Re: Suggestions

[FairBol]

Re: Suggestions

I see the original thread has been locked...you gotta be kidding me. Anyway...

Mr. FrankBerry has responded to my concerns with this:

The overtone of the post(s) were ugly with racist intent. They were offensive to many.

In terms of the remarks made by "Cotton Belt" (regarding the "Brilliantly Black" initiative)...how so? As I have attempted to explain, the banned user said NOTHING that could be described as having "racist (racial?) intent". He merely opined that we are losing our rights and freedoms. How is that even close to "ugly", or "offensive"?

Reading the site today, I find that there has been a second incident of what I'll call an "unreasonable ban".

On July 17, user "BillKex" said

Just imagine the outcry if it said "Wonderfully White"
Substitute the work black with white throughout this story. Rev Al would be calling for protests & for people to be fired

.

For this, it seems that he too has been banned.

Let's see....did the user threaten, either in jest or with intent, anyone? No, he did not. Did he make any remarks that are inherently racist? NO, he did not. And did he clearly and demonstrably engage in hate speech? Again, the answer is NO. The only thing that he said is that if the situation were reversed, there would be a big-time outcry against the name. That's not even remotely "offensive" to me, as it shouldn't be to anyone. (BTW, I see that "CB's" post has mysteriously disappeared....what gives?)

Briefly, let me respond to DavidEduardo's remarks.

You are correct that (technically, anyway....I'd argue otherwise, but...) the First Amendment guarantee of free speech doesn't generally apply to private enterprises. However, it can at least be argued to be "common sense" that such enterprises should, if they indeed state that all opinions are welcome, live up to their word.

Also, and to be frank, the hypothetical situation that you mentioned is a example of comparing "apples to oranges". You're correct in stating that if one clearly endangers the safety of others, they do not have to be allowed to speak. Even so (and as I stated before), the users did not clearly and truly threaten anyone, be they on this board or not. As such, your argument doesn't really "hold water", so to speak.

BTW, I disagree with your assessment regarding masks. One can decide for themselves whether or not to wear a mask in a store (there's no current law saying that they have to). The store may choose not to serve those not wearing a mask, but they can't have a customer arrested for that inaction alone. And the customer may, if they choose to, go to another store that will serve them. Anyway, I digress.

Obviously, I'm disappointed in recent actions of "the management" regarding censorship of posts. You're suppressing those opinions that you disagree with, and thereby violating anything even resembling the right of free speech. I strongly disagree with actions taken in that regard, and once again urge that the particular bans be reconsidered (at least).

 

[frankberry]

We are not the "thought police" but we are the "posting police."

BTW, I disagree with your assessment regarding masks. One can decide for themselves whether or not to wear a mask in a store (there's no current law saying that they have to). The store may choose not to serve those not wearing a mask, but they can't have a customer arrested for that inaction alone. And the customer may, if they choose to, go to another store that will serve them. Anyway, I digress.

As a matter of fact, in Michigan masks ARE the law. Business establishments are required to enforce the mask law.

You are correct that (technically, anyway....I'd argue otherwise, but...) the First Amendment guarantee of free speech doesn't generally apply to private enterprises. However, it can at least be argued to be "common sense" that such enterprises should, if they indeed state that all opinions are welcome, live up to their word.

From the TOS:
"You agree not to use the Service to:
1. upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, of a sexual nature, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."

Frank

 

[davideduardo]

You are correct that (technically, anyway....I'd argue otherwise, but...) the First Amendment guarantee of free speech doesn't generally apply to private enterprises. However, it can at least be argued to be "common sense" that such enterprises should, if they indeed state that all opinions are welcome, live up to their word.

The First Ammendment guarantee of "free speech" applies to the government not being permitted to restrict citizens from having and expressing their opinions in public places. It does not apply to private property. A business may place limitations on behaviour, dress, speech in its private domains.

BTW, I disagree with your assessment regarding masks. One can decide for themselves whether or not to wear a mask in a store (there's no current law saying that they have to). The store may choose not to serve those not wearing a mask, but they can't have a customer arrested for that inaction alone. And the customer may, if they choose to, go to another store that will serve them. Anyway, I digress.

However, you do not have the right to kill me or others. It's been rather conclusively proven that distancing and the wearing of a mask go a long way towards preventing contagion of the disease.

You know, during the blitzkrieg, Londoners were asked to prevent light from being seen outside windows, to not use car lights and to otherwise avoid creating an illuminated target. They all realized the common danger and complied. Today, people without masks are going around killing strangers and they don't think it is wrong.

I mention a distant WW II example because some things do not have to be laws to be obeyed. Common sense, as has been observed, is not very common any more.

Obviously, I'm disappointed in recent actions of "the management" regarding censorship of posts. You're suppressing those opinions that you disagree with, and thereby violating anything even resembling the right of free speech. I strongly disagree with actions taken in that regard, and once again urge that the particular bans be reconsidered (at least).

The only right on a private message board or in a private business or in one's home is to follow the rules of the property owner or their delegate. You do not know what "free speech" is.

Note: Frank gave you a clear statement relative to this board. My expressions are given as a purely personal observation while at the same time explaining further some of the rights vs. restrictions points you raised.