56 replies to this topic

[David]

To the facists among you, no, it aint over yet!

Freedom of speech and equality are the two most important social institutions we have. Without them we have Facism. Both of these rights are not respected here at Imminst. While we have many admirable qualities, the right to express yourself has not been upheld. While we have debated the issue on a number of occasions, nobody has asked the proletariat what they think.

At the very least, the Politics arena needs to be deemed a free speech area, just like our parliments. Otherwise, those among us with the power can stifle any topic they deem fit. Those topics could include discussions aimed at replacing them. We just saw exactly that happen in Russia this week. Or didn't you notice?

Is it any surprise that the ruling elite among us has stuck the freedom of speech area down the back, where it competes for space with a number of other topic sections? They want to keep dissenters and their topics hidden away, where there is less chance of anyone finding them!

And yep, just like the first immortal, I post this under the threat of deletion and electronic execution.

Dave

PS. [tung]

[Bruce Klein]

Interesting You certainly have tenacity there, Dave.

[David]

I notice you didn't vote mate? I have no doubt that you are using the anti groupthink strategy leaders use when they want a superior decision making process. That is, the leader not directing the flow of decisions in an effort to get a better outcome. Kennedy used it after the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, but I'm sure you are aware of that!

I have an accounting 101 exam on next week. Ahhhhh! Wanna go in my place? (Just kidding!)

[thefirstimmortal]

...as I see it.

Prior to the Freedom Forum, we had many acts of censorship, and many discussions about how to do more in the future. Post freedom forum, well we had some threats about it in the begining, but the few threats were resolved by moving the topics to the Freedom Forum. Today, to the best of my knowledge, no one even bothers to raise the issue of cenorship even in the moderated area because it's wholly irrelevant. I believe that one forum has truly made the whole site a first amendment friendly site.

In fact, if my memory serves me well there have only been two acts of raw naked acts of censorship, both committed by me against you Dave. [sfty]

[reason]

Let's be absolutely clear: any declarations of free speech areas here, just like laws in the real world, have no intrinsic power or abilities. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that those in power are constrained to follow laws as written. They are not. Written law is no protection from those with power who would abuse you.

This community does not work because it has a certain set of rules. It works because those who contribute share certain common goals and are willing to work together in this way to achieve them. If that ever ceases to be the case, no written rules will prevent this community from decaying and ceasing to exist. Rules are not the basis of community: people are.

Efficient, growing online communities are like private property in that they require strong caretaking. That caretaking is better when it is transparent, as it is here, but it is absolutely necessary. Allowing anyone to post anything anywhere is akin to declaring a commons, with all the mess that follows in its wake. Just as no-one wants to live in a council flat, no-one wants to participate in an online community without focus and caretakers. Free speech forums are, by their nature, largely off-topic for the main focus of this community.

This is a meritocracy - the "ruling elite" are those who have put in greater time and resources to advance the cause of healthy life extension and are given responsibilities by popular acclaim. If you wish greater say in the community, work harder to advance its goals.

Other directors may, of course, disagree with any of my sentiments.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[Bruce Klein]

Well said, Reason.

[thefirstimmortal]

Let's be absolutely clear: any declarations of free speech areas here, just like laws in the real world, have no intrinsic power or abilities. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that those in power are constrained to follow laws as written. They are not. Written law is no protection from those with power who would abuse you.

The more things change, the more they remain the same....

Writing in the New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine during November and December, 1787, Roger Sherman said,

"No bill of rights ever yet bound the supreme power longer than the honey moon of a new married couple, unless the rulers were interested in preserving the rights; and in that case they have always been ready enough to declare the rights, and to preserve them when they were declared . . .

Sherman was entirely correct, as the history of the Bill of Rights has shown. Whenever the government saw fit to ignore it and violate its provisions, it was as though non-existent.

This position was conveyed by Alexander Hamilton in Number 84 of the Federalist Papers, a series of articles arguing for the ratification of the Constitution.


"I go further, and affirm that bills of right, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power."



Benjamin Rush Speaks on the Bill of Rights November 30, 1787. This was published in the Pennsylvania Herald and Pennsylvania Packet on Wednesday, Dec 5.


Doctor Rush. "I believe, Mr. President, that of all the treaties which have ever been made, William Penn’s was the only one, which was contracted without parchment; and I believe, likewise, it is the only on that has ever been faithfully adhered to. As it has happened with treaties, so, Sir, has it happened with bills of rights, for never yet has one been made which has not, at some period or other, been broken. The celebrated magna charta of England was broken over and over again, and these infractions gave birth to the petition of rights. If, indeed, the government of that country has not been violated for the last hundred years, as some writers have said, it is not owing to charters or declarations of rights, but to the balance which has been introduced and established in the legislative body. The constitution of Pennsylvania, Mr. President, is guarded by an oath, which every man employed in the administration of the public business, is compelled to take; and yet, sir, examine the proceedings of the council of censors, and you will find innumerable instances of the
violation of that constitution, committed equally by its friends and enemies."

[baal_zebul]

Well, if memory serves me correctly Freedom of Speech also implicates that someone has the freedom of listening. Otherwise it would be you, David who was the facist, correct?

You are most active in the Freedom of Speech forum, why not keep it there? Those who freely want to dicuss as myself can do it in a controlled "environment" and those who wish to listen can listen and those who rather wan't to hear "facts" can do so in an other forum.

[Mind]

baal zebul: Well, if memory serves me correctly Freedom of Speech also implicates that someone has the freedom of listening.

This is correct. Thanks for the reminder baal zebul. Everyone in the free world has the right to speak freely, but that does not mean everyone else has to listen. Imminst is the most free and open online forum I have seen. Everyone has the right to post almost anything in the "Free Speech Forum". I think the other Imminst forums need the structure of moderators and guidelines to foster productive discussion. As Reason alluded to, I don't think a free-for-all would be a good approach.

[David]

I see all organisations as a reflection of the societies they live in. Or are they? Is the restriciton of base liberties a top down or a bottom up process? Are your current civil rights and freedoms being eroded by evil power hungry leaders or stupid, ignorant, frightened citizens who encourage them to enslave them "for their own good"?

Currently, the US is under a modified Martial law. If I wanted to visit you, I would be fingerprinted and photographed like a common criminal at the airport. Which amuses me, 'cos we're s'posed to be allies! What the....?

I see your views towards equality and freedom of expression as proof of the breakdown of that which we, the rest of the world, know and love about you. Currently, as the Imminst constitution stands, I can say anything I want as long as I don't say something you really, really disagree with. Even if I'm right! Talk about promoting "groupthink"!

Sorry Will, it has happened in the past. Within weeks of me getting involved in Imminst a topic of mine was deleted. The one on behavioural techniques aimed at avoiding cancer.

Somebody got a bee in their bonnet about my audacity at using the word "masturbation". I mean really, what century are we in? The moron who did it has never owned up or apologised! Surely you're not afraid of me? I'm a nice guy, and there's probably a lot of water between us......

Baal, you raise an interesting point! However, feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, or your head in the sand, if you don't want to participate (an act of freedom, in fact!). I hope you don't though 'cos I value your input. I am by the way glad you didn't let the nastiness directed at you when you first wandered in frighten you off.

You are right though, I am most active in the freedom of speech forums, only 'cos its where I feel safe from the silent assassin/s who decide without appeal or recourse who gets to post what, when or where.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we made the identity of anyone who sees fit to delete stuff freely available, with something in place to appeal the decision, along with the deletion rights of the deletee subject a kick in the pants if they overstep the boundaries. I only know know one person with the courage own up, and he owes me 2 Harleys! Will, maaaaayyyyyt!

The freedom of speech area needs to be placed in a prominent position, not tucked away down the back where it won't be seen. Diminishing the visual prominence and importance of an area like that one is akin to censorship. How incredibly sneeeeeeeky of whoever it was that decided to do it. Suggests you don't value it all that much?

And like I said before, no parliment that I know of is subject to censorship like we have available here. The "politics' area here needs to be a free speech area.

And yep, Imminst is just about the most open and free online forum there is. There is room for improvement though. Sitting on ones hands does nothing but leave an imprint on ones bum, though.

Dave

By the way, I would like to add that it speaks volumes that you buggers bother to get into this with me, even though you disagree so forcefully. Goodonya! Maybe there's hope for you yet........

[thefirstimmortal]

Currently, as the Imminst constitution stands, I can say anything I want as long as I don't say something you really, really disagree with.

But Dave, you can say something everyone disagrees with in the Freedom Forum.

Sorry Will, it has happened in the past. Within weeks of me getting involved in Imminst a topic of mine was deleted. The one on behavioural techniques aimed at avoiding cancer.

But that was prior to the freedom forum.

You are right though, I am most active in the freedom of speech forums, only 'cos its where I feel safe from the silent assassin/s who decide without appeal or recourse who gets to post what, when or where.

Then the Forum is working Dave.

The freedom of speech area needs to be placed in a prominent position, not tucked away down the back where it won't be seen. Diminishing the visual prominence and importance of an area like that one is akin to censorship. How incredibly sneeeeeeeky of whoever it was that decided to do it. Suggests you don't value it all that much?

I agreed to it's current position Dave, so I have no standing to join you in that complaint. If memory serves, it was tucked deeper than that, like in the archives before I argued that it should have the same standing as the other forums. It now has that, albeit a lower slot.

Your Eternal Friend,
William C. O'Rights

[bacopa]

good points all around hard work towards a common goal will only happen with intelligent implementation. A free speech forum does unfortunately attract 'the commons' hence a potential free for all. Imminst has a mission and we are going to see it through this should not have to become a political problem it's a scientific problem mostly bringing politics is bringing in a loaded weapon which ultimately distracts from our mission which is to find the cure for death

[baal_zebul]

Dave, i am going to be honest.

I am a what you would call a facist. I do not believe that everyone is equal and so on and so forth.
And i love the American system. I live in Sweden and i hate our goverment but i love our country. The American goverment is the best in the world i think.

Dave why are you complaining? Why not be the most active in Free Speech and freequently start new topics. If they are interesting i will discuss with you.
I think that if we are active in that forum and make it interesting then it will grow and therefore get a larger role on the page.

How about that? Bring the battle to the right forum atleast.

[David]

Hmmm, it certainly seems that I am in the minority! I think it's interesting that out of the fabled 1000+ members only 9 individuals in 4 to 5 days can be bothered with a vote like this one. Isn't apathy a wonderful thing?

Perhaps I would be happy (for a while at least!) if we could at least let those interested in arguing politics have the same "parlimentary priviliges" that our politicians have in the "Politics" forum. That is, the right to not be deleted by those who rule over us from their lofty positions?

"I argued that it should have the same standing as the other forums." Will.

Well mate, have you looked at where it is lately? Its in the miscelaneouse basket. Doesn't free speech deserve a higher ranking than poetry? (No disrespect meant to all you poets of course....)

And how about the right to appeal? Sheesh, this is western civilisation isn't it? 21st century?

Baal, I respect your right to be a facist. I don't have to agree with you though......... Politics is the right forum for discussions like this one, our own politics, no less. Oh, yea, I'm complaining 'cos somebody has to! Our other freedom fighters have all either gone to sleep (Laz) or sold their beliefs out for a little bit of glory. (Hay Will?)

Oh dear, and for those of you suggesting that I aint doing my bit, aren't discussions like these an important part of what it is that we do? I refuse to get involved in your silly bloody "groupspeak". I'm going to be your own pain in the bum untill you either change my mind with logical arguments, or get with the program.

At the risk of being bloody rude, you guys are the "pigs" in 'Animal Farm". Slap slap! Wakey wakey piggies, we're off to market! And you know what that means......................................... If you haven't read the book, I suggest you do!

That ought to get a reaction......... apologies to any real pigs who may inadvertantly read this!

Dave the bloody pot stirrer.

PS. Go on, delete me, I dare you! Show me how right I am!

[David]

Oh, and another thing, isn't it interesting that the majorityof people voting 'No" have nothing but power over the rest of us to lose?

If only some more of those 1000+ were even slightly interested..........

Dave

[thefirstimmortal]

"I argued that it should have the same standing as the other forums." Will.

Well mate, have you looked at where it is lately? Its in the miscelaneouse basket. Doesn't free speech deserve a higher ranking than poetry? (No disrespect meant to all you poets of course....)

No Dave, I just checked, NOW I GET IT.

WOT'S GOING ON HERE? The Freedom Forum was supposed to have it's own slot, not this barely noticable tiny little link at the bottom of the page. Who, and more importantly, why did someone make that change??? That was an accident RIGHT, and we are going to put it back where it's supposed to be, RIGHT GUYS.

[thefirstimmortal]

The Free Speech link is still in the Drop Down Box, so I am confident that this was an accidental thing that will be corrected soon Dave.

[thefirstimmortal]

"I argued that it should have the same standing as the other forums." Will.

And that was the Agreement, and those arguments are part of the record.

[thefirstimmortal]

It woulds appear that the "Freedom Forum" has been temporarily reduced to a dinky little linky.

[David]

See, a little bit here, a little bit here, they see what they can get away with, then they try to get away with a little bit more.

I ask again, is the whittling away of our democratic rights on the main human stage a top down or a bottom up process?

Is it THEY who take our rights away, or US who encourage them to do so?

Imminst leadership, like all leadership consist of humans. There's no crime in that, in the main, they are good people. We make the same bloody mistakes, century through century. Groupthink allows it to happen. It's only the outcasts that seem to be able to see it happening.

Dave

[baal_zebul]

I think i can navigate to the Free Speech forum with ease.
I aint complaining. I am most active in Free Speech too.

Why would politics have to be democratic?
And how extended should it be? Must every member vote before a poll is decided? Is that what you want? Or do you only want to discuss with the "elite" of imminst such as BJ Klein.

I wonder Dave, aint it really greed that you are feeling? Are you not just disapointed that the Free Speech forum aint as fruitfull as some other of the forums?

[Kalepha]

Within the black and white realm of cold reason, this is one of those things where a gray-area compromise is easily overlooked on merit of being too simplistically sloppy. I voted Yes.

Proposed solution:

¤ Free Speech could be moved to the Focus section.
¤ Maintain Posting Guidelines.
¤ In Bylaw A, modify only “Authority” bylaw from “… authority to edit, move or remove any post which does not follow Posting Guidelines…” to “… authority to move any post, which does not follow Posting Guidelines, to the Free Speech forum with a tracking link in the original post and a trackback in the moved, unmodified version…”

The fora won’t be contaminated with mis-/under-informed musings (like mine). No one would be censored.

[thefirstimmortal]

I think i can navigate to the Free Speech forum with ease.
I aint complaining. I am most active in Free Speech too.

The issue before us is not whether or not one can navigate to the free speech forum, the issue is that the forum does not even currently exist, it's now a link, not a forum. That is not what our Constitution calls for. (See Constitution By-Law A).

Free Speech Forum: ImmInst will reserve a forum for the expression of free speech. This forum will be named the "Free Speech Forum." ImmInst will not restrict speech in this forum in so far as speech remains lawful as enforced by the United States government. Members who visit the Free Speech Forum should be prepared to tolerate objectionable material.

[David]

Baal, I don't want to sidetract the issue Will is raising. When he has replys and a solution from the elite, I will take up your issues with you. Patience, my pretty..................

Nate, as usual you look outside the box. Always knew you were an asset!

Dave.

[David]

Just a suggestion though, perhaps it would be better if we split "politics and religion" and moved politics over to "Free speech and Politics". Or even better, split politics and religion and made 'Politics' free speech area, so that editors and others can't stifle discussions on their performance.

Reason, I take your point on rules meaning nothing, at least if we have one in this case it would send a message to unruly editors. You do have one by the way! Still not sure who it is yet, they're still hiding...........................

I don't know what you (Imminst elite) are afraid of, by and large you all tend to behave yourselves.............. these days.

The "Yes vote" seems to be catching up, by the way............. not that that really means anything. Or does it?

Dave

[Bruce Klein]

It woulds appear that the "Freedom Forum" has been temporarily reduced to a dinky little linky.

Sorry, in reshuffling the main forum page [~Mar 1], Free Speech Forum was unintentionally moved under "More Resources" and appeared as a small link. Free Speech Forum has now been moved under the Category "Resources" as a main forum in parity with other main forums.

[Lazarus Long]

It is also under the Drop Down menu of 'Forums' in the menu bar above.

[Bruce Klein]

The "Yes vote" seems to be catching up, by the way............. not that that really means anything. Or does it?

Helpful side note: It's difficult to know the true measure of a Basic Member Forum vote, as anyone can register under multiple nicks.

[Bruce Klein]

¤ In Bylaw A, modify only “Authority” bylaw from “… authority to edit, move or remove any post which does not follow Posting Guidelines…” to “… authority to move any post, which does not follow Posting Guidelines, to the Free Speech forum with a tracking link in the original post and a trackback in the moved, unmodified version…”

Good idea, Nate. Perhaps we'll keep this in mind for any amendments. Thanks.

[Mind]

The title of this thread "Imminst refusal to respect free speech" is wrong.

It is also under the Drop Down menu of 'Forums' in the menu bar above.

Free Speech Forum has now been moved under the Category "Resources" as a main forum in parity with other main forums.

It also appears in the active topics section as equal to any other forum.

Looking back a bit...I thought the Free Speech Forum was a good idea. It seemed like a good compromise. It appears this is not the case. It is not enough for .0007% of the membership.

The mission of Imminst is to "End the blight of involuntary death". I voted no in this poll because Imminst is already a free speech website, and making it a free-for-all will not enhance our mission. I have seen through experience that a group with some sort of guidelines and structure will out perform a "free-for-all" every single time.