302 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

Hold on Jace, I'm switching out my monitor. Be back in an hour or so

[Jace Tropic]

In response to your questions:

I agree that free speech is a good thing—good, great, fantastic! Maybe there are some elements that must be reworked for the owner of the site to accomplish his intended goals. Nevertheless, these nominal errors, as you may put it, may or may not be revised. No one can distinguish what is right or wrong for the owner and force him to be receptive. Although we definitely know this not to be true, maybe the site is an elaborate game and, therefore, is intended for nothing else but the amusement and self-expression of a fellow human being. We have no power to make this discernment for someone else.

Yes: I am for free speech.

No: I am not for giving others any rights through someone else’s private vehicle.

Jace

[John Doe]

My personal opinion (if that is relevant) is that:

1. people may use their private property however they wish
2. people may, and often do, fail to use their property in the best possible way

The owners of this message board have the right to do whatever they wish with the MB, including censorship. That does not imply, however, that censorship is the best use of this MB. I personally feel that the MB would be far superior if users had the right to post whatever they wished without fear of censorship and the option to not receive the periodic email. But the choice is not mine.

[thefirstimmortal]

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.
Jace

First of all Jace, billions of people are welcome to this site, for the expressed activity of fostering debate. The avowed purpose is, and I quote "ImmInst... serves as a platform for its members to exhibit, exchange and debate ideas".

We on one hand seem to recognized a profound commitment to the principle that debate on issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, so it makes no sense to create a bylaw that creates a "danger zone" within which speech and expression may be inhibited.

With billions of people invited to join, one cannot seriously make the claim that this is somehow a private site. This is no doubt a world wide street corner.

We call it a forum, and just what is a forum, Jace? I pulled every definition I could find.

a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

a public place to meet for open discussion

The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for open discussion and public business.

A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas

Any discussion group accessible through a dial-in

A forum functions much like a bulletin board; users submit postings for all to read and
discussion ensues.


Wherever the title of forums may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, discussing public questions and displaying expressions.

Such use of the public forums such as streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of Natural human speech rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot be denied broadly and absolutely. That extension should include this forum. Natural speech rights in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, parks and such, and certainly that extension includes electronic public forums, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum.

Under the current bylaw, every potential public speaker may be banned and silenced and many expressions prohibited. I am of the opinion that the right of speech is guaranteed every poster here, and that for him to reach the minds of willing listeners there must be opportunity to win their attention. The current bylaws will insure that a citizens of the world will not be able to reach the minds of willing listeners.

Free speech and expression are essential, in this, I hold James Madison’s belief that the people possess absolute sovereignty over these rights. These bylaws are offensive not only to the values of speech, but to the very notion of a free society. The breadth and unprecedented nature of these bylaws alone should render them invalid.

“Absolute” power in the hands of one or many is synonymous with dictators; and “absolute” prohibition against the exercise of power in certain fields is quite the contrary.

Ultimately Jace, all questions on this matter really boil down to one-whether we will try fearfully and futilely to control speech by adopting totalitarian methods, or whether in accordance with our values and traditions will we have the confidence and courage to be free.


Live Long and Well
William O'Rights
Thefirstimmortal

[Jace Tropic]

I was hoping to find a rebuttal addressing your logical anomaly rather than a lesson in political science.

Jace: 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.

I have indicated that your idealistic principles are thoughtful and considerate. However, it is clear that you wish to impose your values onto an organization that can create its own policies as long it’s not obstructing justice. There are no laws being broken if someone is banned from an internet discussion forum. It certainly may be universally ethical to, in a certain way, revise a constitution that did or did not have to be created to begin with, but you must understand, this is irrelevant.

thefirstimmortal: Natural speech rights in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, parks and such, and certainly that extension includes electronic public forums, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum.

The extension does not include electronic public forums. The term is as deceptive as “public” stores and “public” restaurants. These are domains for which additional regulations may transcend your “universal ethics.”

Jace

[Bruce Klein]

and the option to not receive the periodic email

Sorry about that John.. that's something I would like us to have... but have not yet figured out the technicals.. you can choose to edit your email address if you wish.. in your profile... or just ask me to 'remove' you from the newsletter... there's also an option to 'remove' in reply to any newsletter.

[thefirstimmortal]

In response to your questions:

I agree that free speech is a good thing—good, great, fantastic! Maybe there are some elements that must be reworked for the owner of the site to accomplish his intended goals. Nevertheless, these nominal errors, as you may put it, may or may not be revised. No one can distinguish what is right or wrong for the owner and force him to be receptive.

The ownership of this site is a little murky, is it BJ or the Nonprofit organization who owns it now?

No: I am not for giving others any rights through someone else’s private vehicle.

Jace

I do not hold that your private ownership argument has zero merit. Let me put myself in BJ's shoes, think about it, and get back to you.

Live Long and Well

[thefirstimmortal]

I have indicated that your idealistic principles are thoughtful and considerate. However, it is clear that you wish to impose your values onto an organization that can create its own policies as long it’s not obstructing justice. There are no laws being broken if someone is banned from an internet discussion forum. It certainly may be universally ethical to, in a certain way, revise a constitution that did or did not have to be created to begin with, but you must understand, this is irrelevant.
Jace

If Bruce or the leadership hold that their property rights are more important than speech rights, perhaps that is their perogative, and in the end, perhaps it's not even that big of a deal. After all, if speech is hampered at this site, it will create an opportunity for someone else to create an alternate site that will ensure that speech remains free. "Free" market forces can always correct this issue.

The Internet is a unique medium, the Internet is the first electronic media to have low barriers to access, abundance, many speakers, and no gatekeepers.


Just as, at the dawn of the idustrial age, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and company were able to contemplate the future of government without knowing what would ultimately be governed, we have, as they did, a blank canvas upon which to sketch and outline the future.

The information age hardly lends itself to the purposes or methods of imposed will. It is difficult to enforce a credible order upon people whose activities can take place in any terrestrial jurisdiction on the planet, and whose actions can easily be made invisible. It is difficult to silence people who have at their disposal a medium that can carry one's ideas to the rest of humanity without revealing the location of one's body. It will be impossible for any of us to crack down on forms of expression as expression can as easily bloom in any place on earth where the love of freedom is greater than the fear of the unknown. Cyberspace as a whole is ungovernable by the old model of imposed will.

One thing should be clear to all of us, we are at the end of the world as we know it. New generations will obtain their order by methods we cannot imagine; our legacy to them should be a virtual landscape open to all the possibilities they might try. Let's be ancestors for them as great as Jefferson and Madison were to us.

Let's leave them freedom. They can decide how much of it they're brave enough to keep.

[Bruce Klein]

Jace has a good point in that irregardless of who owns the forum, the rights are not on the back of the owner to ensure free speech.. however, I would hope the directors of ImmInst work to ensure as much freedom as possible.

ImmInst, the nonprofit entity, is the owner of this forum and site.

The best example of why we need some type of limitation on posting is that some individuals use such forums for advertisement and will post in repeated succession.

Sadly, in the past, I have had to restrict one Alex Chiu follower from posting who repeatedly posted without care to meaning.

[thefirstimmortal]

I have indicated that your idealistic principles are thoughtful and considerate. However, it is clear that you wish to impose your values onto an organization that can create its own policies
Jace

This organization is based on the premise that we are seeking the ultimate in freedom, freedom from death, is this not the ultimate liberation. Is it not the hight of hypocracy to suggest that we will get there by taking other liberties. And Jace, I don't think liberty is just my "idealistic principle".

[thefirstimmortal]

for which additional regulations may transcend your “universal ethics.”

Jace

The Subject matter has never been ethics, it's been freedom and liberty.

As a defender of free speech, however, perhaps I may be seen by you as seeking to make this site safe for "evil."

That is true if what you mean is that the I seek to make the site safe for the expression of all
views, and for the clash of visions, ideas, and passions. But the issue before us is not the protection of this or that person’s rights by our subjective criteria of who deserves freedom, but the protection of freedom itself.

I (while opposing censorship, prior restraint and arbitrary suppression of free expression and speech) do not claim that all speech is equally worthwhile, I do believe that a central authority can not be trusted to sort the good from the bad.

[Jace Tropic]

I don’t understand the insisting on conveying how things “should” be and the subsequent repercussions if those things aren’t the way that they should.

thefirstimmortal: It will be impossible for any of us to crack down on forms of expression as expression can as easily bloom in any place on earth where the love of freedom is greater than the fear of the unknown.

What’s the point? Whether any censorship will or will not be possible is beyond the scope of this argument.

thefirstimmortal: After all, if speech is hampered at this site, it will create an opportunity for someone else to create an alternate site that will ensure that speech remains free. "Free" market forces can always correct this issue.

This also is beyond scope. A lesson in economics is unnecessary and does nothing to break out of a specious loop. Your premises are an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, i.e. x is true because if people did not accept x as being true, then there would be certain consequences.

Jace

[Jace Tropic]

thefirstimmortal: As a defender of free speech, however, perhaps I may be seen by you as seeking to make this site safe for "evil."

This is certainly not true. I see you as someone who is brilliant and kind, at least with regard to public policy. Unfortunately in this particular instance, I also see you as someone who is valiantly arguing on a false premise, creating his own trap.

thefirstimmortal: The Subject matter has never been ethics, it's been freedom and liberty.

Freedom and liberty are values. Values are justified through personal moral philosophies. Moral philosophy is ethics. The content here certainly does concern ethics.

Jace

[thefirstimmortal]

Have you ever been hated, or discriminated against?
I have, I've been protested and demonstrated against
Picket signs for my wicked rhymes, look at the times
Sick as the mind of the mother f***ing kid that's behind...
All this commotion, emotions run deep as oceans exploding
Tempers flaring from posters just blow 'em off and keep going
Not taking nothing from no one, give 'em hell long as I'm breathing
Keep kicking ass in the morning, and taking names in the evening
Leaving with the taste of sour with vinegar in they mouth
See they can trigger me, but they'll never figure me out
Look at me now, I betcha probably sick of me now
Ain't you, well how about checking your e-mail now

[thefirstimmortal]

DAVE, talk to me. Keep me awake. What time is it down-under

[thefirstimmortal]

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race, and indeed posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, we are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth, and if wrong, we lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

[thefirstimmortal]

The freedom of all of us to read, listen, view, and post should not be subject to not only a single moderator, but also the majority of anyone: not even a plebiscite of all the people. The freedom of speech practiced at this site is should be an undemocratic, indeed antidemocratic restriction on majority power. If any one wishes to satisfy their intellectual, emotional, or artistic needs by exposing themselves to expression that all other members despise, that should be their right in this growing society.

We must ask ourselves, do we really believe in the freedom of speech? Or do we just support the speech of those with whom we agree? Nearly two hundred years ago, the French philosopher Voltaire articulated the fundamental premise underlying true support for freedom of speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Defending "to the death" may be a bit strong and "disapprove" a bit weak, but the core of Voltaire's point is crucial. It is easy, and rather self-serving, to rally on behalf of those whose speech you admire or enjoy. But unless you are prepared to defend the freedom to speak of those whom you despise, indeed those who make your blood boil, you cannot count yourself as a member of that rather select club of true believers in freedom of speech and expression.

I call it a select club because most people, even most who claim adherence to the freedom of speech, favor some censorship. Deep down, nearly everyone wants to censor something. I have Jewish friends who support freedom of expression for everyone, except for Nazis. I have African-American friends who support freedom of speech for everyone, except those who are involved with the KKK. I have women friends who support freedom of speech for everyone, except for those who are in the business of selling sexist pornography. And the list goes on and on.

Almost everyone supports freedom of speech, in theory. But most would insist on some "limited" exceptions to complete freedom of expression. "Just this itsy-bitsy exception wouldn't cause any harm" is the argument I hear all the time. The problem is that everyone has a different itsy-bitsy exception, and in any society it is difficult to pick and choose among the proferred exceptions. And if I were to accept them all, there would be precious little left for us to talk about.

I recall an incident at our local library several years ago. A feminist friend objected to the fact that the library contained "Playboy magazine." She was "offended" by that particular item and could not understand why our towns money should be used to subscribe to an item that offended her. She further proposed that we remove the offensive item.

I wrote a response in which I applauded her proposal and suggested taking it to its logical extreme: Every member of the town should have the power to demand that the library not carry one genre of material that he or she found offensive. I submitted my own particular favorite: books and articles that call for censorship. I argued that if every member of the town got to veto one offensive genre of writing, we could close down the costly library system, move the few remaining volumes to a few file cabinets, and convert the library into squash courts,unless, of course, someone was offended by squash.

In any group of people, there can never be just "a little" censorship. The choice is between what I call "the taxi-cab theory of free speech" and a "system of censorship." Just as a taxi cab must accept all law-abiding passengers who can pay the fare without discriminating on the basis of where they are going or why they are going there, so, too, a society may not pick and choose between what books or magazines or speech may be offensive.

Once we get into the business of picking and choosing among speech or writings, then we must create a fair and equitable system of censorship based on articulated principles. If we decided that items offensive to some women can be banned, then we will have difficulty rejecting the claims of offensiveness made by blacks, Jews, gays, fundamentalist Christians, atheists, vegetarians, antifur proponents, and other politically correct and incorrect groups.

[thefirstimmortal]

The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself, and as such, deserves society's greatest protection.

It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. I contend that enlighten judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" or socially harmful, should be represented in society's "marketplace of ideas."

It's necessary to our society. If we are to be the masters of our own fate than we must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view.

William O'Rights, Defender of all Faiths, Rights and Liberties.

[Jace Tropic]

Never have I seen someone say so much and mean so little. It is clear that you are fatuously circumventing your own logical fallacies even after they have been isolated and reluctantly dignified for your convenience.

Jace

[thefirstimmortal]

The best example of why we need some type of limitation on posting is that some individuals use such forums for advertisement and will post in repeated succession.

Sadly, in the past, I have had to restrict one Alex Chiu follower from posting who repeatedly posted without care to meaning.

That may be the "Evil" that you want to address However, the bylaw is by no means that "narrowly tailered." A law is narrowly tailored only if it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the "evil" it seeks to remedy. A bylaw can be considered narrowly tailored only if each activity within the proscription's scope is an appropriately targeted evil. The bylaw in question clearly encompasses far more.

Why don't you tailor your bylaw to reach those activities that actually cause, or immediately threaten to cause, the consequences you fear.

When speech is involved, you should protect you legitimate interests only with precision.

Your goal, no matter how laudable, will not be achieved by the overbroad bylaw.

Indeed BJ, it's hard to imagine a more restrictive bylaw. Your bylaw cannot be viewed by any streach of the imagination as "narrowly tailored to further your legitimate interest, accordingly, this bylaw should be void as an overbroad regulation.

[Bruce Klein]

Why don't you tailor your bylaw to reach those activities that actually cause, or immediately threaten to cause, the consequences you fear.

Can we foresee and tailor the document to preempt every possible 'evil'?

[thefirstimmortal]

The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud.

All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty and I believe that there are some liberties that will always come at a cost.

[thefirstimmortal]

BJ, Although I'm sure these bylaws were written with well intentions, in the real world that we all live in, I think it's common knowledge that these bylaws were enacted for the most part to give the leaders power over the members. The true test of one’s commitment to freedom is the extent to which recognition is given to the rights of those in our midst who are the least affluent, least powerful, and maybe even the least welcome.

[thefirstimmortal]

Can we foresee and tailor the document to preempt every possible 'evil'?

Would it not be wise to tailor it after, by amending, as opposed to grabbing absolute powers in the begining. In the choice between the dangers of suppressing speech and the dangers arising from its free flow, don't you think the dangers of suppression are worse. These powers may be justified as needed to deal with inconviences but they are subject to be used to deprive us of something far more precious.

[David]

Sorry 'bout that William, I had to go home and eat, sleep, study and collect myself for the exams I have coming.

Hay Jace, you need to remember that my "sinax errors" may be due to me living in a different part of the world. We spell things differently, we discuss things differently, we arrange our words differently, hell yea, we are different! We (Australia) produced a movie called Mad Max a lot of years ago (Mel Gibson was a road warrior, driving a big black interceptor), and it was DUBBED from Australian English to American English so that American audiences could understand the dialogue! On the flip side, I had to have my buddy from Florida explain the dialogue between the African Americans and the non African Americans in Platoon. So there you go! Have a little confidence in yourself, think about what has been written, you'll get it! You're obviousely smart enough!

On the topic, I agree, the people who own imminst have the right to restrict my free speech in any way they like. But I have the right to try change their minds. And I'm going to! The free speech I am talking about it the free speech we should have everywhere! An enlightened society realises that letting off steam in small bursts is healthier than building up pressure and exploding. (Bugger! I am repeating myself!)

I like to think that the directors are not setting up a cyberspace Hegemony. I'm sure that's not their aim. The current directors all seem to have their heads screwed on. However, as they have gone out of their way to point out, they can be voted out. What would happen if the deathist crew decided imminst were a risk to national security, and fired up a covert operation to take it over? It wouldn't take much, 100 FBI or CIA or Men in Black [lol] agents, sign up as full members, dislodge the current directorship and, as would be their right, CLOSE THE WHOLE THING DOWN? Or even worse, use it as a platform for attacking the principles and end results we are all interested in and striving for?

OK, back to freedom of speech. We often take it for granted. Wait till you are embarressed by having something you have said censored. I was the singer in a band for 2.5 years that centred its mission around protest. We protested for free speech, we protested anti war, we protested against censorship, we protested against racism. I made the mistake of writing a song about an issue close to my heart, non custodial fatherhood, and they sacked me! In effect, silencing my voice in the group, and my point of view! I was censored! By an anti censorship band! Could that happen here?

Jace, your freedom of speech becomes exteremely valuable once someone suppresses it, and the closer you're heart is to the topic, the more keenly you feel it.

Laz, thank you! I feel validated. And yes, I will keep my eyes open for more information on the topic. There has been some interesting research done with Viagra and its use in increasing patients probabilities for full sexual function recovery after prostate cancer surgery. Heh, now's not the time though, hey?

Perhaps, if you are going to keep this silly constitution, you might like to set up an avenue of appeal. Just a thought! However, as you can see, just like countries, once you start enacting laws, constitutions and rules, it starts to snowball. Sooner or later, instead of concentrating on the mission, you are shuffling papers, hiring lawers, fighting takeover battles, and generally getting nowhere.

Keep It Simple, Stoooopid! (KISS)

Must go, studies and stir fry await! Project management exam tomorrow, don't wish me luck, wish me strength!

Dave.

[thefirstimmortal]

Sorry 'bout that William, I had to go home and eat, sleep, study and collect myself for the exams I have coming.

Eat, Sleep, I jealous. I've had niether for 30 some hours

[David]

Just in case you are interested, the battle I referred to earlier between the gold miners and the English troopers at the Eureka Stockade in Victoria, Australia, was over taxation without representation. In order to vote in elections at the time, one had to own land. Be a full member, in other words. They lost the battle but won the war, it just took a little time.

Dave.

Ps. Altering my posts after I have posted them is censorship, by the way! Unless I do it that is......... Naughty!

[David]

Dude, GO TO BED! Lack of sleep has been shown to repress cognitive function as severely as alcohol. You can't fight the good fight with only three quarters of your "self' being present.

Dave.

[Bruce Klein]

Dave: What would happen if the deathist crew decided imminst were a risk to national security, and fired up a covert operation to take it over?

Check: Article V. Section 6 -- Anti-Takeover

Dave: Perhaps, if you are going to keep this silly constitution, you might like to set up an avenue of appeal. Just a thought!

Yes, there's procedure in place for amendments...check Art V. Section 8 -- Amendments

[thefirstimmortal]

It's after 3, What is the state of the Constitution?