Censorship

Here Bill, let me help you get this thread closed. That seems to be the popular thing to do here when the Admin decides he doesn't want his actions questioned.

Case in point, this thread started by the infamous azosx.

Yes, I agree, azosx did push the envelop when replying to Cheryl but she at the same time she had no right to talk down to him.

I question why the Admin felt the need to not only ban azosx publicly for "personal attacks", but also close his thread as well while letting threads such as the one at the URL below remain open.

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21216

Not to out anyone but it's obvious to see MikeMc's post was a blatant personal attack against the Admin, calling him such things as a "bitch" and a "coward." Similar personal attacks exist within threads throughout the forums since August 15.

Now if azosx was banned and his thread closed due to site policy, why is MikeMc not banned and the thread at the URL above closed as well?

Could it be that azosx's thread concerning the Admin's childish behavior had something to do with his being banned? I also find it curious that the Admin banned azosx publicly then decided 5 minutes later to close the thread in a second post.

To me its obvious azosx was used at a scapegoat to invoke fear in others who may be questioning the Admin's decisions and to keep them from doing so publicly. His thread was also closed for no reason other than to prevent the possible negative backlash against the Admin that may have ensued.

Some people are sheep and will continue to back the actions of the Admin and praise him for doing what he did for no other reason than to kiss ass in hopes of elevating their forum status. Obviously they do not understand the importance of Freedom of Speech at what a crime it is to allow themselves to be silenced.
 
buttercup - freedom of speech ends when it includes slander. that is US law. how serioulsy such slanders are taken is always up to the individual slandered to determine. around here, we have chosen to take it very seriously. you can argue free speech all you want to and it will always be wrong when the issue of personal attacks and slander are involved. Even in the US, we draw lines as to what you can say and where.

no doubt you are azosx or pezagent or maybe both. perhaps it is time for you to gather your friends here around you and move on.
 
I'm sure that admin hasn't read MikeMC's post or he'd be out too. Admin most likely took the rest of the day off to nurse his headache.

While I agree with azosx and mikemc to some degree, they both need to learn a thing or two about tact. You can get a person to listen to you alot easier by talking to them rather than yelling at them. Do you think admin (or anyone else) is going to take anyone who is calling him a b*tch or coward seriously. I know I wouldn't

We need to voice our opinions on this matter in a professinal manner. Do you think posts like that of quackingpenguin found above add any validity to the posts that I have spent hours reasearching and writing.

Besides, this topic has been run into the ground over the last 24 hours (mostly by me) and I really think that admin and ed and all the other administrators are giving validity to the views of those enraged by the "protest".

This world we live in grows smaller by the day, we all need to learn to accept one another's differences a little more readily. I think we should always stand up for what we believe in and give voice to our own opinions, but let's try to do it in a more civil manner.
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
buttercup - freedom of speech ends when it includes slander. that is US law. how serioulsy such slanders are taken is always up to the individual slandered to determine. around here, we have chosen to take it very seriously. you can argue free speech all you want to and it will always be wrong when the issue of personal attacks and slander are involved. Even in the US, we draw lines as to what you can say and where.

no doubt you are azosx or pezagent or maybe both. perhaps it is time for you to gather your friends here around you and move on.
Click to expand...

Oh whatever Ed. You know I'm not pezagent, check the weblogs if you have any ***** doubt.

Also, suggesting someone learn to read and write is not slander. Twist the facts to your advantage like you're always so keen on doing but don't think those here with any shread of intelligence don't see right through your manipulative ways.
 
so i guess if we use the 'troll poll' as our guide, there are only 14 people who visit this site with "any shred of intelligence"?
 
I consider myself an intelligent person and I feel that Ed here has done a good job of staying unbias. Your allegations are completely unfounded.
 
Bill,

If I may I would like to say a few more words regarding the First Amendment of the Constitution and the freedom of speech.

James Madison introduced several proposed amendments in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789 one of which was his version of the first amendment: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; (the part you quoted) and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.'' This was later rewritten by the special committee and sent to the Senate. Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate. The final language being agreed upon in conference. Some of this you have previously correctly stated.

The First Amendment does carry much of the wording and certainly the soul of Madison's proposal. T o quote his proposed amendment as the one that was adopted, however, is to do other framers of the Constitution and the Constitution itself an injustice. While Madison's hand is seen at almost every turn in this document, he is not the only one who made this document come to fruition. In later years, when an admirer referred to him as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands." As to the right of freedom of speech being mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution, I not sure as to where that would be.

So, in light of this Bill, I'm wondering if you might want to rephrase some of your original statements.

From one of your first missives:
"Here is a direct quote from "the document": The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments. I don't believe this line has been changed, ..."

From another:
"The document would be The Constitution of The United States of America. I never stated that this was a quote from the first amendment. The are a few other lines to the document you know."

When the subject is as important as the right of freedom of speech and what the Constitution says about it, I feel it behooves us to state it correctly.
 
I'm not really sure what your point is (or your intent), and I'm not really interested in spending any more of my time discussing this with someone who is obviously hell-bent on proving me wrong. Our Constituion is constantly evolving and my point was that our rights to express ourselves are even outlined within, which I was reminded admin may actually choose to ignore if he like, having no legal obligation.

However if anyone is interested in exploring our Constitution they should visit: http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hal.../constitution/constitution_transcription.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top