159 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

Before I respond Mind, I noticed that you posted something from the members forum, as did I yesterday or the day before. See the following post. Post number 13
http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=250748
I just want to make sure I’m not dragging info from where it is placed in confidence, to an area of more public disclosure. I didn’t think I was, but I would like to make sure, don’t want to step outta line here.

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 15 July 2008 - 09:16 PM.

[Mind]

Hmmm, I guess I did link to a members forum topic. You can quote me from that topic but I would say please respect other members by not quoting them without permission.

This has been an issue that has cropped up from time-to-time with many arguments on both sides....how to prevent the quality of the forums from being dragged down without upending the right to free speech. As was mentioned earlier, getting the selective topics option working for the FSF seems to be the best option.

[thefirstimmortal]

You’re going to have to explain this "members" forum. When I left, there were leadership sections that existed that members could not enter. But members did not have a forum that was private. And there is no advance warning to inform a member that anything in that section is private if it is in fact private.

Are there sections that leaders but members can’t go, and sections that members and leaders can go, but not the public in general? How does this all work now?

[eternaltraveler]

You’re going to have to explain this "members" forum. When I left, there were leadership sections that existed that members could not enter. But members did not have a forum that was private. And there is no advance warning to inform a member that anything in that section is private if it is in fact private.

Are there sections that leaders but members can’t go, and sections that members and leaders can go, but not the public in general? How does this all work now?

there was always a full member forum as long as i've been here. We did change the name of full members to be just "members", with everyone else being registered users (who are just registered for the forum, but have not paid any dues to be members)

[thefirstimmortal]

Just some light commentary on the thread that is currently in the free speech forum.

A member started a or posted “Here is my gun, anyone have a gun too? share your gun photo here!”

Apparenty Zoolander Censored the post.

EDIT: I gave removed gun from the topic title because it's searchable and I do not think discussion about guns are appropriate (Zoolander)

The post was apparently not originally in the Free Speech Forum

Elrond

it wasn't posted in the fsf, it was moved there.

Grail

Your kidding...was it posted in Cryonics?

Zoolander

when I removed the word Gun Joel it was in off-topic. The tone of the topic was out of line. Joano was parading his gun. If I had of caught this post as soon as it was posted I would have moved it to the catcher immediately because of it's tone.

Zoolander properly moved it out of the section that is subject to censorship. Now, I’ll argue lightly that the picture and word gun really shouldn’t have been censored and moved to the forum. The proper thing to do would have been to simply move the thread to the FSF, but let’s not hammer Zoolander on that.
These actions are by and large proper functions of the Nav’s. They can censor in the areas that were subject to the censorship.

Once in the FSF however, it is not subject to censorship, and the only question that is properly at issue is whether or not the post is lawful. Here, you have a member who did nothing more offensive than take a picture of himself exercising his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Hardly anything sinister in that. You wouldn’t censor a post of a Christian entering a church to exercise his 1st Amendment right would you?

In fact, I noticed in the very thread discussing this, no one censored President Bush for doing the same thing our member did.
http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=153141

But I’m not sure Mind, what is your broader point that you’re trying to make? I couldn’t tell by this thread. Are you trying to expand your power over the Moderated areas, or trying to nullify the FSF?

[thefirstimmortal]

This has been an issue that has cropped up from time-to-time with many arguments on both sides....how to prevent the quality of the forums from being dragged down without upending the right to free speech.

The choice between the dangers of suppressing speech and the dangers arising from its free flow was seen as precisely the choice that the Constitution makes for us.

[thefirstimmortal]

Where are we at with this? What's the update?

As was mentioned earlier, getting the selective topics option working for the FSF seems to be the best option.

[icyT]

I don't know what's up with it really, I got an error when I tried opening it.

[eternaltraveler]

did nothing more offensive than take a picture of himself exercising his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

he doesn't have 2nd amendment rights. He is Canadian

[thefirstimmortal]

You are all invited to attend services for William O’Rights.
Location: DEATHWATCH Thread.
Time: Shortly after Midnight, early Nov. 1st.
Refreshments: Meatloaf will be served; you will have to bring your own wine.
Host: Rev. William Constitution O’Rights.

The darkest night ain't black enough to keep the morning light from shining,
The highest wall ain't tall enough to keep the smallest man from climbing,
The more that you resist the tide, The more it pulls you in, The more you hang on for your life…

Attached Files

•  House_Pics__The_Cave__Diningroom_012.jpeg   184.99KB   27 downloads