Freedom of speech, get a clue

“I have been amused at the trolls and the subsequent comments about freedom of speech. The freedom of speech comments are amusing because of the ignorance that is showing up. The constitution prohibits the government from restricting your speech, that is the government. I have the right to limit your speak if you are in my house or on my web site. The constitution does not require that I or anyone else provide a platform for you to speak from. Get your own platform. If the webmaster of this site or another site chooses to limit what you say or how you say it, it is NOT a violation of your constitutional rights. It is their right as the owners of the site to determine what is on that site. It is editing the content to match their standards and the goals of the site. It is not censorship. The right to free speech is not the right to be heard. No one is required to listen to you. If you don’t want a webmaster editing your speech, get your own darn site.”

“...someone needs a hug...”

“thepoliticallycorrectbackpacker.com”

“will be disappointed on

thepoliticallycorrectbackpacker.com”

“mtngal's post is almost identical to those from the other site”

“The problem mtngal is "cut off point"? Who decides the standard?? How do you measure the standard??

In the privacy of you own home, you have the absolute right to set your own standard. But on a board that invites a multitude of people to gather, how do you set a subjective standard????”

“Absolutely spot on, Mtn Gal.

For those who were lucky enough to miss it, I politely told someone I found one of their posts offensive. Their response, complete with name-calling and mumblings about freedom of speech, was intellectually absurd.”

“Damn, chili, leave her alone, for cryin' out loud. She'll put a hex on ya, or somethin'.”

“On thepoliticallycorrectbackpacker.com, any speech at all will be considered offensive. There will be no offensive posts because there will be no posts.

Sometimes simplicity is so easy, and so comforting.”

“BTW, I think Matt does an excellent job at running this site. His degree of censorship appears to have the degree of tolerance to avoid cries of "supression of free speech".”

“Hmmmm....Chili36 is from Tennessee

Matt is from Tennessee

have you two met by any chance?”

“I think there are only one or two people who have ever met Matt. I am not one of them.

Matt is a phantom.......”

“Chili - In my home or on my website it is the same, the owner decides and sets the standard anyway and for any reason she wants. Even if I invite your to speak, I can stop you or if written, delete it, if it is done in my home, on my site, in my newspaper or the bumper of my car. I thought you where a lawyer?”

“Mtn Gal is Matt's WOMAN.”

“Mtn Gal, it is censorship, its just not a violation of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At backpacker.com, the controlling powers have a double standard. If you espouse left wing ideas, you are allowed to remain if you break the rules. i.e. Goretex. If you espouse right wing views, you are banned even if you don't break the rules, i.e. kybackpacker. When the political & ideological content sways who gets censored, it reflects poor journalistic ethics by the controlling powers.”

“did i miss something? was a thread axed?”

“Well said prosecutor. My point being that "Free Speech" as defined by the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court being the bench mark. Any thing less is censorship. Mtg gal, I did not advocate that Matt couldn't censor, the point I was making is that censorship will always involve a subjective standard that can, and will, result in the application of a dubious standard.

On this board, with all of the various contributors, how do you set a standard? Your standard or my standard? Granted, it is Matt's standard that applies and he allows the standard to approach, but not quite reach the benchmark set by the definition of "Free Speech". I think he does a great job on that.

However, anything short of the absolute standard is still censorship and in effect will retard the absolute free flow of information, ideas and philosophies. Expression of intent and belief is an individual matter and is best exercised in an atmosphere of no censorship.”

“I gotta agree with everything Mtn. Gal says on that first post.

Its not unconstitutional to censor what comes into your bulletin board. That doesn't make you immune from criticism for your censorship policies.

Furthermore, if someone claims to be organizing a "community bulletin board" or calls people who post "members", then they are certainly open to criticism for how they run the board. There are lots of blame-worthy things that are not unconstitutional. For example if I owned a newspaper, I could decide to only print letters to the editor that I agreed with (I might be a double dealing hypocrite, but I wouldn't be unconstitutional).”

“I concur with the esteemed Mr. Pedxing.”

“I can't take any more of these pointless arguments.

The fact is that Matt runs a relatively open board. Limitations are few, but there are limitations.

Matt does not spend every waking moment of his life policing the board. Most people seem to sense the parameters and operate within them. Some bend the parameters, but usually within bounds of the standards Matt has set.

I doubt anybody on this board agrees with me on everything. Some probably agree with me on nothing, and some think I'm a pain in the a$$ who should leave the board yesterday.

Some people disagree with Matt and have made no bones about their feelings. That is their perogative.

Matt has not censored criticism of others or himself. He's let it stand, allowing unfettered discourse.

When people have crossed the line of human decency, Matt has responded when he was made aware of the situation.

Based on the standards Matt has set, I do not see how anybody could imply that their right to free speech has been infringed upon on this board. Conversely, the critics who would enforce a stricter standard have had their say. Nobody has robbed them of their right to criticise.

There is, ultimately, the consumer's mantra, Caveat Emptor.

Those who think standards should be higher can go elsewhere. Those who think standards should be looser can go elsewhere or start their own website.

As John Prine says, "It's a big ol goofy world."

The standards of this board are what they are. If you choose to post here, to read others' posts, you accept those standards. If you don't accept those standards, that is your right, and it's your right to seek out a board that fits your standards.

But it is the height of arrogance to attempt to enforce your standards on those who choose to use this board as they find it.”

“Those who think standards should be higher can go elsewhere. Those who think standards should be looser can go elsewhere or start their own website.


I disagree. What that implies to me is that we all have to think alike or go our separate ways.

The diversity of opinion is what attracts me to this board.

If I only listened to what I agree with, I would have to talk to myself.”

“I certainly ain't trying to get Matt to change his standards. However, if I wanted to do so - I think it would be totally appropriate for me to try to persuade him to do so, and to try to persuade anyone else I could in taking up my cause. He may have a legal and constitutional right to censor me - but why in Pennsylvania would I want to censor myself - when I'd be making an argument I believed in???”

“Misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance... I see it here every day.

In the world of arbitration, we use past practice to argue matters that deal with ambiguity. As long as Matt is consistent in his censorship, and displays sound resoning for his just cause, he's being fair.

Yes, I'm taking the medication right now.”

“He typically doesn't censor ideas... just specific words. I think the point I was trying to make is this

You have NO right to stop what I say if I offend you (excepting if it is in your house or business or website even)

If you get offended by the contents of political threads don't read them, if you are offended by other peoples sense of humor appreciate the difference and move on.

As for your assertion that people are clueless because they spout "Freedom of Speech" all over the place unclench a little.

Learn to take things in context, that much stress is bad for your heart”

“I'm a little unclear on why there is so much discussion about Matt and how he regulates the contents of his website.

This whole discussion came up because of a thread which had nothing to do with Matt, or censorship. The issue was not whether Matt has a right to control the contents of his website, the issue was whether we, as members (in the informal sense) of this community, have the right to have a discourse about what we find to be offensive.

And I don't think it is reasonable or practical to suggest that such discussion is "arrogant," to suggest that instead of having the discussion, people should just leave. If that were the "solution" then no one, anywhere, would lobby for higher standards. The inevitable result would be that all discussion boards would quickly go to the "lowest common denominator."”

“Matt is not a phantom. They tracked em down and found out where he lives for God's sake. Why the heck do you think he let's them post whatever they want?

Ü”

“Some folks are born to b!tch.

What thread started the broken record this time?”

“actually, hpm, I didn't take this thread as a b!tch session,,,I thought is was more of a discussion about the variance that censorship can lead to....

I continue to maintain that Matt does an exceptional job in keeping that threshold very close to the level of absolute "Free Speech".”

“I personally have found only 1 or 2 things on this board totally offensive. One of them posted by 'he who shall not be named' in Canada. The other, I can't even remember now.”

“HPM, it started here.”

“I don't understand why people get so upset that others are socially challenged.

Cooterpack, or whatever his or her name is doesn't deserve all this attention.”

“If I may ask, what was cut from the threat??”

“Biz, I'm not upset, and the discussion isn't about any one person's postings.

We're just having a little discussion, dialogue, debate. Just having some fun.

If this topic doesn't interest you, feel free to go get back on the bus. :-)”

“Nothing was cut. That's why it has nothing to do with freedom of speech or censorship.”

“In my humble opinion, Matt should censor trolls (or regulars who routinely stick their feet in their mouths) only when they completely interfere with the workings of the site. Like Tarp Rat's repeated postings that kill threads, or hewhoshallnotbenamed's NUMEROUS postings of Hate which were obviously intended to sabotage the site.

But to censor the occasional crude, inflammatory, or derogatory comment (which many here are guilty of making) is to censor our thoughts. If we do that, we will never get the opportunity to change their minds. And isn't that what people go to a board for? To be exposed to new ideas? If we were all satisfied with what we know about backpacking, politics, guns, horses, dogs and doo doo on the trail, why would we come here?

A few specific examples of people actually Becoming enlightened, being challenged to think differently, or actually changing their minds (about everything from backpacking to Muslim students entering the country) come to mind.

MANY people have also apologized later for their tasteless and/or inappropriate remarks.”

“NOW, back to the bus!

Ü”

“The existance of this thread is evidence that a b!tch session like I referenced exists.

Chili I truely believe that you and a handful of others here are fully capable of maintaining an intelligent discussion on this subject and many others that involve high degees of theory and subjectivity. I don't consider this thread to have degenerated to that as of yet. (Give it time)

Many of the others merely want to complain and slide to the lowest common denominator. It's obvious who falls into what camp. And the link Fritz provided is an example of what I was referring to.

It's a free country.
You can say what you want, where allowed.
Others can say you are a jerk, where allowed.
Damage my reputation and I can take you to court.

Balance.”

“what?? you have a reputation???


j/k

;)”

“On second thought, maybe we just come here because we're bored.

Board, bored. Coincidence?”

“I think not!”

“Interesting theory, biz....

You might be onto something there.”

“All kidding aside, yes I do.”

“HPM, we respect you (and your reputation) and that's why we come to this board. To hear your thoughts.”

“Now THAT is hilarious!”

“Ü

OK, I come here because I CRACK ME UP”

“I had not read that thread Fritz flagged after the first purile post. I see the point now. I think whoever cooterpack is has shown us what we need to know about him or her.

That one crossed the bounds of decency. That was the kind of thinking that Hitler played off.”

“just a little humor, HPM....

I can tell by your posts and your dedication to family that your reputation is untarnished...”

“Yes, I think we should disect his brain and rewire it?”

“Disect whose brain?”

“cooter pack!”