|
|
Post by moderator on May 13, 2006 14:05:18 GMT -5
I hardly think that this below post by nramember contributes to any serious discussion on howards gun plans and whether they are extreme and futile. Its about as useful as his recent spamming of an innocent gun victims memorial shrine (Shooting up the mourners)
nramembers latest
"dat johnmelb n dat nramembers, dey is crimnals an thugs, dey ought not b
ere. dey is bad bad mens. who dey tink dey is runin roun ere actin de fool."
---------------------------------------
In the light of the war on the site gun posts on AussieSeek and Matilda are being watched carefully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by Flash on May 13, 2006 20:03:00 GMT -5
--------- AussieSeek has a long tradition pf being a non judgemental site going back to BBS in 1994 But lately those policies have been challenged. Maybe Free speech is free speech when it's not disruptive of other free speech Free speech guarantees you the right to say what you want, within reason; it does not guarantee you a platform to make yourself heard in. Furthermore, different countries have different free speech laws. What may be legal in one country may be entirely unlawful elsewhere. Even in the U.S., where there are strong explicit free speech protections, the Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on speech, far beyond the stereotypical example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are many commonsense restrictions on the freedom of speech. For instance, abusive phone calls pr posts are considered harassment and no one would try to argue that restrictions on them would impinge on freedom of speech. Online anonymity has its place, and the ability to use it is a crucial aspect of free speech. But it should not be assumed without serious consideration of the issues at stake. The widespread assumption of anonymity by those merely reluctant to stand by their words is just cowardly. If the only punishment your words will receive is criticism, you should be bold enough to speak them. If not, why not keep quiet? www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000054A7.htmFree speech is free speech when it's not disruptive of other free speech. Should Spoilers spammers and abusers be banned at Matilda or Aussieseek? You our readers will decide as you are Our Readers ! Go to aaamatilda.proboards67.com/index.cgi?board=guns&action=display&thread=1147567512&page=1#1147567512There is a Poll at Matilda |
|
|
|
Post by angryjoe on May 14, 2006 16:04:15 GMT -5
I think a bit of cheek, even ridicule is a vital part of our great society, however I agree it can be pushed too far. While silencing someone out of fear of their material causing damage is wrong, giving an obvious idiot a dose of the big red S.T.F.U. button is downright obligatory..... A difficult line to walk keith, I admire and commend your tenacity my friend  |
|
