Freedom of speech and the JC

Exactly how much do we have?

I mean if somone posted about how whites who married blacks were race traitors, they'd be lucky to avoid a perm banning.

On the other hand, saying that 9/11 was the act of drunks and there's no such thing as terrorists is accepted.

Could someone explain this to me?

 

It's common sense, farraday. It's not too difficult to understand.

You can generally say what you want provided it's not knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense. In addition, you can generally say what you want provided it's respectful of another's opinions and beliefs.

You should not say anything about spoilers about upcoming Star Wars items outside of the proper forum to say such things.

And, you shouldn't be posting anything that violates any copyrights, trademarks or other similar proprietary laws or guidelines without the express permission of the owner.

... common sense.

 

It's common sense, farraday. It's not too difficult to understand.

Never underestimate farraday.

 

Don't put too much emphasis on the idea of "common sense."

Considering some of the remarks I've seen about politics, economics, and national defense, you'd have to do a lot of house cleaning around here if "common sense" is your guide.

AYBABTU?

 

Farraday, I think this thread has the potential to not give you the answers you're looking for. It's going to be too hot and vague. And you know that. What we work in as moderators is a framework. We moderate the behavior and not the opinions. As you know, most things such as spam and trolling are subjective terms. It always comes back to common sense and staying within the allowable guidelines of the forums. As a former moderator, I would suspect you already knew that.

 

AYBABTU,
We recognize that stupid people have a conspiracy to undermine the term. Agents have already been dispatched undercover to root out such reprobates.

 

I'll also have to ask for specifics. It's much easier to answer and respond if we know a situation, a thread, and users in question. When deciding upon freedom of speech and its limitations thereof, even the Supreme Court demands the name of the folks involved, location, scenario, background, and the specifics of the case.

 

You're right. They did commit acts of terrorism. I don't think I expressed myself clearly. Here are some things I believe or at least suspect:

1. The nineteen men who hijacked the three jets were not part of a larger ring of terrorists.

2. Osama bin Ladin had nothing to do with it.

3. Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it.

4. The Taliban had nothing to do with it.

5. No one in Afghanistan had anything to do with it.

6. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it.

7. No one in Iraq had anything to do with it.

8. No one on earth (other than the nineteen) had anything to do with it.

Further, the motives of the nineteen men are so murky as to be incomprehensible. They had no clear agenda. That's why I say it was a bar bet made my morons. That at least makes more sense than thinking they were part of a worldwide web of terrorists.



Tell me this is less offensive then saying blacks are gentically inferior.

 

Actually, although I disagree with some of those statements, it was presented in a responsible manner and represented the minority, opposing view of that incident.

 

No sape, extremes aren't the minority view, they're extremes.

Sayign we should nuke Iraq because all Muslims are terrorists is not an opposing view, it's a fringe extreme that deserves no part in responsible discussion. Saying that the 9/11 hyjackers were just some drunks who made a bar bet to see if they could crash planes into the WTC isn't 'an opposing view' it's a lunatic fringe. Saying there's no world wide terrorist organization isn't part of responsible discussion it's being an idiot.

 

It also violates Genghis's common sense standard.

AYBABTU?

 

But the list you provided didn't say anything like that. There was no hatred or inciting. It was just an opposing view.

 

How is that different from a very polite and well reasoned post explaining why blacks are genetically inferior?

Is ti insultign to blacks? Probably those who consider that skin color is unimportant, however the post I pasted, is just as insulting to the familes of those who died.

Hell it's even insulting to the terrorists themselves.

 

To me, the topic you mentioned about genetics is racially biased, clearly demonstrates intolerance, and is biggoted. Big difference from someone who says they believe Iraq had nothing to do with the U.S. terrorist attacks. Hell, I even agree with that.

 

I don't think that there are any terrorists who are targeting the USA because if there were they would have struck long ago. They don?t need high-tech equipment, bombs, masterminds, and networks. All they need to do is buy a little bit of poison and become waiters in Washington D. C. restaurants. Have a list of politicians they don?t like, and add poison to their food. Then claim responsibility for it in the press and give a list of all the politicians who won?t be able to eat out if they don?t vote the American soldiers out of foreign countries and bring them back home.

A sixth-grader could figure this out. So, if there really were a bunch of terrorists and masterminds out there, they could figure it out too. That means there aren't any terrorists (or, if there are, they?re as dumb as rocks).

This also means that the War on Terrorism is a hoax. If sixth-graders can figure out how to kill politicians, you can bet that the politicians can figure it out too. They know there aren't any terrorists because if there were the politicians would have been poisoned a long time ago.

?What a minute! What about 9-11?? Well, what about it? There were nineteen suicidal guys who ditched jets into buildings. They aren't going to bother anyone any more because they are all dead. Fact is, they were too stupid to be terrorists. Why go to all the trouble to learn to fly a plane when all you have to do is be a waiter? Seems to me these were nineteen morons or drunks (or both) who made a bar bet that they could hijack some planes and crash them into buildings. They won the bet, but they didn?t think far enough ahead to realize they couldn?t collect?


Amazing.

 

I count at least two points on that list that are true.

I can't see how attacking a theory about the Twin Towers attacks is the same as abusing an entire race of people. One is against a point, one against people. Much has been made ont he JC over the years of discussing the point and not the person, and surely this falls under that definition?

UKS

 

I just really don't have a real problem with that post. It's no different than the abject stupidity prevalent in any thread about President Bush that pops up in Community. People ignore evidence, fact, truth, good sense, common knowledge, tact, reason, etc., and just post some incomprehensible nonsense. It's their opinion -- an ill-advised, not at all grounded in fact opinion -- but opinion, nonetheless.

Rather than take it as offensive, I take it for what it is -- complete crap. In the example you cited, farraday, the ones that should be offended are that guy's parents for raising someone so blind to evidence. But, he is entitled to say what he wants and give his opinion. He's making a fool out of himself, and that's his right.

AYBABTU?

 

Again, farraday, what makes this any different from an opposing view on CNN, the op-ed page of a newspaper, or your local news? There was nothing inciteful, racially-biased, or anything that even remotely pushed the boundaries of free speech.

 

I agree farraday about this.

 

I agree farraday about this.

All your base

 

Hmmm...I wonder if an analogy could be made between those posts and people who say the Holocaust never happened. (Which is extremely offensive)

What do you think?


EDIT: speling

 

Stupidity is not an excuse and you can't debate a point based on moonbeams.

How does that further discussion? As AYBABTU said it's a completely crap argument. You can not debate it nor can you disprove it.

Sape you're forgetting of all the principles enshrined in the TOS freedom fo speech isn't one of them. Why should people trying to have a debate have to put up with extremist views comign in and removing any chance of actual debate with stupid crap?

 

By what compelling reason should idiots get less posting privileges than others.

Next, we'll be seeing calls to limit posts by one-legged Corsicans.

And no one wants that.

 

Hey I'm get to more. You see the thing is. I have a problem with someoen calling what happened on 9-11 not any act of terrorism. You might as well go spit on all the people that dead that die.

 

Whether or not I agree with someone, I'll fight for their right to have an opinion, no matter how stupid it may be. As long as someone includes the reasons behind their thoughts and are respectful of others and other opinions, they are free to have an opinion.