The Freedom Of Speach Was Removed By Bb Mods.

[Xedos 0]

Nowdays, on the internet, on forums, we no longer have the right for Freedom of Speach. We now have to keep to rules and ensure we don't offend anyone the tinyest bit. What are your views on this?

[bjrn 0]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere. You aren't allowed to spray-paint graffiti all over your neighbours house unless your neighbour says it's okay.

 

Same thing with forums. Whoever owns the forum lays down the rules. If you want to say things that a certain forum doesn't allow, go to another forum or set up your own...

[antny 0]

Nowdays, on the internet, on forums, we no longer have the right for Freedom of Speach. We now have to keep to rules and ensure we don't offend anyone the tinyest bit. What are your views on this?

46391[/snapback]

A user of a message board or a website owned by someone else NEVER had freedom of speech, nor should they. Upon becoming a user of a forum or being hosted by a website, chance are the person joining must agree to the TOS to use the service. Agreeing to the TOS is a type of waiver, in other words... you agree to waiver your rights. (Not that you even have any as a user of someone else's services.)

 

Using a forum or webhost is a privilege, and not a right. You are using someone else's property, and therefore your rights are not applicable.

[s243a 0]

From a legal perspective I agree but from an ethical perspective I disagree to a point. I understand the motivation of a message board to moderate to insure a level of quality of posts and that they are relevant to a topic. I understand the desire to filter out raciest, pornographic or profane material. However, to filter out others well thought out arguments that aren?t clearly unfactual or off topic is ethically dubious. A solid argument should be able to deal with valid criticism and a censorship of well thought out contrary beliefs shows a weakness in ones arguments. The dilberet suppression of well though out ideas is a form of social control and anti intellectual. It can be a deliberate abuse of power by those who control information and there is justification for legal remedies to prevent such abuses.Speaking of threads disappearing what ever happened to the offensive Tusami song thread?

[antny 0]

From a legal perspective I agree but from an ethical perspective I disagree to a point. I understand the motivation of a message board to moderate to insure a level of quality of posts and that they are relevant to a topic. I understand the desire to filter out raciest, pornographic or profane material. However, to filter out others well thought out arguments that arent clearly unfactual or off topic is ethically dubious. A solid argument should be able to deal with valid criticism and a censorship of well thought out contrary beliefs shows a weakness in ones arguments. The dilberet suppression of well though out ideas is a form of social control and anti intellectual. It can be a deliberate abuse of power by those who control information

I totally agree with everything you just said there. It's like it is said, just because something is legal does not make it moral.

and there is justification for legal remedies to prevent such abuses.

That is where I disagree. If someone lets another person use THEIR service, the owner has every right to delete anything that the user post, so long as they do not impersonate that user.

Taking away this right is just wrong and in a sense taking away property rights.

[s243a 0]

That is where I disagree. If someone lets another person use THEIR service, the owner has every right to delete anything that the user post, so long as they do not impersonate that user.
Taking away this right is just wrong and in a sense taking away property rights.

What are you opinions about fox news?

[antny 0]

What are you opinions about fox news?

46429[/snapback]

I don't see how that relates to this. I assume you are trying to figure out if I am a Republican or not. I'm not

 

I don't like Fox News because I think they lack integrity.

 

If it's who I voted for you want to know- it wasn't Kerry or Bush.

[Xedos 0]

From a legal perspective I agree but from an ethical perspective I disagree to a point. I understand the motivation of a message board to moderate to insure a level of quality of posts and that they are relevant to a topic. I understand the desire to filter out raciest, pornographic or profane material. However, to filter out others well thought out arguments that arent clearly unfactual or off topic is ethically dubious. A solid argument should be able to deal with valid criticism and a censorship of well thought out contrary beliefs shows a weakness in ones arguments. The dilberet suppression of well though out ideas is a form of social control and anti intellectual. It can be a deliberate abuse of power by those who control information and there is justification for legal remedies to prevent such abuses.

 

Speaking of threads disappearing what ever happened to the offensive Tusami song thread?

46409[/snapback]

I do totaly agree. I'm not arguing about my rights. I just want to see what you guys have to say.

[s243a 0]

I don't see how that relates to this. I assume you are trying to figure out if I am a Republican or not. I'm not
I don't like Fox News because I think they lack integrity.

If it's who I voted for you want to know- it wasn't Kerry or Bush.

I mentioned fox news because it has had complaints against it for its lack of objectivity or something. Perhaps the complaint was started by moveon.org. Anyway here is a compliant about another network:

Newsweek: " Censored at the Super Bowl"  January 30, 2004   During the Super Bowl that is. Plenty of people have already watched the MoveOn ad, called "Child's Pay," on CNN, viewed it on the Internet, read about it in news stories and seen it excerpted on television news (If you're not one of them, you can watch the spot by clicking on the video player at the top of this page.) In fact, Child's Pay has gotten a tremendous amount of attention since CBS first declined to air it, citing a policy that prohibits "advocacy" ads. Fiery e-mails to the press from MoveOn supporters accuse CBS of currying favor with the Bush White House. Newspaper advertisements paid for by MoveOn characterize CBS's decision as a tragedy of free speech. CBS's switchboards have been jammed for the past week with callers complaining about the network's refusal to air the ad. And MoveOn is urging its supporters to boycott the Super Bowl broadcast for a minute during halftime on Sunday.

"Child's Pay" is playing everywhere, all the time, often at no cost to its creators. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on political advertising, tells NEWSWEEK that MoveOn's spot may rank as "the ad that has achieved the most air time with the least dollars expended of any ad in the history of the republic."

You can find more such media complaints at:
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Ill try to find some of the specific complaints about fox.

Comment on this article | View comments | Email this Feature  News :: Media 
Central Arkansas Outfoxes Fox Network  Current rating: 4 
by M.P. Stanley
Email: mpsoriginals (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!)  20 Jul 2004 
Political watchdog organizations MoveOn.org and Common Cause filed a complaint Monday with the Federal Trade Commission regarding Fox News Networks use of the slogan, Fair and Balanced, claiming the network issues partisan spin rather than news. Fifty-Five Central Arkansas residents joined over 25,000 nationwide participants in a simultaneous viewing of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdochs War on Journalism," a documentary that details the organizations research findings and complaints against Fox News. 

In the States, our journalism has always been a system free of political agendas and political involvement, explained That Bookstore at Mountebanq Place owner and town meeting host, Maryalice Hurst. Now weve got press that are holding themselves up to be journalists, when if fact theyre propagandists, and thats across the board. Fox News is just the most egregious.

It [Fox News Network] has no obligation whatsoever, under any law, actually to present a fair or balanced presentation of the news, states the text of the complaint and film. What Fox News is not free to do, however, is to advertise its news programming- a service it offers to consumers in competition with other networks, both broadcast and cable- in a manner that is blatantly and grossly false and misleading. The petition for a complaint initiative, signed by Common Cause President Chellie Pingree and MoveOn.org, Inc. Founder Wes Boyd, must be accompanied by petition signatures, which were requested during Sundays event.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/