Title: Free Speech on Freedom4um
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://none
Published: Aug 18, 2006
Author: Christine
Post Date: 2006-08-18 12:01:37 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 14013
Comments: 173

It is time for me to address the issue of "free speech" on Freedom4um. My free speech means that I have 100% control over what I say and everyone else has 0% control over what I say. Now, I understand that there are consequences to exercising my right to free speech, but I still retain 100% control.

Free speech means that I have a right to express or spew thoughts and words of preference, love, hate, or anything with which another may disagree. That said, the rules or policies of this forum, which is my private property (see this forum's Mission Statement), are that members can exercise free speech as long as they (1) do not make a specific threat against an identifiable person or target, (2) earnestly debate or discuss the relevant issues that are part and parcel of this forum's reason-to-be. Let me remind you that these are rules for this forum and, as such, do not necessarily apply off of this forum, as public laws should, in most cases, be even less restrictive than private property rules and regulations.

Again, free speech on this forum means that people can express their love or hatred for anyone, any group, any race, any culture, or any thing, as long as they adhere to the two contingencies listed above. Everyone else on this forum is similarly at liberty to exercise their free speech right to challenge, debate, argue, or agree with the ideas and speech of another.

We will not censor speech as we abhor political correctness and authoritarianism as well as those thought-control and speech-control tyrants who would restrict another's speech. Any limitation on thought and speech constitutes the first level of the destruction of all remaining rights. Afterall, the framers of the Constitution believed that free speech was the most fundamental right to be protected which was the reason that they placed it FIRST in the Bill of Rights.

I do not say this lightly, but anyone who cannot handle the content of another's speech may not be suitable for this forum. Such a person may be better suited for a forum whose moderators control and steer the forum's ideas and speech in a given direction.

Many people have no concept of what Free Speech and Freedom really mean. Do you?

“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"

Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire

Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org

lets face it, do you honestly think that any of these people who talk smack on the internet have the balls to come up and try it with a stranger they meet on the street?

of course not. theyre punk asses. they're not even brave enough to be authentic bullies, excepting their immediate families of course, whom i guarantee they treat like crap.

they're small, tiny, little people who want to make themselves feel important by belittling others, and lack any intellectual firepower to make cogent arguments.

a forum is not a place for the psychotherapy they need and misplaced aggression and anger they are possesed by.

you definitely don't need another 'fill in the blank (minds)' forum like the majority of highschool lockerroom types that make up cyberspace.

i would also recommend beating anyone who disobeys with a nail board, then shoving a bucket of live crabs up their ass...

I went to the park and saw this kid flying a kite. The kid was really excited. I don't know why, that's what they're supposed to do. Now if he had had a chair on the other end of that string, I would have been impressed. -Mitch Hedberg

"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.

It's rather like we can cuss like troopers out on the city sidewalk, but when we come into your home, out of deference to YOUR property rules, we don't.

I do not associate with people nor do I patronize places where words such as "Kike" "Nigger" "Spic" or other racial or ethnic slurs are tolerated. I wouldn't tolerate such language to be used in my physical presence, nor am I willing to be associated with individuals that use such languare on the internet.

Having said that, Christine, you probably should just go ahead and delete my account.

You can put such posters on the Bozo filter. In fact you can Bozo an entire category of articles. This was a request of someone who found certain entire topics offensive and so the forum created this category Bozo for that reason.

This is all done through the "Setup" menu at the top. Then choose "Content Filters". From Content Filters there are places to fill-in names of posters, and to select the categories you wish to Bozo.

There is no Emily Post working as moderator here. Other forum moderators apply their own ideas of what is offensive. FR and LP are perfect examples of uneven moderating. Vicious personal attacks are allowed for the politically aligned.

What this forum has succesfully kept out are those who intentionally disrupt discussions with pointless ad hominem attacks; the tactic of trolls and obvious paid shills.

It isn't possible to make a forum a good experience for everyone all the time. But this forum has tried to do just that, far more than any other forum that I know of.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

I certainly respect your right to freedom of association/non-association. I also respect your request to have your account deleted. I have done as you asked.

It has been a pleasure having you as a poster on this forum. Thank you for your past contributions. Best to you, Soda Pop.

I forgot to say in my previous post to you that if you change your mind, you are welcomed to return.

If “free speech” tolerates lies and hatred and knowingly allows attempts to intentionally mislead the reader, of what positive value is it? That “standard” has no content. Anything goes. As a standard, it’s pure rhetoric.

Does 4um benefit by allowing lies and gossip to be spread across the net? Does society benefit? Does truth matter? Or should the standard be driven by something meaningful? I don’t allow people to come into my home and spit on the floor or defecate on my living room rug. Manners matter.

Does or should free speech include, among other things, expressing an opinion such as this one that may not be popular with the owners?

but delete my account also because the left-wing groupie self-love fest here reminds me too much of Brown Shirts spouting their mutual admiration slogans

the only redeeming feature I found here besides a single nice owner was the music ping list.

What on Earth are you referring to? And by any chance, would you be B'rer Rabbit at LP as well?

Indeed, TRUTH matters. That is the very reason for allowing 100% free speech. As soon as you censor speech, how do we know if and when the truth is being censored; and the bigger question is, WHO gets to decide what is truth and what is lie?

The beauty of the internet and of forums that do not censor speech is that everything is allowed to be stated -- the good, the bad, and the ugly; the lies and the truth. But at least it's all there. It is up to each individual to sort out the lies from the truth, objectivity from subjectivity, accuracy from inaccuracy, fact from fiction. That is true freedom.

It is up to the posters to expose the lies by documenting the truth, not by gagging the liar. Expose the liar for what he is. That's the real job of a free press and that should be the goal of the forum posters. For it to be any other way only permits an environment wherein the biases and agenda of the owners, moderators, or complaining posters become the only "truth" that is heard.

This is the very problem we have with the mainstream media. They censor, filter, and omit. How can the truth possibly be revealed with such practices and policies?

I would rather have all the views, opinions, positions, conclusions, etc. on the table, even if 99% are falsities and lies, than have any type of censorship. At least in that environment, I can search for and hopefully find the few nuggets of truth.

This from the pseudo-scientist who calls George Galloway a terrorist while posting on a forum whose owner refers to Palestinians as PALANIMALS?

I noticed that you've ignored me now twice.. how about explaining your insulting post....

That is what BrerRabbit says about Lebanese Villagers. I would imagine if you are him, the views concerning Islamic and Jewish people not being quite the same as yours' would be why the strange and vague opus here.

I knew it. The hubris and ego gave it away anyhow, I was just hoping to see the gasoline vapor that is this guy do another flash explosion again. Nutz, I never get to have any fun anymore (/teasing}

The boy, the political eunuch extraordinare, the legend in a very small and narrow mind, how will we live without it?

Well, we obviously disagree. I have no wish to wade through a sea of lies and bad manners to find a few nuggets of truth when it would be so easy to be rid of known, repeat-offender liars and those who indulge in personal attacks as argument. Of what value whatever is there in such tolerance?

A reasonable person might believe, for example, that Jews exert too much influence over American foreign policy and various domestic policies, but also grant without demur that Jews had contributed much to the economy, the sciences, and the arts. The details could be debated, but the position is not that of a Hater. The Hater in anti-Semitic form cannot go for ten minutes in private conversation without adverting with hostility to various crimes and conspiracies which he attributes to Jews, and can never concede that Jews every, however inadvertently, have done anything good. He is obsessive about it.

The point being of what positive value whatever are lies and hate? The caveat is, of course, that lies and hate cannot always be identified because they often shroud themselves in supposed fact. But so what? If in doubt, tolerate. If not, ban. It takes judgement and maturity, and if a few "mistakes" are made, so what? We deal in words only here, not actions.

How curious this thread is. While other forums utilize the dreaded purge, 4 achieves self exile by simply asserting that a constitutional right remains intact. My how far some would have us fall.

I know how Brother Bunnie thinks, and no doubt he saw an opportunity with Soda Pop's opus post to try to precipitate an flurry of similar opus posts. He has long been a suck up to Goldi and any harm he could do here he would love and consider it a feather in the traffic cone he wears on his pointy head as a cap.

Unfortunately for him, he is a Nerf ball that can never have that sort of effect in creating an avalanche. ;-D

I would disagree as to direction but I don't have much to add to what I said above.

He lives to promote conservative force in the upper levels of those who run and teach in colleges and universities. He is well educated, and has zero common sense or empathy with anyone not quite what he considers a peer.

Unfortunately for him, his education and job does not prevent him from having zero common sense or social ability. Hope this explains the little bro Bunnie for you better.

lets face it. the thing that bullies never do is stand and fight or argue sensibly. when confronted, they flee.

lacking the ability to stand and debate, they attack mindlessly and flee when confronted.

this is the essence of bully. they never challenge anyone who they fear will best them. instead, they flee with the false dignity of a prostitute who feels slighted because their no one was willing to pay their fee any longer.

Your thoughts have been expressed & noted, as is your right. You wouldn't have it any other way, right?

I, too, would prefer not to wade through a sea of lies. For example, that is exactly what I must do everytime I read my newspaper, or turn on the TV and watch the "news", or listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, etc. ad nauseum.

But, you see, rather than gag the gaggle of "repeat-offender liars" (as you say), I would rather have forums like this one, that you seem to tolerate, as well as other non-censored sites on the internet, to expose these liars and propagandists for what they are, by documenting the truth, rather than having to ask Phaedrus and his ilk about that which should be allowed or not allowed to be posted.

I admit I am deliberately being terrible here in that after long and involved debate and insult exchanges with him on LP, I know how to pull his strings and make his head explode.

I am taking advantage of his opus I must admit, but believe me, he's earned the roasting. You are better off without him, he meant this place no good anyway. You can take that to the bank.

Well, these are omnibus subjects but I'll make a few comments. Rush bills himself as entertainment first so verbosity and stimulation are his forte. I find him hard to take except in small doses and it's been years, I'm sure, since I listened at all. I "click through" O'Reilly and pay very little attention to the MSM -- they're about sensationalism and ratings almost exclusively. I appreciate Rush's and O'Reilly's exposure of leftist lies, along with that function performed by Ann Coulter. Ann goes "over the top" on occasion but so what? Without doubt, she exaggerates, which is an essential element of humor, but if you're suggesting that she is a pathological liar, then you are simply mistaken. The left has begged for these 3 people for decades. Now they have them. I'm both amused and pleased.

You realize, of course, that generally people say the truth as they see it... and many will use those very words when answering questions. Certainly Bill and Hill, or at least some of their relations did....I heard her mother say on more than one occasion, 'he/she answered with the truth as they see it'.

Each of us have to find truth for ourselves. Which is the truth sayer: John said the car is blue while Carol swore it was red?

As Freedom William indicated, one has to assimilate what is presented, chew it over, and determine which is correct.

In the example I provided you above, the police found that the car involved with hitting the pedestrian was painted blue on the left and red on the right.

See how the lens thru which you see things may well not be how I see those same things.

So tell me who is right...........the 'd' or the 'r', or the 'l' and the 'r' in this case? I'm sorry, I should be nice and say, 'you' or 'me' or 'the guy behind the tree' and the other is lying.

ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter: Vicious & Ignorant

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse
Ann Coulter: Her Column
Ann Coulter: Her Excuse Debunked
Ann Coulter: Her Ignorance

Ann Coulter's controversial statement in her column that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is not the least of Coulter's sins.

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse

Coulter claims that she wasn't speaking of all Muslims:

Coulter says her line about "convert them to Christianity" has been misconstrued and was aimed at those celebrating the attacks. "I wasn't talking about Muslims generally," she says. "I was talking about the crazed homicidal maniacs dancing in the streets."
[The Washington Post, October 2, 2001]

Ann Coulter: Her Column

Let's look at the full context in which Coulter made her infamous declaration:

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
[="
" href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010914.shtml">Town Hall, September 14, 2001]

A fair reading could be that Ann Coulter wasn't explicitly referring to all Muslims, but that the "they" referred back to those in the streets of Arab nations who were celebrating the World Trade Center attacks.

Coulter's statement as thus interpreted is, of course, still outrageous.

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse Debunked

While Coulter can maybe get away with parsing her own text here, I wonder if any commentators on this brouhaha have taken what Coulter said in her column together with what she said on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect September 25:

Ann Coulter: What's different about Germany than here, but I think is more similar to Japan and ought to be the model, is that Germany at least had a wealth of civilization prior to the Third Reich and it had a respect for human life, something that was not as noticeable in Japan. And one of the things General MacArthur did, he considered converting the emperor to Christianity. Decided not to because he thought there would be a fight between Catholics and Presbyterians. But General MacArthur called in thousands of Christian missionaries. He distributed thousands of Bibles. It wasn't as much of a success story as the Christian missionaries were in Korea after the Korean War, but you know how it was a success story? They have unprecedented religious freedom there, something that is absent in every Muslim country. In fact --
[="
" href="http://abc.go.com/primetime/politicallyincorrect/transcripts/transcript_20 010925.html">Transcript of Politically Incorrect, September 25, 2001, emphasis added]

This shows Coulter would like to apply her conversion concept to entire countries, such as she believes was done in Japan.

Ann Coulter: Her Ignorance

Moreover, Coulter, as the following dialogue, in relevant portions, makes clear, continues to put her foot in her mouth, with respect to her claims -- begun above -- that Arab countries have never had any "civilization," nor a history of tolerance for other religions: ("Jerry" is producer/journalist Jerry Nachman, and "Eric" is Eric Braeden, star of "The Young and the Restless."):

Eric: We have to allow the tolerant part of Islam to flourish. In other words, establish Democratic institutions and
then --

Ann Coulter: What tolerant part of Islam?

Eric: Islam has an enormous history.

Ann Coulter: Where is that in evidence in the Middle East right now?

Eric: Do you know anything about the history of the Middle East?

Bill: Islam was the most flourishing civilization in the middle ages. When Western Europeans were shivering and cowering and cast behind --

Ann Coulter: Fine, they invented the flying buttress, but they don't have a history of tolerance. That's the point --

Eric: She's absolutely wrong. Excuse me. You are wrong.

Ann Coulter: Well, then, name --

Eric: Historically, you are wrong. In all the Muslim countries, they allow Judaism to flourish and Christianity to flourish.

Ann Coulter: That's not true.

Eric: That is absolutely true.

Bill: Before --

Eric: In these kinds of countries right now, they don't. But in most Muslim countries in the past, they have allowed religious freedom.

Jerry: The Taliban is an exception, correct?

Eric: That's the problem.

Jerry: Ask any Jew who used to live in Iraq or Syria or Egypt until 20 or 30 years ago.

Ann Coulter's ignorance of history is amazing -- ignorance of the flourishing, advanced Arab civilization in the past, and of the religious tolerance toward Christianity and Judaism which was its hallmark.

Ann Coulter: not only vicious, but ignorant.

[I won't even address here Coulter's bloodthirsty analogizing to Germany in World War II in order to support her contention that we should carpet-bomb Afghanistan and not be concerned with civilian casualties. On the inappropriateness of Coulter's analogy, see Ann Coulter's Bombing Germany Analogy Not Applicable to Afghanistan.]

More on the War on Terrorism

UPDATE: In her book Slander -- indeed in most of what she writes and says -- Ann Coulter takes what sounds like the ill-tempered blustering of a barroom drunk and offers it as serious political commentary. But she's no barroom drunk. At least the barroom drunk would be embarrassed the next day and apologize for such remarks

LOL! Just turn on most any AM talk radio show for a rundown of Muslim conspiracies by Mike Streicher-Savage-Wiener and Co for that advertisement. Funny thing is they ignore the Zionist domination of media and government.

well, at least whores are honest traders, so ethically, not morally,, but ethically speaking they are head and shoulders above political hacks.

morally they are still better off, because they are consistent within their professed beliefs. they are not hypocrites, but are true to their beliefs.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and list some of these so-called "known, repeat-offenders" you want Christine and Zipporah to ban, instead of whining like a little girl?

Go on, show us who these evil "liars and attackers" are that you feel need to be silenced.

Truth is an extremely difficult subject. Just because it's difficult does not reduce to that the truth varies from person to person or from day to day. Kinda basic. Some know truth better than others. But again, I've said what I came to say above.

The 3 of them certainly have helped in the destruction of the GOP, one of the goals of the NeoCommies.

Hate, my friend, is an appropriate emotion when directed at people who diligently work to usurp our freedom. We need more of it today, not less.

I have no interest in engaging in a food fight over Ann Coulter. A little balance and perspective is all that I ask.

Ann Coulter is a lying whore that will say whatever she needs to say to keep her masters happy. Your desire for the "truth" should start with seeing her for who and what she really is.

Hate will burn you up like one of those vampires exposed to the sun that you see in the "B" flics.

Good lord..........it honestly sounds like she couldn't get into the pants of the ME fella she was dating.......she's sexually frustrated......and can't seem to understand that there is something about her that is repulsive and revolting to men.......her mouth and her brain for openers! Sheesh........what a witch.

So what are you, a high priest? I don't do hypotheticals, at least not at the moment.

Keeping a job in academia is fraught with political infighting and backstabbing.

You're more than welcome. She lies. She's a media whore. Hence, she's a lying whore.

Well then, shall I go gentle into that good night with the walking lobotomized? No thanks, that isn't part of my DNA sequence, nor is it a part of others I consider friends

Anyone can find objectionable material by someone who is so widely published as Ann Coulter and if you do not appreciate her very cutting humor, then you don't appreciate it. And I am done commenting on Ann Coulter as I would only be repeating myself. Think what you like.

ROTF..........you're not nearly as clever as you believe you are. When you figure out how to get your foot out of your mouth, an answer would be of interest....you know....the truthseekers here and around the world would like to be able to assimilate what they see on the board, chew it around, and come up with the truth as they see it.

No doubt some would stand alongside the weasel worder, but there are way too many folks here who actually do this and will come to the conclusion they've heard this 'I don't do hypothetical' bullshit from those who can't answer and face the truth that what they have been saying is B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T trying to be passed off as merely processed steer manure.

No, in your post #34, you said you want certain "repeat offender" posters banned.

Name them, and explain why. Or are you afraid of what an asshole it will make you look like in front of the rest of us?

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."

I couldn't care less how I look to you or anyone else here. And why should you be anything but ignored?

Someone come up with the words to a new song Burning Bandwith to be sung to the country tune Burning Bridges.

How disappointing........you were so cocksure of yourself as it regards liars and the truth and banning of those repeat offenders. And yet you can't be bothered to even toss an answer out there; or *gasp*

whisper that you perhaps spoke too hastily?

I'm not the one whining for certain posters to be banned, you are. Name them, if you've got the stones.

What's funny about "the benefits of local fascism"? It just got Christopher Bollyn beat up and arrested in Chicago.

to attempt anything else, is a profane contradiction and the insignia of insanity, without hyperbole.

it is as a farmer who loves and is responsible for his crop, yet refuses to remove the worms that eat his corn. then he blames the fates, the gods, the spirits, the universe, the divine plan of ghosts he has never seen, but never blaming himself for the result- that his field has turned to dust and his corn is gone, and the worms he would not remove have multiplied beyond enumeration, like the grains of sand of the sea. a promiscious love is one of no value. and to hate that which attempts to destroy love, life, liberty, is not only correct, is it vital to furtherance of existence of an organism, either political or otherwise. consider, microcosmically, the white cells of the body, which must destroy that which threatens life in order for the organism to survive. it is not anger or hate that causes the problems, but false love, ...as the false love of a farmer who refuses to remove the worms who destroy the crops he claims to love while he watches them being destroyed. a false love, indistinguishable in the end result from hate itself. judging the tree by its fruit, so to speak then. tsarion states this is due to ego fixation, in the extent one will refuse to acknowledge the darkness, in fear, remaining in the 'light', which ironically, gives free reign to the darkness.

if one contemplates it...in fact, a righteous anger, a cleansing flame, is a repeated theme throughout spiritual teaching.

i am always amused at the christians who speak of christ as this man of peace. i ask them then of the braiding of cords, and whipping the moneychangers in the temple, overturning their tables, etc...a righteous anger, a cleansing flame. today, such activity is vandalism against the state, or in a temple, surely religious bigotry.

so, then, it is not proper, somehow, to hate evil, to hate child molestors, to hate corruption and falsehood, to hate that which seeks the destruction of self and family? to seek its end and elimination, as a white cells seeks destruction of diseased cells or else have the organism as a whole perish?

this is the bumpersticker philosophy new age drivel that is thoughtless and the handmaiden of luciferianism....an agent and catalyst for evil that diguises itself as goodwill and love.

and all evil has been allowed to manifest and grow by those who did not hate it. not indicating violence, but despising it for its very nature, as gandhi did, or christ.

those who say hate has no place against evil have confessed that there is no value to love.

The same can be said for Communism, Zionism and the Fractional Reserve banking that's fed both.

very well said...there's a poem about righteous anger that i've posted before and i'll be darn if i can find it again and i can't remember its author. do you know it?

BTW, is this piece the result of someone trying to talk you into "moderating" F4 a little bit more?

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in ...into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
-OBL
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William K Clifford

There are many kinds of hatred, as many kinds of fire; And some are fierce and fatal with murderous desire; And some are mean and craven, revengeful, sullen, slow, They hurt the man that holds them more than they hurt his foe.

And yet there is a hatred that purifies the heart: The anger of the better against the baser part, Against the false and wicked, against the tyrant's sword, Against the enemies of love, and all that hate the Lord.

O cleansing indignation, O flame of righteous wrath, Give me a soul to feel thee and follow in thy path! Save me from selfish virtue, arm me for fearless fight, And give me strength to carry on, a soldier of the Right!

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Whose judgement wouldst thou use to determine the veracity of the words? You admitted yourself that lies and hate can not be readily identified.
Your post is an oxymoron. [You also contradicted yourself.]

Example: A few here believe that commercial jet contrails are "chem trails." Are they lying? Of course not. The deceivers on the chemtrail sites may be lying for profit, but those who believe them may simply be misguided and deceived. Besides, nobody can know the real truth about this because TheStateInc plays it too close to the vest. So we disagree. Who is lying? Answer: Nobody.

Therefore, tell me please...whose judgement wouldst thou use to dtermine the veracity of a post?

Free speech can not be restricted. This now fascist country began its spiral to political correctness and repudiation of the Constitution years ago and we've paid the price with a new link in our chains every day. It is the one thing that, thankfully, is still sacred here on 4UM.

If it were to deteriorate to the level of an LP or FR, I would have the choice to fill my bozo list first, and thereafter to leave..which I would. That is also everyone's choice here.

Rarely do I see any ad hominems here. LP is FULL of them, the most intellectually and creatively lethargic slur of which is the term "moonbat."

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Yes, but I wouldn't characterize it as trying to talk me into anything. The correspondence(s) did, however, make me realize that I needed to clarify our position so that everyone knows what to expect as far as our admin moderation.

This would probably be a good time to remind all that we have provided a bozo filter as well as a category filter so that each member may self moderate. ;)

Even with that, it seems the actual problem is that people are speaking of things that others wish them to remain silent about, not merely to be protected from seeing them. For the record, I don't use bozo filters, though I have been tempted.

You and Zip are doing God's work, christine. My thanks to both of you for providing this forum.

IOW, the issue isn't about getting the truth out, as the argument was presented, but rather making sure that the truth doesn't get out, because it makes certain people uncomfortable and their cause undefendable.

yes, that's the one. it's Righteous Wrath, not Anger. that's the reason i couldn't find it again.

I believe that's what's called "submissiveness," kind of like a dog who urinates in the presence of the dominant dog.

Welcome to 4 DP we're sure glad you're here. Our house is your house so please feel free to shit in all the corners.

DP is famous for his cowardly little hit and run posts which seldom make a lick of sense.

Once you get rid of bluegrass, then free speech will be great for the rest of us!

(Surely you didn't mean to include that vicious anti-Semite under your free speech umbrella, did you? ;) )

And so many here were banned at LP and FR for simply stating their opinions; and in some cases banned for posting an article from MSM that did not agree with the moderators' beliefs.

"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Freedom means free to say and think what you want, and if someone can tell me that I can't question the role many Jews are playing in our foreign policy, they're censoring words and thoughts, they're controlling the dialogue, which controls the outcome.

I am appalled that so many topics on so many boards are simply not allowed. You cannot cross those lines. That's why the Imus assassination was so appalling, too.

I'm bumping this to the top because of some dissention taking place among some members regarding some posts by others which are being perceived as threatening. I haven't seen a post that I believe violates my contingency #1 in the particular thread (No specific threat against an identifiable person or target). This was first written in 2006. I would like to invite discussion about Free Speech on Freedom4um again.

I think I'm out of the loop on this one, as I am not familiar with the thread causing concern.

Perception of a real threat on this forum seems a little paranoid to me. I haven't heard of anyone on this forum ever suffering physical harm as the result of a dispute here, though I have witnessed bruised egos on rare occasions. (Sometimes these are my favorite threads).

This forum is the only one I'm aware of that actually affords free speech, hardly ever mentioning it, while consistently observing it.

If someone feels physically threatened maybe that person should post an article exposing it, and let the forum weigh in on the situation.

And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived. ... Lysander Spooner

The disproportionate influence wielded by Jews in the U.S. Govt. (and most others) is so obvious that it begs explanation. To ban the conversation is to ignore the obvious problem and by so doing refuse any attempt at resolution.

Silence regarding such subjects is tantamount to cowardice. The ironic thing to me is that most of the people speaking out on this subject do so knowing that they may be called names or branded a bigot by others less informed but more prolific. Problems never get resolved simply by ignoring them.

No subject should be off limits, no opinion outlawed, no restraint on explanatory offerings. Extending the dialogue rather than limiting it seems reasonable to me.

Probably something to do with Obama's racist pastor receiving death threats in Houston. Like David Duke doesn't receive daily death threats, and he is mild compared to that nut. People need to get a life. Obama is the same as Hillary and McNuts. They all do the bidding of their masters the Jews.

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States." ---Daniel Webster, US Senate, Feb. 15, 1833

You've made it clear from the start, that this forum limits speech as little as possible.

That doesn't mean posters must always write everything that is on their mind. They are free to do so, but there may be consequences. And note there are a few limits. Not many posts have been deleted, but a few have, that crossed over these very generous lines that have been drawn.

'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz

I don't threaten anyone even though Cynicom and Tom007 make fun of me all the time. However, being that I am of an advanced race, very highly evolved, and have a beachball-sized head with a 40-pound brain, I am far beyond their taunts.

There are case histories of Neurodegenerative Diseases that have been caused from eating too much rodent meat (squirrels).

tom and I are wondering if you might want the Vet to check to see if you are growing a bushy tail yet. hehehehehehehehehe

"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx

Better watch it, my brain is starting to throb right now, and I can't control it!

Nothing to concern oneself about on that thread. [Screw Obama and his gun grabbing supporters].

After we get the duel reinstated we can have a party in Austin and really settle accounts !

Yeah, just look at you and the other frauds/cons that have done your best to turn Freedom4um.com into the CFR's Obama4um.com !!

I don't know what I'll do come election day: stay home or vote RP however I can.

I have my local GOP critter strongly considering leaving that wing of the CFR Party and, for the time being at least, going Independent.

I'll show up to support him and see what's available on the ballot outside of the Establishment.

I'm not voting for anyone that isn't actively running for POTUS come election day...including Ron Paul.

There's always tequila shots....last man/woman wobbling on their feet gets bragging rights.

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States." ---Daniel Webster, US Senate, Feb. 15, 1833

What's "Free" about Open Borders, One World Monopolist, North American union gun-grabbing World Kyoto Tax and Spend Communism...from a Liberation Theology congregation member that pretends to be a "Christian".

I don't know where I saw it first..."Jesus Christ, because He changed my heart"®

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Beyond that counselor, one of your better endeavors, so much so that you are to be commended for honesty aforethought. As for Bozo, he is not my best friend. My education in life came from LISTENING to others and reading what they have to say, as everyone adds something, intentional or not.

Everyone here, without exception, has a problem with government, whether they recognize it or not. The degree of dissent may vary but no one is totally happy. That is one small tie that binds.

I tend to agree, but there are times when a troll disrupts a thread with so many personal attacks that it is impossible to follow the thread's real discussion w/o a bozo filter.

I even read those people until they arrive at the point of being absurd, then I give them short shrift. Usually they do not stay long and move on to more fertile ground.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

thank you for your thoughtful response. i believe in order for a comment to qualify as a threat to government officials, it must be stated as an intent to perform a specific act against a named person or target. if you or anyone knows of a case that was prosecuted where this was not true, i would like to know about it.

JT cited the Watts vs the United States case here where the SC ruled that such speech is given the widest possible protection even if it implies physical threat.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Unless you're drinking in a bar and telling a joke to a friend which concerns a burning bush. Then they send you to prison for 37 months.

i'm certain i'm already on a list but not because i'm the owner of this website.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Original Link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning.bush.ap (Removed from CNN website)

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (AP) -- A man who made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced Friday to 37 months in prison.

Richard Humphreys of Portland, Oregon was convicted in September of threatening to kill or harm the president and said he plans to appeal. He has said the comment was a prophecy protected under his right to free speech.

Humphreys said he got into a barroom discussion in nearby Watertown with a truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized the president was to visit Sioux Falls the next day and told police Humphreys talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it.

"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," Humphreys testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."

I believe that Neil addressed that problem some while ago - I don't know if there was a fix, or not...

www.speedtest.net will let you know just how well you're connecting at any given time.

She crossed that threshold when she turned the sight on...maybe when she bought the domain name!

What gets me is that there was actually 12 citizens who decided he was guilty of the crime he was charged with. I can't find the original article that gives the whole story, but it was overwhelmingly obvious that the guy was just trying to be funny.

The first substantive threat to government was the institution of the 2nd Amendment ... a direct threat intended to be understood by all of those in government.

The minute we have to worry about discussing the actual intent of the 2nd amendment, is the minute we need to exercise the right it protects.

Only if it's Patron Anejo. I drink tokillya once a year and I'm always amazed at how much of it I can hold...

Have you considered registering your displeasure with our quislings at the NAU Summit in NOLA the 21st and 22nd of April?

YT I hope you have never found any of my ridiculous postings about you offensive.

Of course not. I'm too highly evolved to be offended, what with my beach-ball sized brain and all!