by Elsewhere 75 Replies latest jw friends
The responsibility does not necessarily involve doing it publicly.
I do understand your concerns ... my concerns are that the current climate is not the best time to announce them.
I think it would just be good manners if I check with them first which I will do.
Jan,
If you caught me spray painting graffitti on your car or house, would you act to arrest this particular freedom of speach?
If you caught me advocating that others spray paint your house or car, would you act to stop me?
Just defining delimiting factors here.
Eric
Actually...it's not protected under free speech as it's considered vandalism and infringes on private property laws.
it's considered vandalism and infringes on private property laws
And that's all jehovahs-witness.com is. Private property that the owner currently chooses to use as a discussion board. The issue is property rights, not freedom of speech.
In fact, in setting up another discussion board, Bboyneko has effectively demonstrated that Simon's deleting his account here has not affected his freedom of speech in the slightest.
Expatbrit
Actually nothing on the web is private and your going to get in sticky water trying to censor it. Simon has created a public forum. If I put up a free wall( a wall designed for graffiti artist) and then someone tags(writes) something I don't like, so I make up a rule so I can get rid of it, I would think that people would object to that too.I am getting so tired of this 'you walked into his house' analogy.
Naeblis said it best:
" I don't remember forcing Simon to open this board, and if he wasn't here there would be another one so I don't particularly feel any great debt to Simon for the volunteer work he does of his own accord. He opened this board and let people post wahtever they wanted, that was part of the lure here as we laughed at the poor witnesses that had their words edited and censored by the JW Nazi moderators, so now he wants to change that all the while I'm told that "we're lucky this board is even here"
Edited by - Bgurltryal on 19 August 2002 19:11:9
Edited by - Bgurltryal on 19 August 2002 19:33:24
Yes Bgurl, the first question is an easy one. The second is only a little tougher.
How would you react if I merely publicly advocated that other people graffiti Jan's property?
Eric
If you were advocating to do it specifically to Jan H i would want to know why before commiting to either side.
Actually nothing on the web is private and your going to get in sticky water trying to sensor it
Actually virtually everything on the web is private because individuals and corporations pay consideration for their web domains and gain ownership of those domains.
Nope. Simon is currently using his domain property as a discussion forum. This is entirely his choice, and because the domain is his private property he can change this at any time. He could change it tomorrow to a Britney Spears fan site, and that would be entirely within his prerogatives. If this site was public, it would hardly be owned by one person in that way would it? Also, if this site was public, you wouldn't have to register to become a member to use it. Simon has a domain and he currently chooses to let others post messages to it. That is the bottom line, and everything else is pie in the sky.Simon has created a public forum.
If I put up a free wall( a wall designed for graffiti artist) and then someone tags(writes) something I don't like, so I make up a rule so I can get rid of it, I would think that people would object to that too
If you owned the wall, you could do whatever you liked, within the laws of the land. Just because people object, doesn't mean their objections have any logical or rational basis.
I am getting so tired of this 'you walked into his house' analogy.
Your level of tiredness has no relevance to the value and accuracy of the analogy.
Expatbrit
you both dismiss opposers arguments as "stupid", "ignorant", and of course "unworthy" of response.....you both insert insults into handles (drooling about how clever it will look once posted)......you both erroneously claim victory on a regular basis......you both claim that youve somehow lowered yourself to another level by responding to unworthy posters......you both engage in stereotyping........you both ignore what you have no response for (selective rebuttals).......and of course you both resort to schoolyard namecalling in a pathetic attempt at discrediting. Dubla
Thank you, Dub.
Some of us saw this in JanH over a year ago but didn't articulate it as well as you did here.
Jan = YK? Hmmm...
Goes to show you... you become your worst enemy, so folks? Pick your enemies well.
Verrrrrrry interesting thread/post, Dubla, et al. I give it two thumbs UP two "award" thingies!
Nope. Simon is currently using his domain property as a discussion forum. This is entirely his choice, and because the domain is his private property he can change this at any time. He could change it tomorrow to a Britney Spears fan site, and that would be entirely within his prerogatives. If this site was public, it would hardly be owned by one person in that way would it? Also, if this site was public, you wouldn't have to register to become a member to use it. Simon has a domain and he currently chooses to let others post messages to it. That is the bottom line, and everything else is pie in the sky.
But simon has granted public access to his 'property' much like a mall. Everything is owned by someone, even that which is open to the public. Sure I registered, but i guess i missed the clause about bugging the wrong person getting you expelled. I have yet to hear a clear and consise reason for Dans demise on this board other than he annoyed it's owner. This is petty. I will complain. I am within the terms of the registering agreement to do so, since I have to watch that now.
If you owned the wall, you could do whatever you liked, within the laws of the land. Just because people object, doesn't mean their objections have any logical or rational basis.
Things aren't that black and white and you know it. I could go on for ever with this back and forth of how this instance would make your past comment invalid and this instance makes my comment invalid but I'm just not that bothered. I personally am involved with the graffiti scene and wanted to post a comment in regards to a comment refering to it. But of course you've got to pick appart what i say and bring up things I've posted else where, in what I can only think is some attempt to get me to break down and say how right you all are and how illogical all I have spoken on this matter was. Well I'm quite fond of my convictions and feel, in this instance, that i do have a valid view point. You're beating a dead horse. I've already been here. I'm more interested in the analogy I commented on and it's poster now.
Your level of tiredness has no relevance to the value and accuracy of the analogy.
Boy...you'll grasp at anything won't you. This is getting silly.
I don't find it to be a logical analogy at all. When everyone parrots the same phrase it just doesn't seem like they're thinking before they type. But then I'm illogical, irrational and irrelivant by your insinuations.
