i think everyone can agree that allowing different opinions and healthy debate is very important. the marketplace of ideas is an important part of the discovery of truth, and freedom of speech and thought is the way to this marketplace of ideas. this marketplace of ideas must however proceed with some degree of respect and follow some sort of understood method so that rational debate can come out of it. what this means is that within the idea of freedom of speech it is understood that there are limits to its freedom that are important for it to be fruitful. speech that does not promote the discovery of truth should not come with the same protections as other speech. this does not mean that one's freedom of speech should be impaired when they have an opinion contrary to what is understood to be true, but that when one's speech becomes slanderous or defamatory it does not deserve the same protection.

statements that are defamatory such as:

Quote :

"So even jews hate themselves. No surprise really. I'd hate myself too if I were a lowdown ugly diseased kike."

-salisburyboy
should not be protected or allowed. on a college message board there should be standards of discourse that do not allow hate speech. it insults those trying to engage in healthy debate and reflects poorly on the university (its no wonder the wolf took off his hat). this forum once permanently suspended maximus because of his repetitive hate speech, so what happened to the decency that once existed?

7/21/2007 12:54:34 PM

Quote :

"must however proceed with some degree of respect and follow some sort of understood method so that rational debate can come out of it. what this means is that within the idea of freedom of speech it is understood that there are limits to its freedom that are important for it to be fruitful. speech that does not promote the discovery of truth should not come with the same protections as other speech."

freedom of speech is about much more than just the words you use or the ideas they represent. it's also about freedom of expression. now in order for a debate TO be rational, yes you must speak intelligently, coherently, articulately and respectfully. but in terms of just speech about anything else: an informal debate, a news article, yelling at your friends, yelling at people you hate, writing, comedy, freedom of speech should come with absolutely no limitation whatsoever. hate speech, love speech, happy speech, mad speech, ALL speech deserves and ought to have the same status. do i think a racist is less of a human than a good person? yes, but i would never infringe his right to say what he wants. you mention on a college message board. message board. internet message board. this is absolutely not a formal debate forum whatsoever. reflects poorly on the university? complete and utter nonsense. i cannot STAND when people pull that card. the only thing that reflects on the university is the university's actions itself. everyone else is responsible for his or her own reflection. salisbury does not represent any member of this university except for himself (if he goes here). if you look at him and think "wow, nc state is full of horrible people" or whatever, then you are making a poor judgement (a testimony to your character).

censorship never stops with one form of speech or one word. it will always be used to cover all because anyone who has the power to censor will try and censor what they do not like. they will do so by calling it hate speech or saying it's illegal, or saying it's politically incorrect. it's all relative. if you do not like anything he says, or anything anyone else says, i fully respect that. but i would never want to silence someone's freedom of speech. ever. not EVER.

7/21/2007 1:19:18 PM

Quote :

"this is absolutely not a formal debate forum whatsoever."

read my post again and you will see that i never claimed it was nor did i ever type "formal debate"

Quote :

"freedom of speech should come with absolutely no limitation whatsoever."

so you disagree with the supreme court?

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2007 1:22:57 PM

i know you didn't type that. but i was referring to my own standard:

Quote :

"now in order for a debate TO be rational, yes you must speak intelligently, coherently, articulately and respectfully. but in terms of just speech about anything else: an informal debate"

didn't mean to imply you had typed it haha

Quote :

"so you disagree with the supreme court? "

with respect to?

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : jank]

7/21/2007 1:24:41 PM

not being able to yell fire, not being able to incite violence, not being able to slander you, etc...

7/21/2007 1:26:57 PM

Quote :

"not being able to yell fire, not being able to incite violence, not being able to slander you, etc..."

i'd be lying if i said i disagreed with that. inciting violence i think is bs, slander would be bs if people weren't so quick to believe everything they hear. the yelling fire thing does make sense. but don't forget that whoever does those things ultimately is going to be held accountable by the people they affect. in other words, if a guy yells fag to someone who is gay, and they hit him, that's simply the law of nature haha (action vs equal reaction). if you yell fire and people go running out and there isn't one, no one will ever believe you again (boy who cried wolf). slander kinda falls into both. no one will believe you again, and whomever you slandered might hit back.

i wish i could bring my opinion more in line without sounding hypocritical but i can't. i think the only way i can sum it up would be to say that limiting speech that can cause immediate harm (yell fire, people get trampled. slander, someone gets fired) makes sense but speech that doesn't (being racist doesn't cause immediate harm, the REACTION to it does which is under the control of the person responding) i honestly don't think should be censored


just to add one more thing, and this isn't an original opinion, i got it from george carlin. while i support unfettered (almost) free speech, the quality of our debates, the quality of our intelligence, the quality of our thoughts (and ultimately our actions) stems from the quality of our words

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : jank]

7/21/2007 1:32:46 PM

so to you slander is not ok, but racist and defamatory comments are ok? i don't understand your explanation for this at all.

7/21/2007 2:01:48 PM

Quote :

"limiting speech that can cause immediate harm (yell fire, people get trampled. slander, someone gets fired) makes sense but speech that doesn't (being racist doesn't cause immediate harm, the REACTION to it does which is under the control of the person responding) i honestly don't think should be censored"

7/21/2007 2:07:21 PM

Quote :

"i don't understand your explanation for this at all."

7/21/2007 2:12:37 PM

speech that can cause immediate harm i think should be limited

i do not consider derogatory and racist speech to be types that cause immediate harm because the harm comes from the person reacting to the speech and they are fully capable of not causing harm

it's like leaving a door to a bank open. while it increases the chance of someone walking in and stealing money, the act itself doesn't commit the crime. the accountability lies on the person CHOOSING to walk into the bank and steal

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : jank]

7/21/2007 2:14:31 PM

so saying that its a fact that you are having an active sexual relationship with your mother somehow causes you immediate harm, but using hate speech directed at you does not? they are the same thing.

7/21/2007 2:19:10 PM

the slander thing is situational. slandering someone can ruin their reputation, cause them to be fired, keep them from ever getting hired again. henceforth, can't make a living, can't eat, pay rent, etc.

that's immediate harm.

hate speech doesn't. if someone directs hate speech at me, i have the choice of ignoring it, shrugging it off, or reacting to it. furthermore, HOW i react to it is under my control. i can yell back, i can write about it publicly, i can turn people's opinions against the offender. OR, i can hit him and kick him. his speech did not cause the broken bones, my actions did.

7/21/2007 2:23:01 PM

but what if the overzealous protection of the hate speech hinders one's ability to react

7/21/2007 2:29:27 PM

explain

i have an idea of where you're going with this but lemme see what you're gonna say first haha

7/21/2007 2:30:21 PM

suspending people for responding to salisburyboy

7/21/2007 2:31:44 PM

i assume you mean responding in kind. obviously people should be allowed to. why are people suspended for responding to him?

7/21/2007 2:37:27 PM

if i post a picture, or make a satirical thread, or mention cheese i get suspended. this is because as a message board posts should be understandably moderated. however, my issue is that hate speech should be moderated against much harsher than a revival of the cheese revolution.

7/21/2007 2:41:04 PM

i don't disagree at all that you should be treated equally. but i don't think they should suspend him or suspend you, i think both of you should be able to post freely, obviously within the rules of the board (you know like posting a soapbox type thread in the garage)

7/21/2007 2:43:14 PM

well i disagree, i think we should both be moderated in the interest of making a better forum. if he would like to shout his hate from the speech corner thats fine, but he should not be able to spread his hateful slander on my campus message board.

7/21/2007 3:13:39 PM

Quote :

"if he would like to shout his hate from the speech corner thats fine, but he should not be able to spread his hateful slander on my campus message board."

you do bring up an interesting point, the right to not be harassed

as for the campus message board thing, this isn't affiliated with nc state

also, a good friend of mine just brought up a very interesting point, one of his problems with considering speech "hate" speech:

friend: i still have problems with hate speech
friend: if you spraypaint a band name on a wall, that's vandalism, if you spraypaint NIGGERS on a wall, it's a hate crime

friend: the argument is that the latter affects more than just the wall's owner, it offends/instills fear in all black people who see it

friend: BUT
friend: if you spraypainted "I HATE AFRICAN AMERICANS", we're back to vandalism
friend: you could have that shit on your bumpersticker
friend: so the real crime is saying a word that a lot of people don't like

friend: so my stance is this, and i stick to my guns no matter what black or gay guy gets in my face about it, when YOU hear that word and choose to give it your attention then YOU are the problem

friend: YOU are giving it power
it's not a person attacking you whether you want them to or not, it's an idea that you can choose to entertain and react to or you can ignore it like the ignorant bullshit it is


[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/21/2007 3:15:08 PM

Quote :

"not being able to yell fire, not being able to incite violence, not being able to slander you, etc..."

In general, I disagree with them, yes. Freedom of speech should be absolute. I certainly don't agree with slander and libel laws.

7/21/2007 3:35:13 PM

it does not matter if it is affiliated to nc state, this is a message board not a forum to say whatever you want. some moderation is expected.

and this is different than your friends point in that it is the message that is offensive and should not be allowed, not any single words

7/21/2007 3:35:58 PM

I can see the argument for restrictions of speech on these boards, but it's a slippery slope.

7/21/2007 3:37:19 PM

no its not, hate speech should not be allowed. the slippery slope argument is such a cop out.

7/21/2007 3:40:29 PM

Quote :

"and this is different than your friends point in that it is the message that is offensive and should not be allowed, not any single words"

that's just it, it's the idea that is determined to be offensive. and it is up to the person reading to decided whether or not to ignore it, or let it bother them.

7/21/2007 3:42:14 PM

Quote :

"no its not, hate speech should not be allowed."

It should certainly be allowed by the gubment.

7/21/2007 3:43:25 PM

Quote :

"friend: YOU are giving it power"

You could hear someone talking about fire or explosions and not be upset, but then you choose

to give it power if you hear it in a theater or on an airplane.

7/21/2007 3:43:43 PM

not be upset, maybe, BUT you sure as hell will get away from it, that's just instinct, survival is at stake or immediate harm is possible

not so with hate speech

a perfect example would be in a self-defense case
you can only claim self defense if you are in immediate danger. you cannot claim it if all that happened was someone threatening you verbally. why is it any different with hate speech

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM. Reason : jank]

7/21/2007 3:44:54 PM

Quote :

"speech that does not promote the discovery of truth should not come with the same protections as other speech."

100% wrong. speech is speech. period.

Quote :

"freedom of speech should come with absolutely no limitation whatsoever."

100% right. freedom is freedom. period.

Quote :

"so you disagree with the supreme court"

wtf do they matter? are they god? are they universal logic? no.

Quote :

"speech that can cause immediate harm i think should be limited"

There is absolutely no such thing as speech that can cause harm, immediate or otherwise. period.

-------
slander, libel, perjury and other forms of intentional or negligent dishonesty do not require speech.
Therefore, it's not the speech that is the problem; it's the [dishonest] content of the speech.
And no, they're not the same thing.

Also,
hatred, violence, "evil" and other undesirables do not require speech.
Therefore, it's not the speech that is the problem; it's the [irresponsible] reaction to the speech.
---------

Quote :

"when YOU hear [undesirable speech] and choose to give it your attention then YOU are the problem"

exactly.
censorship alone gives the censored speech it's power.
no censorship, no power. more censorship, more power.

There is absolutely no valid excuse to participate in or advocate censorship.

Unless, of course, you are a private entity, like TWW. Then, it's a choice.

Quote :

"hate speech should not be allowed. the slippery slope argument is such a cop out."

YOU should not be allowed. You are well intentioned, but 100% wrong. Get over yourself.
Why do you hate America?

7/21/2007 4:39:55 PM

It's funny you should mention "universal logic" and the statement that "freedom is freedom. period" all in the same post like that. The two are, ultimately, incompatible.

In Happy Candy Land where everything follows the ideal, including human behavior, perfect freedom can coexist happily with logic. We do not live in Happy Candy Land. To think rationally means to go ahead and accept that human interaction is inherently flawed, that those flaws can generally be predicted to an extent, and that those flaws are not compatible with perfect, unmitigated, untouched freedom of any real sort.

Our good buddies at the KKK do a little tour of a predominantly minority community, like, say, parts of Lumberton. Some of said minorities respond in a manner that is perfectly predictable -- they get fearful and angry and subsequently violent. A battle breaks out. The minorities have blame whenever they initiated or exacerbated the violence. But the Klan has blame for actively and knowingly working to incite unrest.

Now, I like free speech, but I also like the freedom to not have a giant fucking riot in my town, or, for that matter, in my state, or, for another matter still, my country. Ultimately, I have to weigh my freedom to not have a giant fucking riot next door against the Klan's freedom to walk through a Lumbee town and call everyone in it mulattoes and half-breeds. You can't have both.

Every freedom, taken too far, has the ability to encroach on other freedoms. We try very hard -- and with some success -- to minimalize that encroachment. That's why, distasteful as it is, we occasionally have to set limits to prevent a freedom from getting taken that far.

This is just, as you say, universal logic. Climb down off your high-horse. Nothing is perfect.

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2007 4:59:09 PM

Quote :

" YOU should not be allowed. You are well intentioned, but 100% wrong. Get over yourself. Why do you hate America?"

look at what that comment was responding to. you should read it as hate speech should not be allowed ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD

7/21/2007 6:35:59 PM

^oic
That's up to the owners of this site though, eh?
...not really up for debate, or is it?

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ^^ logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> pragmatism]

7/21/2007 6:58:44 PM

it is up for debate, the current moderator has adopted a backwards attitude towards moderating. previously hate speech had not been allowed and a user was suspended for always making racist posts, now i guess you can call all the jews ugly diseased kikes and its ok.

7/21/2007 7:05:06 PM

Quote :

"Ultimately, I have to weigh my freedom to not have a giant fucking riot next door against the Klan's freedom to walk through a Lumbee town and call everyone in it mulattoes and half-breeds. You can't have both."

Why not? Many times law enforcement has been used to separate two belligerent parties and prevent violence. Some would argue that this is not an effective use of law enforcement; personally, I think it is sublime.

Quote :

"speech that does not promote the discovery of truth should not come with the same protections as other speech."

Who here defines truth? I would argue that, in may ways, hate speech is supremely beneficial. Rabidly anti-Semetic comments like those from salisburyboy reveal the truth about his character as well as providing a mirror for us to examine our own prejudices. Were people like him not allowed to open their gargantuan mouths, we might repress knee-jerk emotions and consequently not examine ourselves.

Either way, hate speech cannot and should not be prohibited because it rests entirely on the status of one group as being protected while another group is not.

That being said, as a privately run forum, TWW is completely free to prohibit or permit whatever speech it desires.

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2007 9:11:47 PM

Quote :

"slander, libel, perjury and other forms of intentional or negligent dishonesty do not require speech. Therefore, it's not the speech that is the problem; it's the [dishonest] content of the speech. And no, they're not the same thing. Also, hatred, violence, "evil" and other undesirables do not require speech. Therefore, it's not the speech that is the problem; it's the [irresponsible] reaction to the speech. "

nice points.

7/21/2007 9:27:04 PM

I agree that the world would be better is salisburyboy got hit by a bus, but part of the reason he sticks around is because people respond to him. I can't blame them, because it's in some people's nature to try and bring about justice, but if we could all manage to ignore him for at least 2 weeks, not respond to any of his garbage, leaving him confined to his one thread, he'd go away on his own eventually (assuming we continued to not respond to him...).

He's been here longer than most of us, and I don't think all the posting in the world can change him, regardless of what he might actually think, i doubt he'd ever admit a change of mind on here.

7/21/2007 10:19:02 PM

anyone that has been around long enough should be able to recognize the evolution of what he posts. he use to just post crazy out there theories, but now he posts blatant anti-semitic hate. the sad thing is that if he were saying these things about blacks he would have probably been suspended by now, but i suppose the moderator (and by reflection, this forum) thinks that it is ok to make defamatory remarks about jews.

7/21/2007 10:36:52 PM

^ I have thought the exact same thing. What bothers me the most is that more often than not, people will be punished for saying things against salisburyboy than vice versa.

7/21/2007 10:59:41 PM

steveNUMBERS use to say that kind of stuff about blacks, and IIRC, he left on his own for being chastised by other memebrs.

7/21/2007 11:43:00 PM

I thought people got suspended because they refused to heed the warnings of the moderator. The boy in contrast follows the rules set for him, for example he has not posted in this thread.

Of course most of what he says is inane nonsense but that's beside the point, its not about content its about following directions in this case.

7/21/2007 11:47:00 PM

if stevenumbers is the one who always posted the national vanguard stuff he was suspended a few times and entire threads were deleted

7/21/2007 11:49:56 PM

I'm not saying SB shouldn't be suspended... but where do we draw the line?

Does it have to be a habitual thing by a poster, or should any blatant hate speech be punished?

7/22/2007 12:00:50 AM

yeah, whatever happened to ol steve9194? that guy i swear made me want to get a shotgun and go hunt him down.

salisburyboy doesnt evoke those intense feelings. for him, its more like i'd get a shotgun and just sit on the porch in case he happened to come in my yard.



( to any federal or state LEO's, i am, of course, j/k )

7/22/2007 12:50:26 AM

Quote :

"logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> pragmatism"

Since when can the two be separated? Last I checked, logical, rational thinking about society didn't mean that you got to throw out the fundaments of human nature.

Quote :

"Many times law enforcement has been used to separate two belligerent parties and prevent violence. Some would argue that this is not an effective use of law enforcement; personally, I think it is sublime."

It's not that it's ineffective; it's that its that it is generally inefficient, at best, and ultimately consistutes some degree of restriction on "perfect freedom" regardless. Little is to be gained by it in any tangible sense, at least with the system we have in place currently.

Quote :

"Either way, hate speech cannot and should not be prohibited because it rests entirely on the status of one group as being protected while another group is not."

I don't see how this is to be automatically inferred. It is possible to level hate speech against any group -- I seem to remember the formerly-NCSU associated black professor talking about the need to exterminate white people, which was mentioned on this very board -- and as long as all incidents are treated accordingly, I have to wonder where the preferential treatment is.

Of course, all incidents are not treated exactly accordingly, but that's a flaw in the system, not in the idea of "hate speech" as being different from normal "free speech."

Quote :

"He's been here longer than most of us"

I think this is probably in no small part because this is one of the few places with predominantly differing opinions that will permit him to post on a regular basis.

Quote :

"steveNUMBERS use to say that kind of stuff about blacks, and IIRC, he left on his own for being chastised by other memebrs."

I consider steve9194 to be one of the most dangerous men I've ever encountered, and I've paid attention to his history since I first ran into him. He didn't quit because we chastised him, he quit because he got a decently-paying job with a company that might have found out his postings. As good as he may be at what he does, he's not good enough to be worth the flak for continuing to employ a rabid Hitlerite.

Quote :

"I thought people got suspended because they refused to heed the warnings of the moderator. The boy in contrast follows the rules set for him, for example he has not posted in this thread."

The rules as they apply to salisburyboy are completely arbitrary -- he, for some reason, has the right to post whatever the fuck he wants in any thread that he creates. This right has not been extended in the same capacity to any other member of this site.

Of course, it is the right of the owners and their agents to make whatever rules they want, regardless of how arbitrary they are, but I don't intend to stop bitching about it, because that's my right, right up until the moment they ban me, too.

Quote :

"I'm not saying SB shouldn't be suspended... but where do we draw the line?"

To a limited extent, it is, I'll admit, discretionary. Obviously you can't just suspend everyone who uses an ethnic slur -- sometimes its for completely ironic purposes, or what have you. But salisburyboy has a clearly defined history of using them; they have gotten progressively worse; his presence is very widely considered detrimental to the site; in short, he is, by most accounts, well over the line by this point. Even by the most conservative application of rules against hate speech, salisburyboy is guilty as sin.

Quote :

"yeah, whatever happened to ol steve9194? that guy i swear made me want to get a shotgun and go hunt him down."

Don't worry about good ol' Steve. For a guy that supposedly knows computers, he leaves a trail that even an e-incompetent such as myself can follow with ease and without violating any laws, in case anyone is getting any ideas. He has been quiet for some time, here and elsewhere. Turns out that the desire to make money will keep even the biggest Nazi mouthpiece quiet.

7/22/2007 2:57:58 AM

Quote :

"anyone that has been around long enough should be able to recognize the evolution of what he posts. he use to just post crazy out there theories, but now he posts blatant anti-semitic hate."

for a while, it was all super way-far conservative, snake-handling, young-Earth Creationist, King James-only, orders of magnitude to the right of any Southern Baptist I've ever met, mega-Christian stuff...then he evolved into a big time conspiracy theorist, and then he finally got all wrapped in anti-semitism.

Quote :

"the sad thing is that if he were saying these things about blacks he would have probably been suspended by now, but i suppose the moderator (and by reflection, this forum) thinks that it is ok to make defamatory remarks about jews."

Not by me. For that matter, I've caught flak on here for saying that I disagreed with suspensions handed out for people posting racist (or at least racially insensitive) stuff against blacks.

also, thinking that it's not ok to function as the TWW Though Police doesn't mean that I think it's "ok to make defamatory remarks about jews". I don't think it's ok--I think salisburyboy sucks big time...but I'm not going to stop him. I'm not going to assume that role, and I'm not going to get into where to draw those lines. If you want to argue with him, be my guest--and at that point, you forfeit your right to bitch about him posting, because you're keeping his threads at the top, you're giving him an audience, you're giving him something to talk about, and you're also getting your own benefit of sorts out of the deal (if you weren't, you wouldn't do it).

If you, like me, don't give a flying fuck about what he says and won't miss it if you never hear it again, don't click on his threads--they won't bother you anymore, and again, we have a non-issue.

Quote :

"What bothers me the most is that more often than not, people will be punished for saying things against salisburyboy than vice versa."

Bullshit. I've never suspended anyone for "saying things against salisburyboy". If you want to beat your head against the wall making what may very well be great points that will be totally lost on him and preaching to the choir for everyone else, be my guest. I think it's great--if people want to shoot off their mouths and set themselves up to be made to look like complete fools, I'm all for people doing just that to them. I'm just not going to waste my own time (at least on someone like salisburyboy.

What I have--and will continue to--suspend people for is being a disruptive pain in the ass, or trying to strongarm me into doing the things they want. If you want to voice a concern, that's one thing--I may end up seeing things your way and do what you want. If you try to fuck with me or do any stupid e-guerilla shit like the cheese thing, I will just suspend you. If you do it again, I'll probably suspend you permanently, and if anyone else ever unsuspends you, I'll put you back on ice. You can't win that way, so save us both the trouble and don't bother.

Quote :

"This right has not been extended in the same capacity to any other member of this site."

Dude--you can post about whatever you want, too. He enjoys no special privilege--only restriction, since he became a special case of a nuisance when left to his own devices.

Quote :

"Of course, it is the right of the owners and their agents to make whatever rules they want, regardless of how arbitrary they are, but I don't intend to stop bitching about it, because that's my right, right up until the moment they ban me, too."

and that's another thing--I am not an owner of this site...I'm simply a regular poster who was given a couple of site admin abilities and tasked by the owners (of this private enterprise) to basically preserve order enough to keep the forum chugging along, using a "very lenient approach" (their words, not mine). While I lean towards the laissez-faire style, anyway, I have always tried to execute in accordance with the "commanders' intent".

In short, say what you want. That's what this website is for. The problem is when you become disruptive--particularly intentionally disruptive.

7/22/2007 4:29:31 AM

Quote :

"In short, say what you want. That's what this website is for."

7/22/2007 1:10:28 PM

there is absolutely no reason why hate speech should be allowed on this site

i guess theduke hates the jews too, which is surprising because as much as he wants to go kill people they will always keep us in the part of the world where thats possible

[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2007 2:57:57 PM

Quote :

"i guess theduke hates the jews too"

i agree there needs to be some limits to free speech ( and there are --- ie, laws against slander, inciting riots, etc)

but i mean, come on man. that's just pathetic. guth, you ruin your credibility to make a rational case by pulling shit like that.



salisburyboy is offensive as hell. but if anything, his hate filled rhetoric only serves to hurt, rather than help, his "issues" ... who the hell can take him seriously after reading that?






[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2007 3:32:25 PM

well ive learned that i can say what i want, common sense has no place here

7/22/2007 3:34:13 PM

look, at an emotional level i agree with you: I want to shut him down too. but think about it. once you start censoring, once you start defining what is and is not acceptable ... where and when do you stop? it is a slippery slope.

in any event, TWW is privately owned. its ultimately up to the owners to define the limits of what's acceptable. if it is truly criminal speech on this site, then they would be legally liable. but, i'm pretty sure it's not criminal to express your opinion in a private forum, no matter how offensive.

7/22/2007 3:44:13 PM