Censorship - Yes or No?

[trigwu]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think everyone that has a hard-on for SteveO should just think twice about posting.

You have pookie who doesn’t even address the topic before diving into a personal attack on Stevie.

Then you have vroom - who is no better.

You guys were the head cheerleaders for getting SteveO to shut up with the religion talk - he does, but you keep on his ass about his religion.

Just makes you guys look like petty little bitches.[/quote]

What exactly does this whining have to do with censorship?

[rainjack]

[quote]TriGWU wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think everyone that has a hard-on for SteveO should just think twice about posting.

You have pookie who doesn’t even address the topic before diving into a personal attack on Stevie.

Then you have vroom - who is no better.

You guys were the head cheerleaders for getting SteveO to shut up with the religion talk - he does, but you keep on his ass about his religion.

Just makes you guys look like petty little bitches.

What exactly does this whining have to do with censorship?
[/quote]

What does anything vroom or pookie just said have to do with censorship? They are still attacking SteveO as a carry over form other threads.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

More seriously, have you ever felt that someone on the site was a troll and should be removed?[/quote]

Never. Ever. Not me. What are you talking about?

[pookie]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You have pookie who doesn’t even address the topic before diving into a personal attack on Stevie.[/quote]

Telling him he’s free to post but that we’re free to ignore him is a personal attack?

Just makes you guys look like petty little bitches.

You misspelled “pretty.”

[pookie]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Did the doc just up your meds, or something?[/quote]

I’m overdue for a fresh batch. I think the ones I have left have been fermenting for a little too long.

Tell me exactly where censorship in the constitutional sense has been violated?

I don’t really care. I might if I could do something about it, but I don’t feel like taking on the apathy of a majority of 300 million Americans.

Enjoy the twilight years of what could’ve been a great country.

Your slipping, kiddo - and it’s not pretty.

I’ll get a prettier slipping the next time I’m at Wal-Mart.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Well, actually, I think you are incorrect here. Here is why. I know that if you have a privately owned piece of property – like Rockefeller Center here in New York City. Rock Center says that NOBODY can hand out flyers about anything – religious or otherwise on their property. Now, if they did allow, let’s say, people to hand out flyers advertising cell phones, but didn’t allow me to hand out my Gospel tracts, that would be illegal. It would fall under discrimination based on religion was is illegal. [/quote]

It depends on whether or not Rock Center is considered a public forum. If it isn’t, then no free speech rights. An airport is not considered one, by way of comparison.

But you are confused as to free speech - anti-discrimination laws are directed at those who are engaged in commerce or are employees of the said business. If you are there in an non-employee capacity merely handing out handbills, you aren’t covered by traditional anti-discrimination laws.

And, it is acceptable for places to permit commercial speech above other kinds if they want, for reasons governing private property: allowing people to hand out religious handbills and/or political information could disrupt enjoyment of the private property. What if 30 different people showed up promoting 30 different religions? Private property owners have a right to avoid situations like this. I know I would, if I owned Rock Center.

If you aren’t engaged in any kind of commerce or employment, and the Rock Center is not a public forum (and it is likely not), you may want to rethink your your ‘right’ to free speech there.

[vroom]

Rainjack,

Maybe you missed this in my post…

[quote]
However, I must say, this thread is simply a discussion, it is what the site and this forum is all about. Good job Steveo, glad to see you can do it. [/quote]

I’m also annoyed that you would sit there and play holier than thou when you have taken a dislike to people and then actively chased them around. Do I need to Google up XcelticX or Al Shades to get some examples for you?

Fuck it, here is you posting to XcelticX… (yay Google):

You are a fucking troll. I will flame your sorry ass at will until you leave. You can cry and use cap locks all you want. But until you leave this site, I will be there flaming you for breathing if I want to. You are soiling my website, and I take personal offense at that. Many many others do as well.

When will you get it through your thick-assed skull? You are not liked. You are not respected. You are not even believed. Face it. You are not wanted. GO away. Or at least quit posting. Go brag to the Jr High kids about how big and strong you are. Do anything, but most of all - just go away.

We are talking about quality of conversation on the site and you getting hypocritical and offering Steveo “defense” just muddies the waters and is annoying.

Don’t you ever want to do more than that? I mean, is throwing stones all you are?

If you don’t think Steveo comes across as a troll and inflames the site, then talk about why instead of being “funny” when asked some direct questions.

[steveo5801]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

Well, actually, I think you are incorrect here. Here is why. I know that if you have a privately owned piece of property – like Rockefeller Center here in New York City. Rock Center says that NOBODY can hand out flyers about anything – religious or otherwise on their property. Now, if they did allow, let’s say, people to hand out flyers advertising cell phones, but didn’t allow me to hand out my Gospel tracts, that would be illegal. It would fall under discrimination based on religion was is illegal.

It depends on whether or not Rock Center is considered a public forum. If it isn’t, then no free speech rights. An airport is not considered one, by way of comparison.

But you are confused as to free speech - anti-discrimination laws are directed at those who are engaged in commerce or are employees of the said business. If you are there in an non-employee capacity merely handing out handbills, you aren’t covered by traditional anti-discrimination laws.

And, it is acceptable for places to permit commercial speech above other kinds if they want, for reasons governing private property: allowing people to hand out religious handbills and/or political information could disrupt enjoyment of the private property. What if 30 different people showed up promoting 30 different religions? Private property owners have a right to avoid situations like this. I know I would, if I owned Rock Center.

If you aren’t engaged in any kind of commerce or employment, and the Rock Center is not a public forum (and it is likely not), you may want to rethink your your ‘right’ to free speech there.[/quote]

No, I think you missed my point about Rockefeller Center. The fact is that they don’t permit any solicitaion at all. My point is under current law, they couldn’t permit one but not the other. Just like if I owned my OWN business, I cannot hire just black people and not white people. See?

I have no problem with Rock Center doing this as long as it applies to everyone. The same principle should apply here. If someone has the “right” to post about allah and Islam, then I have the right to post about Christianity.

The fact is – and Vroom has admitted this – there are many on this forum that would want me censored just because I proclaim Christ and discuss – yes DISCUSS the Bible. Oh, Vroom calls me a “troll” and when I call him on that he then says I “display trollish behavior,” when this is clearly untrue.

Anyway…I hope that clarifies the example I used about Rock Center and its bearing on this issue of censorship.

[vroom]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The fact is – and Vroom has admitted this – there are many on this forum that would want me censored just because I proclaim Christ and discuss – yes DISCUSS the Bible. Oh, Vroom calls me a “troll” and when I call him on that he then says I “display trollish behavior,” when this is clearly untrue.[/quote]

Sigh. It’s not clearly untrue at all. Discussing something is not the same as issuing proclamations… and I’m pretty sure you know the difference.

You are intolerant of the beliefs of others and cause all kinds of strife with that. That fact that you believe you are right doesn’t change the impact that this has on discussion.

Now this, this is a discussion. It, as opposed to your usual style, is much appreciated in comparison.

[pittbulll]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
orion wrote:
It is a privately owned website.

That means they could not censor you if they wanted to, and the Bill of Rights is a non issue.

Well, actually, I think you are incorrect here. Here is why. I know that if you have a privately owned piece of property – like Rockefeller Center here in New York City. Rock Center says that NOBODY can hand out flyers about anything – religious or otherwise on their property. Now, if they did allow, let’s say, people to hand out flyers advertising cell phones, but didn’t allow me to hand out my Gospel tracts, that would be illegal. It would fall under discrimination based on religion was is illegal.

So you are correct that the Bill of Rights probably doesn’t apply, but illegal discrimination is still not allowed under our laws. That is the reason you don’t see the mods taking down my threads. They know better than that. Otherwise, if your “privately owned website” argument would hold water, privately owned businesses could discriminate in their hiring practices based upon race, religion, national origin, etc. – which is clearly illegal.

However, in this thread I wanted to discuss censorship in general terms, since it is obvious that there are guys here that are in favor of it, well when it comes to religion at least.

Therefore I want to hear the parameters as I asked for in my OP. Perhaps someone would give this an honest try.[/quote]

I do not think you are right Steve, I do think they could allow one group to do what they prohibit another from doing. Unless New York has some laws that I am aware of. I do agree with you I do not think your opinions should be censored, I also do not think this sight should censor pornography either. I do how ever think some sights should censor for porn.

[pittbulll]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

Maybe you missed this in my post…

However, I must say, this thread is simply a discussion, it is what the site and this forum is all about. Good job Steveo, glad to see you can do it.

I’m also annoyed that you would sit there and play holier than thou when you have taken a dislike to people and then actively chased them around. Do I need to Google up XcelticX or Al Shades to get some examples for you?

Fuck it, here is you posting to XcelticX… (yay Google):

You are a fucking troll. I will flame your sorry ass at will until you leave. You can cry and use cap locks all you want. But until you leave this site, I will be there flaming you for breathing if I want to. You are soiling my website, and I take personal offense at that. Many many others do as well.

When will you get it through your thick-assed skull? You are not liked. You are not respected. You are not even believed. Face it. You are not wanted. GO away. Or at least quit posting. Go brag to the Jr High kids about how big and strong you are. Do anything, but most of all - just go away.

We are talking about quality of conversation on the site and you getting hypocritical and offering Steveo “defense” just muddies the waters and is annoying.

Don’t you ever want to do more than that? I mean, is throwing stones all you are?

If you don’t think Steveo comes across as a troll and inflames the site, then talk about why instead of being “funny” when asked some direct questions.[/quote]

Do you mean Ali Shades from New York?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

No, I think you missed my point about Rockefeller Center. The fact is that they don’t permit any solicitaion at all. My point is under current law, they couldn’t permit one but not the other. Just like if I owned my OWN business, I cannot hire just black people and not white people. See?[/quote]

Nope, I don’t.

You say ‘current law’ - what current law?

Certain commercial practices are governed by various anti-discrimination laws as they relate to commerce - hiring, firing, service, etc. Distributing religious handbills is not a commercial exercise, so anti-discrimination laws don’t apply.

And private property owners - so long as the property isn’t considered a ‘public forum’ - can pick and choose what information is allowed and what is not. Airports can permit advertising, but can boot Hare Krishnas out. A rapid transit can permit merchants to advertise on its walls, but say no to political ads.

You seem to suggest that private property owners have to follow a rule of all or none - and that is flatly wrong. Private property owners can allow commercial speech and restrict religious speech, political speech, etc.

If you are suggesting that one religion should not be banished while another gets to post its materials - just show me what law says a private property owner can’t do this. Hint: it isn’t federal anti-discrimination laws.

To take your point further: is a privately owned synagogue which is open to the public downtown forced to allow Muslims and Christians to hand out literature on their respective religions inside its doors?

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

No, I think you missed my point about Rockefeller Center. The fact is that they don’t permit any solicitaion at all. My point is under current law, they couldn’t permit one but not the other. Just like if I owned my OWN business, I cannot hire just black people and not white people. See?

Nope, I don’t.

You say ‘current law’ - what current law?

Certain commercial practices are governed by various anti-discrimination laws as they relate to commerce - hiring, firing, service, etc. Distributing religious handbills is not a commercial exercise, so anti-discrimination laws don’t apply.

And private property owners - so long as the property isn’t considered a ‘public forum’ - can pick and choose what information is allowed and what is not. Airports can permit advertising, but can boot Hare Krishnas out. A rapid transit can permit merchants to advertise on its walls, but say no to political ads.

You seem to suggest that private property owners have to follow a rule of all or none - and that is flatly wrong. Private property owners can allow commercial speech and restrict religious speech, political speech, etc.

If you are suggesting that one religion should not be banished while another gets to post its materials - just show me what law says a private property owner can’t do this. Hint: it isn’t federal anti-discrimination laws.

To take your point further: is a privately owned synagogue which is open to the public downtown forced to allow Muslims and Christians to hand out literature on their respective religions inside its doors?[/quote]

It would be more like a synagogue having to let them use their sound system…

[steveo5801]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

No, I think you missed my point about Rockefeller Center. The fact is that they don’t permit any solicitaion at all. My point is under current law, they couldn’t permit one but not the other. Just like if I owned my OWN business, I cannot hire just black people and not white people. See?

Nope, I don’t.

You say ‘current law’ - what current law?

Certain commercial practices are governed by various anti-discrimination laws as they relate to commerce - hiring, firing, service, etc. Distributing religious handbills is not a commercial exercise, so anti-discrimination laws don’t apply.

And private property owners - so long as the property isn’t considered a ‘public forum’ - can pick and choose what information is allowed and what is not. Airports can permit advertising, but can boot Hare Krishnas out. A rapid transit can permit merchants to advertise on its walls, but say no to political ads.

You seem to suggest that private property owners have to follow a rule of all or none - and that is flatly wrong. Private property owners can allow commercial speech and restrict religious speech, political speech, etc.

If you are suggesting that one religion should not be banished while another gets to post its materials - just show me what law says a private property owner can’t do this. Hint: it isn’t federal anti-discrimination laws.

To take your point further: is a privately owned synagogue which is open to the public downtown forced to allow Muslims and Christians to hand out literature on their respective religions inside its doors?[/quote]

Of course not. I will look into the NYC ordinance that I believe exists and get back to you. I truly believe that there is a law, but I will investigate further. That is what I have been told by Rockefeller Center personal in the past anyway.

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:

You are intolerant of the beliefs of others and cause all kinds of strife with that. [/quote]

Psst…hey vroom you just described plenty of people on this site. But, I’ve never seen you go after anyone with the same tenacity that you do Stevo. Why don’t you give him a break and knock it off?

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

Maybe you missed this in my post…

However, I must say, this thread is simply a discussion, it is what the site and this forum is all about. Good job Steveo, glad to see you can do it.

I’m also annoyed that you would sit there and play holier than thou when you have taken a dislike to people and then actively chased them around. Do I need to Google up XcelticX or Al Shades to get some examples for you?[/quote]

And I am annoyed when perfectly good sarcasm gets missed. I am flattered that you went back a year or two to find proof that I have a tendancy to pin my ears back and go after someone. But do you think that you really needed to do that? You think that I am so thick that I can’t see that I indeed go after individuals?

I feel sorry for you. Hell - even pookie got the sarcasm, and…well…never mind.

We are talking about quality of conversation on the site and you getting hypocritical and offering Steveo “defense” just muddies the waters and is annoying.

You followed hom over here from another thread to continue calling him a troll. This thread has merit.

The question asked is indeed worthy of debate. It happened to be started by your nemisis… big fucking deal.

You are worried about muddy waters in the political forum, and my supposed “defense” of SteveO is the cause? Dude - you really need to get out more.

Don’t you ever want to do more than that? I mean, is throwing stones all you are?

Is chasing SteveO around all you are?

If you don’t think Steveo comes across as a troll and inflames the site, then talk about why instead of being “funny” when asked some direct questions.

How about if you don’t like what SteveO says you just shut the fuck up and move on? Why do I need to contribute to your witch hunt? I have never asked anyone to help me in any of my attacks.
I will not assist you. If you need help - maybe you bit off more than you could chew?

The “direct question” was the most stupidly rhetorical question ever asked. It deserved a smart ass reply.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
And I am annoyed when perfectly good sarcasm gets missed. I am flattered that you went back a year or two to find proof that I have a tendancy to pin my ears back and go after someone. But do you think that you really needed to do that? You think that I am so thick that I can’t see that I indeed go after individuals?[/quote]

No, but you are thick enough to miss the point that Steveo probably isn’t clued in enough to catch your sarcasm on that point.

You followed hom over here from another thread to continue calling him a troll. This thread has merit.

Well, maybe you should follow the conversation that is taking place. I’m even telling Steveo that I appreciate this particular thread.

What you are missing is that this thread is very related to some of the other recent thread activity, so of course it will be discussed.

What part of “I think this is a decent thread” don’t you get?

[quote]How about if you don’t like what SteveO says you just shut the fuck up and move on? Why do I need to contribute to your witch hunt? I have never asked anyone to help me in any of my attacks.

I will not assist you. If you need help - maybe you bit off more than you could chew? [/quote]

I’m not asking for assistance, I’m asking for honesty or truth. There is a difference, don’t you think?

[vroom]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Psst…hey vroom you just described plenty of people on this site. But, I’ve never seen you go after anyone with the same tenacity that you do Stevo. Why don’t you give him a break and knock it off?[/quote]

Bullshit, I go after everyone. Hell, you and I have clashed enough in the past that you know that…

[Zap_Branigan]

I hate the god squad threads and I generally ignore them. I think they bring down this forum but I do not think they should be censored.

I think there are many things that should be censored, including but not limited to the obvious spam, the neo-nazi ravings of assholes and threats of violence.

This website belongs to Biotest. They do not have to give equal time to every crackpot that comes along.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not asking for assistance, I’m asking for honesty or truth. There is a difference, don’t you think?
[/quote]

What am I not being truthful about?

If there is such a thing as an open book - it is me. To be confused about where I stand is to be missing a few screws in the old cranium.

I just don’t understand why you are indignant about what I have said here.

In the scheme of things - it was fairly benign.