Posted on 12/26/2013 8:38:09 AM PST by DJ MacWoW
I turned in one over a year ago and they removed the photo but he wasn’t banned.
“we on Free Republic don’t allow the promotion of the liberal left ideas. If someone persists in that - they will be banned.”
Actually, ive seen an incredibly wide range of ideas allowed here. What is not allowed is site hijack. A Christian site will not allow the site to become hijacked to homosexual advocacy. A democrat or republican site will not allow the other party to flood them and destroy the very reason for the site. A model railroad site will end a move to only discuss knitting yarn.
What we are speaking of is no comments at all, or rudeness like caps, threats that’s aren’t really threats, and news sites censoring race of people in stories when it is relevant, material facts omitted, the exposure of hidden relationships and agendas, etc.
Its a very real difference.
If it’s a vague and generalized threat ... something like ... “There are crazies out there who would want to kill you’” ... that’s not considered a direct threat.
If it’s first-person to first-person - then it will be banned or deleted and maybe the person banned. That would be something like this ... “If I could find you right now, I would put a bullet in your head.”
Note that the person doesn’t even indicate that he can do that or is able to do that, but only “if I could find you”.
But the real underlying point and issue to understand is that there exists NO SUCH THING as free speech on ANY Internet forum, including this one.
Exactly. Live in Red England for a while, and you will discover what a bunch of power mad bloodthirsty control freaks those who make up the left truly are...
I live in NY state so I hear it in malls, grocery stores etc. Liberals know no restraint.
You have to keep in mind that different websites have different purposes ... and that the rules will be set up according to the differing purposes.
We have our purposes here and the rules are set up accordingly - but note - it’s according to the owner of the site and not according to the users of the site, And this is true for all forums and websites — and it’s even true for my living room ... :-) ...
Sometimes I’ll get in their face...’don’t you dare use that language in front of my wife’...haven’t been shot yet. :-)
“You’ll never be able to legally maintain Constitutional Free Speech on any Internet Forum.”
You really seem to hate those straw men, the way you keep knocking them down! Nobody, and I mean Nobody here, is saying they have an enforceable 1st amendment right to comment on Huffpo or on the NYT website.
You are aware that the concept of free speech does exist outside of a constitutional law argument, aren’t you? We are in an ethics discussion, not a law discussion. We are discussion whether popular science SHOULD allow comments, not whether they MUST. See?
Hubby makes comments too. lol
****ing shut the **** up, you **** **** **** ********er or I will **** you hard.
Darling shut the heck up, you cant have four tunaburgers or I will love you hard.
“I have a question sometimes when I am writing a post I notice a sentence below my post which says in red Loose Lips Sink Ships. At first I thought the moderator is certainly patriotic, then I concluded that I was being warned that I was replying to a government troll, lastly I took it as a warning that I was approaching an iceberg. If anyone knows what this means please clue me in. Thanks.”
It means “beware of unguarded talk”.
It comes from WWII during which it was used on posters (the wall version, not the internet version) to caution people about revealing information under unsecure circumstances. The idea is that if you casually tell your neighbor the departure date of your sailor son’s ship, you could be overheard by a covert agent who would pass on the information and endanger the war effort, not to mention the ship.
If I recall correctly, the phrase started being used on this forum several years ago to caution people not to reveal information that might be useful to the opponents with whom we were engaged militarily. We have Freepers who are knowledgeable and experienced in addition to the ones who just think they are, and sometimes folks first thought is not that the whole world as well as people in the future can see what’s written here.
Note that the idea behind the phrase is applicable to situations other than military.
What we appreciate as conservatives is the right of control that we do have, under the law, of various kinds of property. An Internet forum is one such kind of property.
Now we also appreciate free speech, but that of Constitutional free speech and not the kind of free speech that some have in mind of telling an owner of a site that he has to allow speech that he wants nothing to do with. That’s not the free speech that conservatives are talking about.
The kind of free speech that we’re talking about (on Internet forums) is one in which each owner can control his forum any way he sees fit, according to his own philosophy (and also according to the law).
AND THEN ... if someone sees that their viewpoint and philosophy is not being heard on any forum (or not allowed) — this person knows that we are ALL ALLOWED UNDER LAW to create a new forum and set it up ANY WAY WE SEE FIT.
That’s the problem with asterisks ... :-) ...
5.56mm
“Loose lips sink ships” was a World War II slogan that was meant to encourage people to keep quiet about wartime secrets. The specific reference was that loose talk about wartime ship movements could be overheard by an unfriendly ear, who would then relay the information to the enemy, who would then know where to find the ship to attack it.
Ok, Dog on a bone.
I’m typing slowly for you. NOBODY here, and NOBODY in the posted article suggests, hints, or opines that people have a LEGAL right to say anything they want on private websites. We all understand the first amendment.
We, and the original article, are discussing the motives, ethics and business wisdom of suppressing comments that some sites think should be silenced.
Think of it this way. We are having a discussion as to whether a person should say good morning to their wife. And you are in the corner explaining with your geometric logic that the first amendment absolutely **does not*** REQUIRE this. And we are all looking over at you thinking,,,,,
“Ok,,, yeahhhhh, thanks”
Okay. I laughed!
What I’m trying to get across here is that each owner of a website or forum has THEIR OWN PHILOSOPHY that governs how they set it up and how they administer rules.
Now, it almost goes without saying (but I find myself needing to say it anyway) ... that another website owner’s ideas and philosophy and/or his political persuasion is always going to be different than yours ... so appealing to “how I would do it” doesn’t really make any difference.
WHAT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE, though, is simply setting up your own website to do it the way you think it should be done.
THAT is the answer under the US Constitution and one that is “not legally required” either. You’re free to set up a new one - or you can do nothing but complain on other forums about it ... :-) ...
It goes back to WWII.
WWII wall posters |
It simply means, don't disclose secrets that might enable our enemies to piece together a clear enough picture to cause US losses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.