I like zotting trolls...
Posted on 05/16/2004 12:59:53 PM PDT by jmstein7
There is now a debate raging on FR about trolls, honest dissent, and the value of free speech. I would like to weigh in on this and then solicit opinions from all of you on the subject.
The First Amendment was a response to the English experience of viewpoint suppression by requiring licensing of the press – i.e. requiring pre-approval of books – the doctrine of construction treason, which held that writing can constitute treason, a capital offense, and the law of seditious libel, criminalizing unfavorable reporting of the government. However, the debate in the United States did not truly reach maturity until the early half of the 20th Century.
Justice Holmes (in, I believe, Abrams v. United States) famously averred that “[t]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Even opinions which we “loathe and believe to be fraught with death” should not be suppressed, “unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Alternatively, the self governance rationale posits that, because the general welfare depends on the citizens making enlightened decisions, in a democratic society, free expression and discussion are essential to deciding matters of public policy. The autonomy rationale holds that for an individual to regard himself as autonomous, he must see himself as free to decide which beliefs to hold. The First Amendment is also justified on the basis that it checks the abuse of power by public officials, it diffuses dissent by creating an atmosphere of open discussion, and it fosters a tolerant society.
I am inclined to agree with Justice Holmes – and that is why I support, as I think most FReepers do – honest dissent. Although such expression of opinion may make us angry, as the Court insinuated in Terminiello v. Chicago, the most valuable expression may well be that which because it is provocative and challenging, produces these emotions. This type of debate aids us in our perpetual search for the truth.
There is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. However, what we are concerned with is false statement of fact – this type of speech, particularly speech that is intended to be deceptive, adds nothing to public debate. False statements of fact, e.g. intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances, are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Deceptive or defamatory speech is “low value speech,” and it adds nothing constructive to the marketplace of ideas. This is why trolls are prohibited – because they add nothing to the debate and exist only to deceive and distort the truth we are seeking.
In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination. However, what we do ask for, at a minimum, is open and honest debate as we, together search for the truth. That is, per se, the value of free speech in a Free Republic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136959/posts
You might enjoy this.. laughing on the inside this morning LOL
II. I like a debate as well as the next person...but I understand that if I am going to debate here, I have to adhere to JR's rules. It's called respect.
The "next person" doesn't care for debate, and if you did, you wouldn't talk that way, Mr. "I Like a Debate, But ..." You get today's Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth Award. At least other guys who pull that "it's JimRob's house" line don't pretend to care for debate.
Why is it that almost NOBODY got the point I was trying to make. The entire point was to explain why, despite what some may say, it is justified to boot trolls -- i.e. because they serve no function and add nothing to the debate. This was not meant to be a critique of FR at all; just the opposite.
Believe me, I don't want any libs trolling here at all. But, as a Constitutional matter, I should clear this one thing up. FR has every right to exclude anyone from the forum. In Boyscouts of America v. Dale, the court clearly held that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the groups freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way, the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.
Clearly FR is a private forum, and clearly the forced inclusion of libs in our forum would burden our right to fight to keep our country a Free Republic.
So, to reiterate, my entire point was to defend Jim from criticism.
Can I tell ya? Number one, the HUGE FONT formatting hurts my eyes. Many probably didn't read it. I never read posts that scream at me, but I did just now because I saw your last post.
Read through the rest of the replies, just for format. Aren't the nice, plain text replies easier to read? Hint.... Bolding works to highlight a particular word or a line or a heading. Bolding your whole post just makes you look like the guy at the party that talks louder and louder after every beer, even though what he is saying is not really getting more important as he goes.
But as for content, the argument was word salad. quoting legal cases and legal concepts that arent' warranted on an opinion like this. That, and using 50-cent words where a 25 cent word would have actually been better. You swatted a fly with a sledge hammer.
I know you just finished law school, and your writing is probably suffered for it. Take the knowledge you have now, but write about things like you are trying to communicate to people... the way you might have wirtten before law school made you forget how to be straightforward and succinct. If no one got your point, it probably wasn't written well. ;~D
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. ~ Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Of course it will! It has not changed, but the reaction to very negative posts regarding the president and the admin during a election year when everyone is locked in and fighting for every vote is absolutely healthy.
Policy changes will not, do not, can not occur during election years and most everyone understands that.
When Bush gets his second four, then let the bitchin begin anew! We just don't want to see the crap now, as it shows division in the ranks and the rats love it when we do that.
We all know that things ain't perfect. But there are no options. There is no reason to be hurting the re-election effort at this stage of the game, unless you are stupid, or a troll.
Okay gang all aboard....my thoughts: Yes, Virginia, there is judicial review...moving on.
And one thing: look to McCullogh v. Maryland...that has something to do with it...tee hee
LOL!
Quite a thread, eh?
Liberallarry is an open and honest liberal who I'm fairly certain is going to vote for Kerry in November, and he hasn't been banned because he's straightforward about where he's coming from, and he's always civil.
I almost always disagree with Liberallarry, however in truth I respect him a lot more than a couple of other Freepers whose names I won't mention. We have a few posers and fakers on this site pretending to be conservatives with ulterior motives that don't really belong here.
You're wasting your time, the viking cats attacked her and she's gone...hopefully she didn't end up at some DNC forum.
The nasty, heartless and arrogant here seem to be gathering en masse to attack anyone they perceive as weak.
It's a shame, because I think many people could be re-educated about conservative values and are thrown to the wolves.
Imagine if people were this callous in the real world, then again perhaps a few are...
"So for my money I hope FR can get back to what it was originally when I joined, that is a conservative, open forum for the fair and reasoned sharing and exchanging of ideas among like minded people who sometimes agree to disagree."
Maybe after the election, just maybe...
While we're all talking about Free Republic, does anybody have any idea why all (or most) of our posts are lately being bounded on top and bottom by large amounts of space?
Shutting up and going along for the ride has gotten conservatives where we are: Minimalized and discounted.
I have an idea for you...how about we support Dubya for re-election, while critiquing where he has gone soft on conservative values?
Unless of course, you're really a fan of BIG government...
As a conservative, I would have absolutely no problem in principle with posting to a liberal site, in order to expose their logical inconsistencies. So far, I haven't, because I've yet to come across a liberal site that has anywhere near the same posting volume as FR, is as user-friendly as FR, and most importantly, actually allows conservatives to post.
I think you make your point very well. It should be better understood that some trolls are what we used to call disruptors who start or enter a thread with the purpose of distorting the debate, diverting the topic, or demoralizing the participants. Instead of high-minded and sincere proponants of a point of view, they seek to and succeed in wasting our time and/or inflaming our emotions. Sometimes it is a concerted attack, sometimes it appears to be just juvenile. FR has every right to defend itself. For myself, I just keep a list of names, and ignore them, and cut out of a thread if becomes dominated by the diversion. Yesterday, however, I watched you take an active role in identifying them (were they having a convention or something? - by guess is that they were just avoiding studying for finals) and sweeping them away brilliantly. I commend you for that and for this thread.
I have never seen any non-newbie banned for posting criticism - even vehement criticism - of President Bush. I do it quite often myself. It's only when it crosses certain lines that trouble might befall a poster. (like when some people on immigration threads take to calling him "Jorge". The management around here doesn't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to that sort of thing)
Never have, never will.
This is a time to come together, not to throw stones at your party's choice for office.
Why can't you understand that?
Go ahead, criticize me, but do not criticize Bush during the election process. The rats just love it when you do, and they repeat with gusto, every word you speak.
That is politics 101.
I always thought "politics 101" was the squeaky gets the grease?
BTW, even though I often vote GOP to help stop the liberals advance on destroying the country, the Constitution Party is closer to my heart. ;-)
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.