AGAIN..........is debate dead on this message board ??? !!!

Yes. So much worse than the Holocaust.

 

You are missing the point. What do you mean "....I am entitled to my view but you are not entitled to yours? " Huh?? That is the point. With freedom of speech you, or anyone else ARE entitled to express your views as long as it is not inciting violence towards others.

Your post does not make sense. Also if you read my other post on RIghteous indignation, you will see what I am saying about faux outrage.

Actually I am not saying it is 'faux' but do belive it is wrong for the reasons I outlined.


Above all else I am not trying to get you banned for having a different view or one I disagree with which some on here are saying should happen to the OPoster .

 

The irony of that statement is amazing!

First you state that there's a big difference between Nazi Germany and misinformed tosh on a BB, but then state that banning people from a message board is "Fascism at it's worse"!

 

Oops...wrong choice of words. You are right - Sorry. Censorship is a slippery slope though.

 

Tekky, free speech/censorship etc. relates to what the law allows you to do. I wouldn't let people in my house who said offensive things; no-one could claim that they have a right to enter my property under the banner of 'free speech' and the same applies here. People have a legal right to free speech but not a legal right to post on Gally's message board.

Disclaimer: I'm not calling for anyone to be banned, nor have I ever done so during my time posting on here.

 

With the greatest respect, I'm not missing any point you, or any other poster, is making. I'm simply applying the same rules to everyone.
People who have alternative viewpoints to Young Nudge have expressed them, without the need to be subjected to any criticism for doing so (provided everyone stays within the forum rules). Both parties then have 'freedom of speech'.

 

I've never said that. but you carry on making things up if it fits your agenda. but it just goes to prove whats been said

 

@Tekky, a question for you as there seems to be two issues here.

Are you a) against people calling for others to be banned or b) against people being banned?

If it is a) then you yourself are trying to stop people having free speech - even if they exercise that free speech to say 'ban him'. They can say whatever they like as long as it isn't illegal or inciting violence remember, as 'ban him' does neither of those then it should be within their rights to say.

If it is b) then that is up to Gally/the admins to decide what they want to see written on their message boards. Their board, their rules. Same happens everywhere in all walks of life, both in the real world and online. People and businesses have rules and expectations and those who don't meet them will be asked to/made to leave if they have entered someone else's property (as we all have here), they have no obligation to withold the laws of free speech.

 

The key point to remember is that with rights come responsibilities. Every right in the European Convention on Human Rights has a qualification (except freedom from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment). Thus there is a right to life unless life is taken in self-defence, to suppress riot or insurrection, or in pursuit of a lawfully prosecuted war.

Young Nudger should have his free speech, but it ought to be limited if it is abusive or gratuitously offensive to others. Come on Gally - let's have a Forum Convention!

 

JD I take it the "no obligation to withhold the laws free speech" is a typo. Surely you mean "uphold"

a) Absolutely not. That is the whole point. Short of people inciting violence to others, free speech should prevail but trying to ban people they can say it and they have the right, but equally I have the right to argue that they are wrong. Nowhere have I said they should not post that opinion just that I strongly disagree with that stance.

b) In any case my point on free speech does not relate specifically to this board . I do agree with you that, up to a point, someone who sets up a forum have the right to remove posts or block posters that may cause them legal or financial problems e.g. copyright materials, libellous statements naming specific people etc.. However that is not the same as censoring anyone whose opinions differ from your own which you seem to believe would be fine. That said I do not think the the BB Administrators.. Gally et al would follow that path and certainly are intelligent enough not to be influenced by a small clique calling for a ban.

I do think the removal, or freeze on certain posts is a measured and correct response in many cases.

 

Very fair and well reasoned.

 

Thanks for your reply, yes, I did mean to say 'uphold'.

In the case of b) I would go further and say that they have the right to remove any posts, not just those that causes legal or financial problems. They could ban someone just because they don't like their name or because they want to ban 5 random people a day, they can censor any opinions they want. It wouldn't make it a nice place to be and I imagine people would stop using it (potentially making the forum empty and so bring closed down or the rules being reformed) but they certainly have that right.

 

Ah! the voice of reason again.

So, I would appreciate your views. Do you think reading the original post dispassionately it justifies a ban and the very strong reaction to it from one or two posters. I ask, because quite a few, including myself, whilst finding the post insensitive naive and misguided, cannot see anything that warrants a ban and responded objectively . I simply do not understand the reaction from one or two specific peope who resort to name calling and personal criticism of other posters.

Perhaps I am wrong.

 

Denying freedom of speech is the first step towards a totalitarian regime. I have already acknowledged that "fascism at it's worse" was a poor choice of words and apologised for that.

My point being that the regimes in Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin was only possible because all opposition had been silenced. Censorship and denial of the right to express opinion, regardless of how unpalatable that is,when combined with state propaganda is the first step towards Totalitarianism.

The real irony for me is that some people on here want people banning but purport to be empathetic towards others ad rather than trying to either understand or change their viewpoint just resort to insults and attempt to silence them. A you can tell with the examples history shows us that Extreme left wing politics are no different in the long run to extreme right wing politics in the final outcome.

 

Of course they could but, as you say, no-one would use it, and it would be pretty sterile.

Admin!!! Surely this deserves a ban for inciting bans !!!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

Admin can do whatever they like, it's their forum, provided they don't break the law. They're on a hiding to nothing, because whatever they do there will always be someone criticising them. It's impossible to please everyone. I wouldn't do their voluntary work if you paid me.

 

Erm... http://bbs.barnsleyfc.org.uk/showth...n-the-street&p=1868817&viewfull=1#post1868817

 

This was made 16 years ago, still stays with me... Have a look from both sides..


[video=youtube;_EA9bvCockM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EA9bvCockM[/video]

 

If that's the one about Voltaire, Tekktyke I can't see anything in that. But I'm not setting myself up as any sort of arbiter here, simply reminding YN that free speech should never be regarded as untrammelled. Freedom of expression may be curtailed in the interests of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, for example!