Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DeanRx

Anyway to inform moderators of inappropriate content posts ?

Recommended Posts

If they were that stupid, let them stay. Nobody would take it seriously anyway?

 

What is the harm in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments were not just "stupid", but obscene, infammatory, and predjudiced. Not in any way following the Scout Oath and Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to me anyway, thats the whole point!

 

Its easy to champion free speech when we talk about mundane issues and debate the same topics over and over again.

 

If you can champion free speech even when it is "obscene, infammatory, and predjudiced," then we can see thats what you REALLY believe.

 

If not you what we call freedom of speech is just a shadow of freedom.

 

If what someone says is that ridiculous let the thoughts die on their own lack of merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primarily obscene. Explicitly so. Not the kind of thing you want a kid who is a scout and might stumble across this board to see. And we do have scouts who stop in here from time to time. I'm not for censorship in general but this was a good example of the very rare occasion when I think it makes sense to remove posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what I don't get is - if it is that ridiculous, why are we afraid the scout will see it?

 

Don't we trust our young citizens are educated enough to be able to interpret something they read on the internet and know it is ridiculous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we let our scouts swim in a pool full of sewage? Why would we disgrace ourselves and our Oath with obscenities? Do we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?

 

If this site starts finding that level of deviancy acceptable, I will go elsewhere. I choose to stay here because I find the conversations acceptable, i.e. without foul or obscene language. If you would like a place where anyone can say anything to anyone, then feel free to find one.

 

It goes back to the whole argument of who is a Boy Scout. There are membership requirements (belief in God, etc.) Why are those who want standards the ones who must defend against the "evils" of censorship? I censor everyday. I change channels, decide what book to read, choose what stores to patronize. Once, descriminating taste was a good thing, a compliment. Now it is considered to be beneath scum.

 

Why is censorship bad? I realize that it relates to who is censoring and why, but a school librarian censors everytime she or he decides not to add Hustler to the magazine rack. A parent censors (I hope) what their children watch. I censor myself from saying what I really feel about some things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like you change channels and don't read books you don't like, why can't you just not read threads that you don't like?

 

Why shut off others' speech?

 

Do you not really believe in free speech?

 

Or is that just cool when you find the speech appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheScout, it seems you did not see this poster's comments or it is unlikely that you'd be planting your flag on this particular hill. I don't pretend to know Scouter Terry's mind, but I bet he doesn't support this site so that deranged people can post lewd comments about children in multiple threads all across the board.

 

Left to continue unchecked, stuff like that can quickly kill the whole community as most people would no longer feel like coming here and sifting through piles of that trash to find relevant scouting discussion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it freedom of speech to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre. Is is free speech to use obscene language in the work place? That is a "hostile work environment". That idiot is welcome to say whatever he likes but this is not a reasonable time, place or manner. That is Constitutionally defined free speech.

Aren't you challenging my freedom of speech by critizing my point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa,

 

Perhaps left unchecked that would be the result. But a few small posts are laughable and just make one look like a censor.

 

 

Sheldonsmom,

 

Obviously the constitution has nothing to do with this. This is a private forum and he can do as he wishes. This is not like yelling "fire," nobody could be harmed. Free speech is being able to say whatever you want in a work place. Not letting someone do that is infringing on their freedom of speech . . . duh.

 

I am not challenging your free speech by criticizing you. I don't know where you got that from. We criticize each other all the time. I did not say you can not make such statements. Simply that they are not consistent with free speech.

 

But you never answered my questions"

 

Just like you change channels and don't read books you don't like, why can't you just not read threads that you don't like?

 

Why shut off others' speech?

 

Do you not really believe in free speech?

 

Or is that just cool when you find the speech appropriate?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are limits on free speech. Speech that is done solely to offend or cause harm should not be tolerated. You say that this is not about the Constitution but that is what defines free speech. I believe we have a greater responsiblity to protect our children and ourselves. Free thought is allowed. I did not say that the offender should not be allowed to speak but I do believe that it must be in a reasonable time, place and manner. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. How can we ask our scouts to moderate their speech if we will not moderate speech around them. My point is not that I cannot change threads but that HE has the responsibility to accept the rules here. If he cannot do that, he should not be here. I believe there are natural limits on free speech, even SCOTUS has said that. Do you believe that it is appropriate to use obscene, inflamatory or prejudicial language no matter what the audience? I have chosen this forum as a safe place to air ideas. If the desire is to turn it into a sewer, then I will go elsewhere. But why must those of us who believe in common courtesy be the ones who must limit ourselves. Do you have no self control that you cannot help but spew nonsense? This site is by choice. The rules are clearly stated. If you chose not to follow the rules, then you must leave....not those of use who will abide by the standards set forth by Scouter Terry.

So to clearly answer your questions, I believe that free speech is a right with responsibilities. We must be willing to limit our speech when it is dangerous. Political speech is not what we are addressing here but language that is purposefully inflammatory and degrading. There are natural limits to free speech that has nothing to do with my personal preferences. If one choses to use inappropriate language, one must be willing to accept that sometimes there are consequences. I chose my words carefully. I try not be deliberately offensive; I do not call names; I do not demand that everyone agree with me. But I do ask that others respect me as well. Your free speech ends at my ears. I have the right not to have to listen. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. It doesn't require us to listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I believe there are limits on free speech."

 

Then its not really free then, is it? People should only be free to speak if you agree with what they say.

 

"I believe we have a greater responsiblity to protect our children and ourselves."

 

I wasn't harmed. Were you? Any educated young citizen should know nonsense of he or she sees it.

 

"I did not say that the offender should not be allowed to speak but I do believe that it must be in a reasonable time, place and manner."

 

Its nice for you to place conditions on the speech of others. Placing such conditions can basically take away the ability of one to speak for all practical purposes.

 

"Do you believe that it is appropriate to use obscene, inflamatory or prejudicial language no matter what the audience?"

 

I don't believe it is. I believe in personal liberty however. As long as one does not harm another, I think we should be able to say what we wish.

 

"I have chosen this forum as a safe place to air ideas. If the desire is to turn it into a sewer, then I will go elsewhere. But why must those of us who believe in common courtesy be the ones who must limit ourselves."

 

You don't have to limit yourselves. In any public place however you must be able to accept others. Too bad you want to shut down ideas not consistent with your own.

 

"I believe that free speech is a right with responsibilities. We must be willing to limit our speech when it is dangerous."

 

Limiting speech when dangerous - that has been the call of every dictator throughout history who has done the same.

 

"Political speech is not what we are addressing here but language that is purposefully inflammatory and degrading."

 

But its a slippery slope. And who decides what exactly is political speech and what is not? Should you?

 

"There are natural limits to free speech that has nothing to do with my personal preferences."

 

No there are really no natural limits. Nature does not stop anyone from saying something. Men coerce other men to.

 

"I do not demand that everyone agree with me. But I do ask that others respect me as well."

 

No you just don't ask. You want to shut down someone who speaks things you do not like.

 

"Your free speech ends at my ears. I have the right not to have to listen. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. It doesn't require us to listen."

 

Umm . . . this is the whole point. I can speak. Close your ears. Don't listen. The Constitution says people can speak. If you don't like it, don't listen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was harmed by what was said. Something was stolen from me in what was written. You said that you did not read it, ergo you were not harmed. I was.

You said "As long as one does not harm another, I think we should be able to say what we wish."

That is a limit on free speech.

This is a forum that has rules. If the rules are not enforced, why have them. The rules are spelled out. I am done with this discussion because we are talking about two separate things.

I believe that we are held to the standard of this community and accept the limitations placed upon me by the same. You, apparently, believe that freedom of speech supersedes those rules. You are free to do believe as you wish. So am I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed a new thread. When I looked at the initial post, the content was the kind of thing that I'm certain I would be fired if I had posted it anywhere and it's a distinct possibility that the poster could be prosecuted in this state.

Anyway, I noticed that he already had a number of posts so I clicked on the number to see what the others were. They ALL contained the same kind of content. Lisabob is correct that if Terry allowed this to continue, it would have been a terrible reflection on scouters in general and I am also certain that almost everyone who does visit these forums would have stopped.

 

I sent a message to Terry via the 'contact us' button and in the morning there was no evidence of that person, except some very unsettling memories in my mind.

I anticipated this objection by someone and I also agree with Lisabob that this one is not the one to fight over. Of course if anyone does want to advocate for pedophilia, child rape, and that sort of thing, knock youself out. Just try to express yourself in clinically accurate terms rather than the kind of thing that you might hear, you know....from Dick Cheney. ;)

 

Gwd, I can PM you with the sordid details if you REALLY want to know them. Actually, I won't do that. I can't risk having that kind of thing resident somewhere on my computer. I'll write it by hand on paper and give it to you next time I'm in your area. No, I'll just tell you if you promise not to get angry at me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I was harmed by what was said. Something was stolen from me in what was written."

 

LOL what does that mean? I am quite sure you are being dramatic and you are quite ok.

 

Of course whoever runs this community can make rules. But the bigger question is, should they exist in the form that they do. Do we want to endorse the halting of the freedom of speech like you, or should be do the most to promote liberty.

 

I chose liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×