302 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Thanks Jace, I very much appreciate your thoughts. I have a basement office, in home... and yes.. I have an open door to all vagabond immortalist running through Birmingham, AL... Susan and I would enjoy the visit... but we'd quickly kick you out if you started talking about suicide..

[David]

Dear Jace, good thoughts, but a little off topic and glib. This is important. Too important to trivialise. Instead of doing everything you can to fit in with the heirarchy by sucking up, you could try contributing to the issue. And I think, and I could be wrong, that the issue is unrestricted free speech. You for or against?

Jace, so far we havn't heard anyone in the administration mention "its my bat and ball so do what I say or bugger off". This seems to be what you are implying? Did I misread?

Dave.

Edited by Mind, 10 November 2003 - 03:04 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

What is a Constitution?

A Constitution is a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of an institution. A Constitution in order to be valid must have all the necessary necessary elements or parts. A Constitution must be brought to a state in which there is no deficiency with no part or element lacking; it must be free from deficiency; entire, and perfect. It must be complete in every respect.

More to follow
William Constitution O'Rights




I'm a soldier
These shoulders hold up so much
They wont budge, I'll never fall or fold up
I'm a soldier
Even if my collar bones crush or crumble
I will never slip or stumble
I'm a soldier

Go left, go left, go left right left
Go left, go left, go left right left
Go left, go left, go left right left
Go left, go left, go left right left

[Jace Tropic]

Dave: Jace, so far we hav'nt heard anyone in theadministration mention "its my bat and ball so do what I say or bugger off". This seems to be what you are implying? Did I misread?

*barely sorting through composition errors…*

Nothing was implicit. However, it was explicit that if I, as an example, created a discussion forum and wanted to be a dictator, I would. The underlying point you missed is that it’s not your private property; therefore, you have no power. You cannot ascribe what you think your rights are at every place. I can throw food in my house. I can’t do it in Don Pablo’s.

Dave: And I think, and I could be wrong, that the issue is unrestricted free speech.

The issue is unrestricted free speech where? If you can answer this correctly, we shall then continue.

Jace

[thefirstimmortal]

I think it's helpful to read the passage in total:

Any user who finds material posted by another user as being offensive or objectionable will be encouraged to contact an ImmInst leader.

This key here is that ImmInst leadership would be making the ultimate decision as to the post.  ImmInst leadership that is elected by ImmInst members to reach the ImmInst mission.

Again, ImmInst is not a country.. we're not here to protect all people in their free speech.. ImmInst is here to provide good place for members to reach the mission objective.

Your argument falls wide of the mark.
I understand that we are not a country, and I understand that your not a free speech absolutist, that's not the issue here. This issue confronts you with the duty your law places on us, to say where individual freedom ends and the where your power begins. Choice on that border, now as always is very delicate.

BJ, I am asserting that this portion of the law is not clearly defined and that this lack of a precise definition is just one of the things that makes this law unclear, vague, uncertain and questionable.
Explicit laws by definition are laws that are fully and clearly defined and formulated, leaving nothing implied. Your law fails that test.

None of your putative standards passes the test, for no one can ascertain what conduct they do or do not in fact proscribe and because a violation depends on the subjective opinion of the Leader, the speaker has no protection against arbitrary enforcement of the ordinance.


Your post doesn't begin to address the vaguenes issue, no matter who makes the ultimate decision. I understand that it's the leadership that make the final call, I addressed that in past posts.

Let's try this again. I'm not talking about our countries laws, I'm talking about your very own bylaws. This isn't about our Countries constitution, it's about your Constitution.

What we have her is an impermissible result that "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning of your bylaw because it is Vauge.

The "offensive" or "objectional" standard suffers from vagueness, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.

How can we allow ourselves to be bound by laws that are vague to the extent that they have no real meaning, laws that have no clear written parameters? Clearly, not only can we not adhere to such laws, but, moreover, without being clarified in writing there is nothing to adhere to?

A person reading the law cannot know, prior to action, whether his or her conduct was found "offensive" or "objectionable" to persons on the site.

[thefirstimmortal]

You know Dave, I don't think you have to be an extreme libertarian to worry about how the law will be enforced - especially in cases where Leaders rely on their subjective judgment.

[thefirstimmortal]

Any user who finds material posted by another user as being offensive or objectionable will be encouraged to contact an ImmInst leader.

This key here is that ImmInst leadership would be making the ultimate decision as to the post. 

2:45 AM countdown.

Bruce, the issue is the standardless application your law that is designed to inhibit speech, it's important because of the value our society and all of humanity places on the free dissemination of ideas.

It would be unthinkable to permanently block a man for violating a law he could not understand. You should as much recognized that a stricter standard is as much required....For a law such as you have broad enough to support infringement of speech, writings, thoughts and public assemblies against the unequivocal Natural human rights, necessarily leaves all persons to guess just what the law really means to cover, and fear of a wrong guess inevitably leads people to forego the very Natural rights most people around the globe seek to aquire and protect above all others.

[thefirstimmortal]

We need the freedom to express ourselves in any way we seem fit,
Dave.

2:59 AM

I agree 100%, members must be able to discuss issues and express themselves through the means of expression they deem best suited to their purpose. It is for the speaker, not the ImmInst leaders, to choose the best means of expressing a message. Leaders should protect members right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for so doing.

[Bruce Klein]

Ah.. ok.. I tend to agree. Let's think about how we can make this more clear.

[thefirstimmortal]

Ah.. ok.. I tend to agree.  Let's think about how we can make this more clear.

Dam Bruce, it's 4:00 in the morning, my computer screen isn't even clear right now, and I gotta a Mac Daddy 21 inch Monitor. I'm going over Constitutions, ratification processess, IRS Section 501 ©(3) Organizations and case law relating to 501 c3s. I'll give the Vauge issue a rest.

[Bruce Klein]

heh.. take care there big guy. Thanks!

[thefirstimmortal]

4:20, Till I Collapse

'Cause sometimes you just feel tired.
You feel weak and when you feel weak you feel like you wanna just give up.
But you gotta search within you, you gotta find that inner strength
And just pull that sh*t out of you and get that motivation to not give up
And not be a quitter, no matter how bad
You wanna just fall flat on your face and collapse.

Go left, go left, go left right left

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out
Till my legs give out, can’t shut my mouth.
Till the smoke clears out and my eyes wears out
I’ma rip this sh*t till my bones collapse.

[Bruce Klein]

Heh.. go to bed man!

[Lazarus Long]

Dave:

What I never fail to lose sight of, is that my impression of natural rights may be different to someone else's. That's my main reason for not putting them on parchment! Should a post be deleted because it uses the word "masturbation" or "F**ck, or the new f$#ck, C%$nt? I hear these words every day, in my home via the television, on the radio, as I walk past the coffee shop 5 minuts walk from my home at the beach.

For the record I noticed your post is still available in the Catcher. I do not know which of my more prudish associates transferred it there but it happens to be a good example of the problem because first, it demonstrates the need for accountability, and second is an example of scientific research that shouldn't have been dismissed because it violated someone's personal sexual sensibilities.

I have read that study and it happens to rely on fact and research not anecdotal or sensationalist fancy. It is a problem with our culture that we do not see past sexuality as a moral issue to even the social characteristics let alone scientific ones without more often than not causing some one's hackles to rise.

I have considered putting it back in the ailments category and will do so,, but I would ask you David to further your research a bit and add substantive supporting data to it that you can find. This example has also demonstrated the importance of why I asked for the Catcher in the first place.

Clearly the editing process holds a lot of power with too few guidelines and protections. Those of us that have chosen to act with restraint have not abused that power but the risk of such abuse is ever present.

It is in this respect, and for the larger question of defining the plebiscite for our membership that I feel we need to look closely at creating a "Bill of Rights" with respect to our Constitution that has already been drafted. I don't agree that "no document is necessarily better than having a flawed document", if the flaws quickly highlight the areas that require additional effort for change and the original document contains the mechanism for allowing such growth.

[thefirstimmortal]

REMONSTRANCE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

Bruce,
This Constitution has a defect. This Constitution is not Valid, as it does not have all the necessary necessary elements or parts. This Constitution lacks something necessary or for it's completion and or perfection, it harbors a deficiency.

There is a defect in Article III, Section 3, subsection 3, and Article VIII, Section 1 Enactment


Article III. -- Membership

Section 3 -- Cancellation of Membership

(3) Full Members can lose membership status if at any time in violation of the user agreement (Bylaw A), if their membership status is no longer supported by donation as designated in (Bylaw B) or if engaging in active contravention of the ImmInst principles. Whether this is the case shall only be determined by authoritative directorial vote. The member must be notified in writing.

Article VIII. -- Enactment

* Section 1 -- Enactment
This Constitution with all its articles, sections, subsections including Bylaws A, B, and C shall come into force on the 15th of November, 2003 only after a full and fare vote by all ImmInst Full Members, passing with a majority, with a follow up unanimous vote by the Board.


A Constitution in order to be valid must have all the necessary necessary elements or parts. A Constitution must be brought to a state in which there is no deficiency with no part or element lacking; it must be free from deficiency; entire, and perfect. It must be complete in every respect.

It is not in dispute that Article III, Section 3, subsection 3, states that "Full Members can lose membership status if at any time in violation of the user agreement (Bylaw A), ....or if engaging in active contravention of the ImmInst principles."

It is also not in dispute by your own admission that no such principles existited at the time of voting. .. This is made clear by your statement "I don't know of any ImmInst 'principles'.... however this should probably read 'Guidelines' and have a link to here:".

This imperfection causes inadequacy or failure, and it cannot be corrected without corrupting the process. One cannot change add or delete provisions of a Constitution after voting has started. A Constitution must be unimpaired, unadulterated, and in a genuine state. In order to be valid the entire document must be in an original condition.No changes can occur after voting starts. It matters not, what the Constitution should probably read, what matters is how it does read.

As written, this Constitution lacks the proper consideration with respect to the fact that it is lacking an element, that element being missing is a factor to be considered in forming a judgment or decision about the Constitution. This breach is so serious that it undermines the basic essence of the Constitution.

The Authoritative permission or approval that would makes a course of action valid is found Under Article VIII. -- Enactment "This Constitution with all its articles, sections, subsections including Bylaws A, B, and C shall come into force on the 15th of November, 2003 only after a full and fare vote by all ImmInst Full Members.."

This act or process of constituting and action of enacting and establishing the Constitution must be suspended, as the enabling document as been found to be want or absence of something necessary for it's completeness or perfection, and therefore cannot be said to be put to a "fare [Fair] vote". Because of the failing, fault and imperfection of the current Constitution has been brought to the light, it would be ethical to approve and sanction it. It cannot as it currently stands be make valid, it should not be to established. The ratification process should be promptly, instantly; without delay immediately suspended without intervention of any other person so as to avoid the issue of fraudulent ratification of the Constitution.

As a practical matter, the issue before you is not difficult. The Constitution simply needs to be corrected and put to a re-vote, judging by the current popular overwhelming support for it, 18 for, 2 against and 1 abstain, I have little doubt that it will pass after being resubmitted.

Live Long and Well
Constitutionally Yours
William C. O'Rights

[Jace Tropic]

Ah-ha. A valid constitution for its own sake. Music to my ears. William, quite the staunch bureaucrat you are.

Jace

[Bruce Klein]

OK, a new vote might be a good idea. I'll confer with leadership, and see if we can have a second go at this soon.

[thefirstimmortal]

OK, a new vote might be a good idea.  I'll confer with leadership, and see if we can have a second go at this soon.

It's a little more than a good idea, it's the choice betwwen an expedient flawed unconstitutional Constitution, or a slow well built bulletproof Constitution.

Let me now as soon as possible, I would like to take a nap, if not, I'm gonna be on this till midnight. I stayed up all night working on this.

[thefirstimmortal]

Vroom vroom, Yeah, here I come
I'm just inches away from you, here fear none
This Constitution is in a state of 911

[thefirstimmortal]

Ah-ha. A valid constitution for its own sake. Music to my ears. William, quite the staunch bureaucrat you are.

Jace

Yeah Jace!
Get ready!
Cause it feels so goood to be baaack!

Never been too type to bend or budge
Taking away my free speech wrong button to push, no friend of bush

I'm the centerpiece, I'm the mortice, I'm a pitbull off his leash
I want all this censorship-talking to cease

All these people I had to leave in limbo
I'm back now and I've come to release this info
I'll be brief Jace and let me just keep sh*t simple
When it comes to free speech nobody want to beef with me, NOOOO!

Not even on my radar
So everybody who hates free speech please jump off my d*ck, lay off and stay off
And those who love free speech follow me while I put these crayons to chaos

I back with no plan to ambush this administration
I'm not trying to push anybodys face in, just pushing this generation
of people to stand and fight for the right to say something
You might not like, this white hot light that you got me under
No wonder I look so sunburnt,

Oh no, I won't leave no stone unturned
Oh no, I won't leave one going nowhere
Doh-si-soh oh! yo! ho! hello there!
Oh yeh! don't think i won't go there [":)]

[Bruce Klein]

Let me now as soon as possible, I would like to take a nap, if not, I'm gonna be on this till midnight. I stayed up all night working on this.

Give me a little time to work this out.

[Jace Tropic]

BJKlein: I have an open door to all vagabond immortalist running through Birmingham, AL... Susan and I would enjoy the visit... but we'd quickly kick you out if you started talking about suicide..

LOL! I just now noticed this. However, a corpse is rather difficult to kick out as the ambience would never be the same. )

[thefirstimmortal]

By the way, I'd be happy to know your ideas for a better wording on this... an amendment may be necessary.

Well Bruce, I know of a real old, but perfectly worded one that would work well. It's may be old, but I think it's not outdated, and at any rate not all old things are bad. The evils it would guard against are timeless.

[thefirstimmortal]

I'm unclear as to why ImmInst, as a nonprofit membership organization, has to hold up to a higher free speech standard.  Can you explain why you think ImmInst is different from other nonprofits in this regard?

Because they (the bylaws) are not consistent with our profound commitment to the free exchange of ideas, wether by mouth pen or "mouse."

From the oldest forms of human expression to the newest, from Plato's discourse in the Republic to my posts in the last week, those in power have always known that writing and speaking have the capacity to appeal to the intellect and to the emotions, and those in power always try to gain the power to censor. Censorship only serves the needs of those in power. Our Constitution and bylaws should prohibits any like attempts in our own order.


Live Long and Well
Wiliam Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal.

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 10 November 2003 - 11:16 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

Computers are instruments of effective public speech and expression, and should be protected under our groups Constitution and bylaws. Our Constitution should protect the right to communicate, whatever the physical means for so doing. Computers are one form of communication; ergo that form is entitled to the same protection as any other means of communication, whether by tongue or pen.

Computers today are indispensable instruments of effective public speech, the computer has become an accepted method of communication, it is the way people are reached. The scope of the protection afforded by our groups Constitution and bylaws, for the right of members to chat and post, and express his views on matters which he considers to be of interest to himself and others on this forum through his computer must be considered, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and freedom to communicate information and opinion to others.

Ideas and beliefs are today still chiefly disseminated to the masses of people through the press, radio, movies, and TV. To some extent at least there is competition of ideas between and within these groups, but there are many people who have ideas that they wish to disseminate but who do not have enough money to own or control publishing plants, newspapers, radios or movie studios, Yet everybody knows the vast reaches of these powerful channels of communication which from the very nature of our economic system must be under the control and guidance of comparatively few people. On the other hand, commication on the internet is done by many men of divergent minds with no centralized control over the ideas they entertain so as to limit the causes they espouse. It is no reflection on the value of preserving freedom for dissemination of the ideas of publishers of newspapers, magazines, and other literature, to believe that transmission of ideas through the internet is also essential to the sound thinking of a fully informed world citizenry.

In no other way except worldwide speaking with computers can the desirable objective of widespread public discussion be assured. There is no reason that I can see for using censorship with this most useful instrument of communication.

Currently preference in the dissemination of ideas is given those who can obtain the support of newspapers, or those who have money enough to buy advertising from newspapers, radios, or make movies. Our leadership through it's bylaws should no more permit this invidious prohibition against the dissemination of ideas by speaking on the computer, than it would permit a complete blackout of the press, the radio, movies or books.

It is wise for all who cherish freedom of expression to reflect upon the plain fact that speech and expression should be protected from absolute censorship for persons without, as for persons with, wealth and power.

At least, such is the theory of our society.

[thefirstimmortal]

Give me a little time to work this out.

OK, no rush, I gotta enough energy to make it till midnight.

Go left, go left, go left right ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Jace Tropic]

thefirstimmortal: It is wise for all who cherish freedom of expression to reflect upon the plain fact that speech and expression should be protected from absolute censorship for persons without, as for persons with, wealth and power.

I very much appreciate this thoughtful idea. However...

thefirstimmortal: At least, such is the theory of our society.

it is just that, a theory. The notion is unstable in practice. For example, at the very root of this is issue is telling an honest-to-goodness citizen what he should do with his property. How the theory has supposedly been played out under this thread is self-defeating.

Jace

[thefirstimmortal]

I don't want to amend your constitution, I want it gone. I find it offensive to me personaly. You don't have to tell me how to behave, and I won't tell anybody else how to behave.

Dave.

Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Sometimes we wish people weren’t so free to say whatever they want, however they want. When they express opinions with which we disagree, we wish they would keep quiet. When the subject is offensive, we wouldn’t mind if they were penalized. It is wrong to qualify speech by prohibiting dissenting opinions or expressions we do not enjoy. This is an important point, and one we must remember.

Any restrictive bylaw will merely be a symptom of the willful assault on liberty on our site: the suppression and punishment of controversial and unpopular ideas and expressions; the banning of terms that offend listeners invested now with special rights; and the outlawing of discourse that, in the eyes of the defenders of orthodoxies, “creates a hostile environment.”

One of the effects of a restrictive bylaw is to repress speech, it may serve other ends, such as making its framers feel moral, powerful, or simply safe from the attacks of those who would criticize them. It also demonstrates, for all to observe, who controls the symbolic environment of this site-a heady feeling for the wielders of power, and a demonstration, of course, that also succeeds in silencing others.

[thefirstimmortal]

it is just that, a theory. The notion is unstable in practice.

I'm sorry Jace, perhaps I do not understand you, do you mean to say that the notion of free speech is unstable in Practice?

For example, at the very root of this is issue is telling an honest-to-goodness citizen what he should do with his property.
Jace

OK, I'm going to get anoth cup, and repond to your quote, and in the meantime, if you would be so kind, could you answer these questions that I put to Bruce a few days ago. Be back

1. On the main page there is a button to Access all Forums, except the full members forum, correct?

2. And anyone on the planet who can access a computer can enter that main forum?

3. And do you recall that it says under the "First Time Here" link, "ImmInst does not excluded anyone from membership." In fact, ImmInst "readily encourages participation from opposing sides".

4. Would it be fair to say that several billion people are wecome to join and post?

5. Would you further agree that ImmInst believes in debating?

6. In fact BJ, under the heading "How does ImmInst foster debate?" don't you have listed "The two main vehicles for debate are the online forums and chat room"?

7. And do you also recall that it says under "What is ImmInst?" That "ImmInst... serves as a platform for its members to exhibit, exchange and debate ideas", would that be a fair characterization.

8. And could you clarify and define what is meant by the statement "ImmInst serves as a virtual community" listed under "What does ImmInst do?"

[Jace Tropic]

Isolating the issue of creating a Constitution that is congruent with certain values is certainly a respectable intention. As a stand-alone agent, it will serve its purpose well once it is revised to accommodate.

The bottom-line continues to irreducibly be that a website is a domain of expression, the expression of its owner. It is self-defeating to suggest that a value is impenetrable and in the same logic take it away.

Jace