What happened to freedom of speach/thought???

jterfehr

I have not been to this sight in months. I come back and its a complete mess. This JW-whoever guy, has a right to speak his mind. Don't read his posts if you don't like them. What are we doing when we remove somebody just because we don't like what they are saying. I didn't see him ever call anyone names, or spew hate. But others are and they are allowed to stay. Are you all (Simon!!) becoming JW's again, with its censorship and excommunication!

I AM APPALLED!!! I don't agree with everything said on this site, but there is NEVER a good reason to remove someone, then we become the people we dislike so much...the JW's themselves. I thought this site, and perhaps the internet itself was about freedom of expression.

I guess this site will turn into the GREAT CROWD site, where only what is "acceptable" can be said or discussed. Was there a star chamber meeting before JW-?? was disfellowshipped, was he given a chance to meet his accusers?? Is he just marked or is this public reproof, and his priveleges will be returned when he acts like a good little JW forum person, and is acceptable to the supreme elder (Simon???????).

This is disgusting, you who are responsible (and you know who you are) should be ashamed that you have slipped back to your old ways, like a 'dog returning to its vomit'. Lets have FULL freedom of expression on this site, where ANYONE is welcome, and everyone exercises their individual conscience on what posts to read and what posts not to read.

Perhaps I will now be targeted for "disfellowshipping" from this site!!

IF SO? SO BE IT!! I left the JW's for this very thing, and I have no problem never returning to this site either.

SO MR SIMON YOU DECIDE, WHAT WILL IT BE?

On the other hand, I appreciate (till now) what I have found on this site, and full freedom of exchange of ideas. I hope it will return to its glory days!

JOHN

messenger

It has been determined you should have private reproof.

Your restrictions are no cokes for three days and you are not allowed to speak with red headed men who have freckles for three weeks.

Satanus

messenger

I would add an additional restriction:

No playing w you pencil!

SS

SixofNine

This is a discussion board. Do you understand? Discussion. Also a community online. Do you understand? Community.

Coming in and dropping tons of riduculous-in-the-extreme little-brained topics, does not contribute to discussion, nor does it contribute to a community atmosphere. If your contibution or lack thereof doesn't help with either criteria, I guess it's two strikes you're out. If you don't want to offer anything, why should you be allowed to hinder those who do?

jterfehr

"This is a discussion board. Do you understand? Discussion. "

Why yes, that is what I am talking about!!!! Do you understand discussion...maybe everyone doesn't agree with you, does that bother you, perhaps you need to go back to JW's so that you are all in unity.

"Also a community online. Do you understand? Community."

Well now here is where I get a little fuzzy. By community do you mean mind control, thought control, and, to quote the GB "unity at all costs"

If so then you can have your version of community, its not for me.

"Coming in and dropping tons of riduculous-in-the-extreme little-brained topics, does not contribute to discussion, nor does it contribute to a community atmosphere. If your contibution or lack thereof doesn't help with either criteria, I guess it's two strikes you're out. If you don't want to offer anything, why should you be allowed to hinder those who do?"

How is anyone (except Simon) hindering anyone. The only people being hindered are those who are silenced!!

Get out of your "club" mentality. Everyone can say anything they want. There should be NO limits, if there are, we join the ranks of all the other censorship groups like JW's. I am only advocation Freedom here, I don't agree with everything said on this site. I choose to read some posts, and not others. I have a mind, and I use it.

D wiltshire

jterfehr,

I think you make a valid point.
Simon has the 3 thread starting limit and 25 post a day.
If he took JWman off because he was Escargot then why not take other off for the same ofense.
I too have been DF'd wrongly and feel a certain sadness for this Judicial decision.
Perhaps just deativate one account and make it aply accross the all board.
But it's Simon's board and he's the boss, but I would like to apeal to his fairness and kindness.

If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?

LB

I'm with 6 of 9 on this one. I'm sorry but posting silly no brainers with 3 word messages is just a waste of space. Posting prop-JW, anti-JW messages are just fine. Posting fluff is fine too. But that stuff is just junk.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

D wiltshire

Say a poster starts a thread like slave, or jwman.
If it's just junk don't post to it and it will just get buried in a short time.

It's that simple, were adults if we don't like a thread let it die a natural death.

If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?

Simon

I appreciate your concerns jterfehr but while the idea of 'free speech for all, all the time' is great in theory when it comes to practice there needs to be some control and just as in real life, it is not possible to allow everyone to say anything all the time.

For instance, if I came over to your house and constantly shouted my opinions through your letter-box would you want to shut me up? Of course ... would you be restricting my right of freespeech and expresssion? No - because I was excercising my right in an innappropriate way and abusing the priveledge (a much better word than 'right' IMHO)

The forum is provided to allow people to discuss and debate and give and receive support. This falls down though if people just want to be disruptive and are allowed to continue unchecked.

Do I allow people to post pro WTS messages as well as anti WTS messages? Yes.

Do I allow people to discuss the same topic more than once? Yes

Do I allow people to start essentially the same topic every few minutes by cut & pasting? No

Would I allow people to post random characters? No

Am I contravening anyone's right to freespeech or being overley restrictive? No, I don't believe so.

The site is certainly not becoming the greatcrowd site as you suggest and I did post warnings about the spam posts which was ignored. I take exception to being labelled a supreme elder as I don't believe that I deserved to be called this.

Anyone is welcome on the site as long as they aren't disruptive.

Xena

I have (for some reason) taken an interest in free speech and what it means online (yes i have interests outside of sex) and found this article interesting....thought perhaps others might too.

http://slashdot.org/features/00/06/01/1526235.shtml

sorry don't know how to do the hightlighting thingy to make the direct link...

Just a few highlights...it is a news article regarding a young man who is being charged with criminal libel for comments made online to others. Here a portion I found interesting and thought might apply to this thread:

The Net is raising new questions not only about copyright, but about the limits of speech and commentary in cyberspace -- a culture in which the First Amendment sometimes seems almost timid, perhaps even inadequate. It also focuses more attention on epidemic Net hostility and cruelty, against which some people may begin to take formal action. Public net postings are frequently vicious, and sometimes anonymous posters traditionally bear no responsibility for the the wantonly stupid things they sometimes say. In the context of all the other conflicts over the movement of intellectual property and speech online, some sort of legal response seems almost inevitable.
In the overall context of personal and commercial Net traffic, assaultive comments are rare. Hardly any result in actual physical harm. But as the Utah incident demonstrates, that doesn't mean they're inconsequential. The anonymous Utah Web site was vulgar and offensive, but compared to many public flames, only tepid. Flaming is obnoxious -- most of it is profoundly inane -- but the idea that it's libelous has lots of implications for life online. And none of them are good.
Questions of online responsibility for words are difficult. Anonymity is easy on the Net, and it's often impossible to know if comments online, no matter how shocking, are true or false. Vicious postings can be more damaging than the face-to-face-kind. They can be rapidly disseminated and accessed by countless numbers of people instantly.

I would be curious to see how others feel about this..

What happened to freedom of speach/thought???

Share this