Free Speech, AndrewK, and Jews in Skokie

[Nanohedron]

Hmm. Let's say that you're hosting some people in your home, everybody just hanging out, drinks in hand, noshing on goodies, shooting the breeze, etc. etc...and someone starts sticking it to someone else with the ad hominem stuff and generally fouling the air of the occasion (I've actually had this happen, so I know whereof I speak) for no apparent better reason than for personal pleasure; or maybe it's sheer perversity; maybe it's a matter of personal suffering getting the better of one. Why doesn't really matter at all. Leave "why" to a therapist. Under your roof, does that person have the right to stay and exercise "free speech"? Do you just stand by wringing your hands and hope everyone else will gaily ignore the situation? I certainly hope not. Under my roof, if anyone were to suggest that it's their "right" to do whatever they want on the premises, I'd seriously consider ushering them out right then and there and with little standing on ceremony about it. It's my home, and hospitality demands that a big portion of my responsibility is to my guests, certainly, but not at the expense of my home and its dignity. If, afterward, someone were then to suggest that I had been unreasonable, I might actually bother myself to discuss the matter.

I see a parallel here.

[Nanohedron]

Oh. I just read Dale's post on another thread concerning the "Dale's Party" analogy.

At least he bothered to discuss the screamingly obvious.

[glinjack]

Hi David
in law school the right of free- speech does not mean that we should insult people at every beck and turn,
john.

[Jack]

Does most of the editing not get done by rich (in Canada) and Alan (on Mars), though?

I mean, I know Dale tells them to, but I thought Dale actually did little of it? Minor point, I know, but I've always wondered...

[dfernandez77]

You want free speech?

Try MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/members/whitenationalistlady/

It's mind boggling what free speech can spawn in the wrong hands.

[Wormdiet]

I find it increasingly difficult to participate in a public forum that allows such arbitrary censorship of postings. I accept Dale’s absolute ownership of this site.

Technically it's a private forum.

And there are far more important issues to worry about.

[Jack]

Technically it's a private forum.

Explain that to me? I don't understand how anything on the Internet can be considered "private," I guess...

[Cynth]

Well, you have to pay to have a website. Right? There's all sorts of equipment and software involved that someone has to pay for. So you pay and then you get advertisers to help defray the cost. Probably the company you pay has some rules, but you also get to set up rules for the space you are renting. You could have a password required and only let certain people view your website. Or you could let anyone see it or use it. Haven't you come across websites you couldn't access? You have to pay to use them or be a member of a group or something. They aren't public things unless the person paying for the space wants it public.

[peeplj]

Cynth is absolutely right.

Even for something as simple as flutesite.com, I pay money to put it out there. Because it's my money, it's my site, and I decide what goes on it and what doesn't.

Consider it publicly viewable private property.

I don't pay that much for flutesite; something like Chiff & Fipple with message boards and chat is going to be quite a bit more expensive.

Because it's their money, it's their place, and they decide what goes on it and what doesn't.

A good real-world example is a library.

It's a public building, the books are considered public property, but you can't just go in the building and take all the books and not bring them back. Even though it's public, there are rules that must be followed.

Whose rules? Usually the rules of the person(s) whose money built the library.

--James

[izzarina]

[quote="peeplj"Whose rules? Usually the rules of the person(s) whose money built the library.[/quote]

So...that makes Dale our Undisputed Librarian?

[Wombat]

Whose rules? Usually the rules of the person(s) whose money built the library.

So...that makes Dale our Undisputed Librarian?

Well you'd think that, wouldn't you? But some people seem to be disputing it rather vigorously at the moment. I can't make head or tail of their arguments but I do believe they are disputing his right to run his wesite his way. Or so it seems.

[Cynth]

I wonder if it's possible that many of these people actually don't understand that you have to pay to have a website. Could they really think that websites are public property? I have never felt that would excuse rude behaviour, but I'm just at a loss to understand their arguments any other way.

Of course the other option is that they understand it perfectly well and that they simply enjoy conflict. I have met people for whom life was dull unless conflict was present, they have actually told me so. I suppose that could be the other explanation.

[Wormdiet]

Technically it's a private forum.

Explain that to me? I don't understand how anything on the Internet can be considered "private," I guess...

In exactly the same way that a restaurant, store, or other brick/mortar store is "private" - the proprietor doesn;t need a court order to get someone to leave.

[rich]

Does most of the editing not get done by rich (in Canada) and Alan (on Mars), though?

I'm hardly around the forums at all anymore. I'm still providing the forums' home and keeping the software running right and so on, but I can't remember the last time that I did any moderation work that wasn't just cleaning out spam and that sort of thing, or flipping switches on Dale's request.

-Rich

[Tyler]

I personally would rather play the "freedom of speech" card for something less trivial, and perhaps something that involves the US Congress abridging it, of which Dale Wisely is not a member thereof, I dont think.


.

DALE FOR CONGRESS!!!!!can i be your campaign manager....pppplleeesase?????