kennedy, along with Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (the usual suspects), is worried that the restrictions on campaign expenditures imposed by the statute he strikes down will “chill” speech, that is, prevent some of it from entering the marketplace of ideas that must, he believes, be open to all voices if the First Amendment’s stricture against the abridging of speech is to be honored. (“[A] statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated.”) Stevens is worried — no, he is certain — that the form of speech Kennedy celebrates will corrupt the free flow of information so crucial to the health of a democratic society. “[T]he distinctive potential of corporations to corrupt the electoral process [has] long been recognized.”
“Even if there were substance to the charge of “undue influence” exercised by those with deep pockets, it would still be outweighed, says Kennedy, citing an earlier case, “by the loss for democratic process resulting from the restrictions upon free and full discussion.” The question of where that discussion might take the country is of less interest than the overriding interest in assuring that it is full and free, that is, open to all and with no exclusions based on a calculation of either the motives or the likely actions of individual or corporate speakers. In this area, the majority insists, the state cannot act paternally. Voters are adults who must be “free to obtain information from diverse sources”; they are not to be schooled by a government that would protect them from sources it distrusts…..”
[ U.S. Supreme Court Justice ] “Holmes’s fatalism — let everyone speak and if the consequences are bad, so be it — stands in contrast to the epistemological optimism of Justice Brandeis who believes that if the marketplace is allowed to be completely open bad speech will be exposed and supplanted by good speech (a reverse Gresham’s law): “The remedy to be supplied is more speech, not enforced silence” (Whitney v. California, 1927). Both justices reject state manipulation of the speech market ,…”
The author of the above article, “Stanley Fish is a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 11 books, most recently “Save the World On Your Own Time,” on higher education.”
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
apodixisPosted:
Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:48 pm
DocTar wrote:
I must admit that cudos go to RU for being the longest lasting forum that I have posted to, and my opinion for why this is true, is because RU has rules and enforces them.
I am a mod on another board, and it is one of the hardest things I have ever taken on.
And cudos also to Joynow and VC for establishing a board that allows so much freedom of speech. Thank you.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
ThePhoenixPosted:
Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:22 pm
Talk about censorship and freedom of speech. I just read this in a review of the Nexus One cell phone.
Myth No. 1: The Nexus One cleans up your dirty mouth.
TRUE: The Nexus One’s voice-to-text field is featured pretty much anywhere you’d need to type on the device. It’s great for sending a quick text message, as long as you don’t plan on saying anything even remotely dirty. But here’s the shocker: Even some words with double meanings, including the title of the classic novel Lolita, turn into pound signs when spoken. Unless you’re a master of dirty talk, you might be perplexed as to why certain words would be blocked.
Also censored are the benign phrases “pussy cat” and “rape hotline” - and you’d be stunned by a few of the words that aren’t muzzled (obviously we can’t share them, but let’s just say they’re common sexual slang terms). Google told Reuters that the censorship is designed to prevent curse words from accidentally ending up in text, but it seems a little extreme. Instead of turning every other word into ####, why not accentuate potentially naughty words in red type, or highlight them in yellow, or warn the user with a pop-up notification?
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 725
Location: Rising from the ashes
apodixisPosted:
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:17 pm
Lame attempted censorship like the use of software word censoring codes is the laughingstock of the internet. Here are some more examples:
Quote:
“Problems can occur with the words socialism and socialist and specialist because they contain the substring Cialis, the brand name for an erectile dysfunction medication commonly advertised in spam e-mails. Blocking of the word specialist is liable to block emailed resumes and other material including job descriptions.[9] “
"In February 2006 Linda Callahan, a resident of Ashfield, Massachusetts was initially prevented from registering her name with Yahoo! as an e-mail address as it contained the substring Allah. Yahoo! later reversed the ban.[4]”
“Blocked e-mails and web searches relating to The Beaver caused the publisher to change its name to Canada's History after 89 years of publication.[14] “
Not only is that kind of attempted censorship ridiculous on its face, it is self defeating - because there are so many ways of expressing the same thing, that the censors would have to shut down their own media in order to prevent that expression.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
ThePhoenixPosted:
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:36 pm
apodixis wrote:
Lame attempted censorship like the use of software word censoring codes is the laughingstock of the internet. Here are some more examples:
Quote:
“Problems can occur with the words socialism and socialist and specialist because they contain the substring Cialis, the brand name for an erectile dysfunction medication commonly advertised in spam e-mails. Blocking of the word specialist is liable to block emailed resumes and other material including job descriptions.[9] “
"In February 2006 Linda Callahan, a resident of Ashfield, Massachusetts was initially prevented from registering her name with Yahoo! as an e-mail address as it contained the substring Allah. Yahoo! later reversed the ban.[4]”
“Blocked e-mails and web searches relating to The Beaver caused the publisher to change its name to Canada's History after 89 years of publication.[14] “
Not only is that kind of attempted censorship ridiculous on its face, it is self defeating - because there are so many ways of expressing the same thing, that the censors would have to shut down their own media in order to prevent that expression.
You're probably too young to remember but one example that always comes to my mind when discussig this topic is the cartoon spokesman for Ipana toothpaste back in the late 50's and early 60's - Bucky Beaver. Can anyone imagine that in today's pc world?
And goodness sake - how about Beaver Cleaver aka "the Beav"?
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 725
Location: Rising from the ashes
apodixisPosted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:10 pm
Back in Black – the “R” word.
Politcal correctness, like most censorship IS retarded.
---------------------------------
“Family Guy” actress responds to Sarah Palin’s criticism:
“My name is Andrea Fay Friedman. I was born with Down syndrome. I played the role of Ellen on the "Extra Large Medium" episode of Family Guy that was broadcast on Valentine's day….. I guess former Governor Palin does not have a sense of humor. I thought the line "I am the daughter of the former governor of Alaska" was very funny. I think the word is "sarcasm".
"In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes."
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 5138
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
SiddaleePosted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:35 pm
ThePhoenix wrote:
You're probably too young to remember but one example that always comes to my mind when discussig this topic is the cartoon spokesman for Ipana toothpaste back in the late 50's and early 60's - Bucky Beaver. Can anyone imagine that in today's pc world?
And goodness sake - how about Beaver Cleaver aka "the Beav"?
Gosh, I had forgotten about Bucky Beaver!
Ya-Ya!
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7865
apodixisPosted:
Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:07 pm
"Homeschooling: German Family Gets Political Asylum in U.S."
Excerpt:
"It's our fundamental right to decide how we want to teach our children," says Uwe Romeike, an Evangelical Christian and a concert pianist who sold his treasured Steinway to help pay for the move.
Romeike decided to uproot his family in 2008 after he and his wife had accrued about $10,000 in fines for homeschooling their three oldest children and police had turned up at their doorstep and escorted them to school. "My kids were crying, but nobody seemed to care," Romeike says of the incident."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I think that train left the station a few bannings, multiple nics and hundreds of warnings ago....
