Is the internet facilitating or impeding freedom of speech?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Nowhere have I stated that "anyone providing a platform for expressing opinions must provide that platform to anyone who wants to use it". Your words not mine. What I have said is that by imposing rules, regulations and penalising cyber-interaction many sites are suppressing FOS. Many forums (and newspapers) do not allow FOS, by creating this thread I am pointing this out. If fora and newspapers did allow FOS then they would cease inhibiting it.

You have called it a "right". Without enforcement, it's not a "right", it's "wishful thinking". So are you calling for enforcement that would ensure that every site and newspaper owner must publish whatever they are asked to?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

That means that under the UDHR you are free to exerecise FOS wherever you want. I know this is a point you are having extreme difficulty with, and for reasons known to no-one other than yourself.

Wherever? Really? Then why do you keep saying I can't paint the front of your house? What about the front of a newspaper?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

A site where everyone makes a contribution to the maintenance of the site could facilitate FOS with unmoderated fora. I was on an unmoderated site for 2 years, and whilst the interaction could be brutal at times, it provided bonafide freedom of expression, and there were no unfair petty warnings/infractions/bans for speaking your mind and telling another poster what you thought of him.

People who fear freedom of speech and expression are well protected in moderated fora, as are the site owners; but the down side to this is that the restrictions imposed on cyber-interaction stifle the expression of honest and open opinion.

I don't fear it, I just don't have any interest in one. I've seen unmoderated forums, and once they grow to any size, they're an unmitigated mess.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Telling someone what you think of them does not necessarily mean "insulting" them. That is just your negative interpretation.

In that vein, is it your position that suppressing honest, open and direct opinions facilitates authentic discourse?

You're calling for total free speech, not only "honest, open and direct opinions"

oscarBravo

You didn't answer any of my questions.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Telling someone what you think of them does not necessarily mean "insulting" them. That is just your negative interpretation.

Telling someone what you think of them, if your opinion of them is negative, is - pretty much by definition - insulting them.

In that vein, is it your position that suppressing honest, open and direct opinions facilitates authentic discourse?

Authentic discourse is possible without expressing a negative opinion of the person you're conversing with. You're free to express a negative opinion of their opinion, if you do it in a civil manner.

If you're asking to be allowed to express a negative opinion in an uncivil manner, you'll have to explain why this privately-owned website is required to play host to your lack of manners.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

You have called it a "right". Without enforcement, it's not a "right", it's "wishful thinking". So are you calling for enforcement that would ensure that every site and newspaper owner must publish whatever they are asked to?

I haven't called it "a right". The UDHR has called it a "human right". With or without "enforcement" FOS had been determined and indeed widely accepted as a "universal" human right, hence the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". I am calling for cyber-property owners to recognise, accept and adhere to human rights by permitting FOS.

Wherever? Really? Then why do you keep saying I can't paint the front of your house? What about the front of a newspaper?

Your record is stuck in this groove, and as already stated, it is a non-argument. Fronts of houses are not designed for spray painting your views on, and like many internet forums, the press does not offer freedom of speech. But perhaps it should.

I don't fear it, I just don't have any interest in one. I've seen unmoderated forums, and once they grow to any size, they're an unmitigated mess.

Chaos is the beauty of the internet. People, usually megalomaniacs, authoritarian personalities and anal retentives have been attempting to regulate it and control it by imposing (their) conditions upon cyber-interaction. If you fear the uncertainty and unpredictability that freedom provides, which you evidently do, you shall oppose unmoderated fora.

You're calling for total free speech, not only "honest, open and direct opinions"

I'm calling for the UDHR pertaining to freedom of speech to be recognised and adhered to, and that includes "honest, open and direct opinions".

Why are you so afraid of free speech? Do you feel threatened by people who express opinions you disagree with? Do you feel threatened by people who disagree with your opinions? Perhaps you perceive someone who expresses an independent opinion on your views, personality type or posting style as committing an "ad hominem attack", and feel the need to report it?

There's a reason for your fear of and opposition to freedom of speech. Perhaps you'd like to explain what exactly that reason is?

Of course you're under no obligation, and could instead continue with your trite house theme.

Bertie Woot

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't answer any of my questions. Telling someone what you think of them, if your opinion of them is negative, is - pretty much by definition - insulting them. Authentic discourse is possible without expressing a negative opinion of the person you're conversing with. You're free to express a negative opinion of their opinion, if you do it in a civil manner.

If a person displays a pretentious manner, and I refer to them as "pretentious"; is that negative and/or insulting? Or is that just accurately describing someone in a civil manner? Or other?

If you're asking to be allowed to express a negative opinion in an uncivil manner, you'll have to explain why this privately-owned website is required to play host to your lack of manners.

Expressing an opinion on someone has little to do with being civil or uncivil. By calling a pretentious person "pretentious" I am neither being positive or negative, civil or uncivil; I am accurately describing someone as they are, and a privately owned website should permit the expression of honest, accurate and valid opinions.

Don't you think?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I haven't called it "a right". The UDHR has called it a "human right". With or without "enforcement" FOS had been determined and indeed widely accepted as a "universal" human right, hence the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". I am calling for cyber-property owners to recognise, accept and adhere to human rights by permitting FOS.

It is not a widely accepted universal right that you have FOS on other people's property. There is no law which says cyber-property owners must provide an FOS platform to whoever wants it.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Your record is stuck in this groove, and as already stated, it is a non-argument. Fronts of houses are not designed for spray painting your views on, and like many internet forums, the press does not offer freedom of speech. But perhaps it should.

Where in Article 19 does it say only media expressly designed for the purpose of communication? The front of your house is a medium whether you like it or not. Just like an internet forum is a medium. However, it is your house, so I don't have the right to deface it in a manner you do not want. Similarly, you do not have a right to "deface" someone else's online forum in a manner that they do not want

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm calling for the UDHR pertaining to freedom of speech to be recognised and adhered to, and that includes "honest, open and direct opinions".

Why are you so afraid of free speech? Do you feel threatened by people who express opinions you disagree with? Do you feel threatened by people who disagree with your opinions? Perhaps you perceive someone who expresses an independent opinion on your views, personality type or posting style as committing an "ad hominem attack", and feel the need to report it?

There's a reason for your fear of and opposition to freedom of speech. Perhaps you'd like to explain what exactly that reason is?

Of course you're under no obligation, and could instead continue with your trite house theme.

I already explicitly said I do not fear it, nor do I feel threatened by it. I just have no interest in a forum that fails to reach a minimum level of discussion, a level which the vast majority of unmoderated forums descend far, far below. When someone commits an ad hominem attack, the level of discourse drops. They have no place in a reasoned discussion. So I'm here, on a forum which does not permit such attacks.

And yet, you're here also. On this "closed society". Even though you apparently have access to an unmoderated forum which meets your requirements. Why?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

It is not a widely accepted universal right that you have FOS on other people's property. There is no law which says cyber-property owners must provide an FOS platform to whoever wants it.

Once again, you manifest what seems like an innate inability to grasp article 19 of the UDHR, and repeating it over and over again for your benefit seems like an exercise in futility. On the off-chance that this time it shall actually get through, I shall reluctantly repeat myself yet again:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The "any media and regardless of frontiers" pertains to everywhere and includes cyber-property such as privately owned internet fora. What part of this exactly do you not understand?

Where in Article 19 does it say only media expressly designed for the purpose of communication? The front of your house is a medium whether you like it or not. Just like an internet forum is a medium. However, it is your house, so I don't have the right to deface it in a manner you do not want. Similarly, you do not have a right to "deface" someone else's online forum in a manner that they do not want

Writing your ideas on my property is defacement and criminal damage. Expressing your views on an internet forum is neither.

I already explicitly said I do not fear it, nor do I feel threatened by it. I just have no interest in a forum that fails to reach a minimum level of discussion, a level which the vast majority of unmoderated forums descend far, far below. When someone commits an ad hominem attack, the level of discourse drops. They have no place in a reasoned discussion. So I'm here, on a forum which does not permit such attacks.

Your concept of an "ad hominem" may simply be a valid opinion which you disagree with. In fact, you might actually agree with it as you know that it is true, but report it as an ad hominem attack to have it removed because it reveals an aspect of your personality which you would rather keep concealed.

You prefer safety from criticism over freedom and risk.

And yet, you're here also. On this "closed society". Even though you apparently have access to an unmoderated forum which meets your requirements. Why?

I can post anywhere I choose. Are you on a moderated forum because you are terrified of criticism, or as you prefer to call it; ad hominem attacks?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Once again, you manifest what seems like an innate inability to grasp article 19 of the UDHR, and repeating it over and over again for your benefit seems like an exercise in futility. On the off-chance that this time it shall actually get through, I shall reluctantly repeat myself yet again:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The "any media and regardless of frontiers" pertains to everywhere and includes cyber-property such as privately owned internet fora. What part of this exactly do you not understand?

It does not pertain to privately owned internet fora that you do not own. The United Nations clearly share my interpretation, since they moderate their own social media pages.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Writing your ideas on my property is defacement and criminal damage. Expressing your views on an internet forum is neither.

And writing views that site owners do not wish to display is defacement of their property. Can I erect a billboard in your garden and write whatever I want on it? There is no defacement there, and a billboard is most definitely a medium. The only reason I would not be allowed to do so is if you wish to prevent my right to free speech anywhere I like. Do you own a phone? Another medium. Can I have it to call whoever I wish and express my views?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Your concept of an "ad hominem" may simply be a valid opinion which you disagree with. In fact, you might actually agree with it as you know that it is true, but report it as an ad hominem attack to have it removed because it reveals an aspect of your personality which you would rather keep concealed.

And you continue with your nonsensical allegations. I have done nothing but address your posts and points in good faith, and yet you, champion of free speech that you are, have repeatedly attacked me for doing so. If you wish to stop debating, then stop.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I can post anywhere I choose. Are you on a moderated forum because you are terrified of criticism, or as you prefer to call it; ad hominem attacks?

...

28064212 wrote: »

I already explicitly said I do not fear it, nor do I feel threatened by it. I just have no interest in a forum that fails to reach a minimum level of discussion, a level which the vast majority of unmoderated forums descend far, far below. When someone commits an ad hominem attack, the level of discourse drops. They have no place in a reasoned discussion. So I'm here, on a forum which does not permit such attacks.

Zombrex

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If the owners of forums and social sites are not prepared to tolerate freedom of speech and consequently the expression of viewpoints and opinions which may run counter to theirs, that's like saying that "you can only come into my house and speak if everything you say is in agreement with everything that I say and you do not oppose anything that I say", and that says more about the insecurity and/or megalomania of a site owner than anything else.

Well no, it is more like saying (as has already been pointed out) that you cannot march into the offices of the New York Times and demand that they print your editorial on why hamsters should be allowed run for President.

And in fact this is a very good thing. You keep going on about your right to freedom of speech. You are ignoring that everyone else has a right to freedom of speech as well.

If a publisher does not control their publication (ie of the owners of Boards.ie do not control Boards.ie), then you are restricting their freedom of speech.

If you can demand that someone else publish your speech against their wishes then you are restricting their freedom of speech by requiring that they publish something they do not wish to. Freedom of speech includes the ability to refuse to say/publish something. The government for example cannot force a news paper to write a glowing editorial praising a political decision they took.

This is something neither you nor anyone else, has right to do. You cannot force Boards.ie to publish something Boards.ie do not wish to publish, as this restricts their freedom to publish what they like and have control over what they publish. Anything you post on Boards.ie must be approved by Boards.ie because they are the ones publishing it. And if you post something they don't approve of they remove it, all within their right to freedom of speech because it is their publishing system.

Which makes these discussion deeply ironic. You care about your freedom of speech, but don't seem all that bothered about the rights of others.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If based upon observation I express the opinion that another poster on a site I am using is "greedy, selfish, phony, egotistical" or any other perfectly valid descriptor, and I receive a warning/infraction/ban for expressing that perfectly valid opinion, I look upon that as a gratuitous suppression and penalisation of freedom of speech and a human rights violation, as I am not abusing the right to freedom of speech by describing someone as their behaviour has presented them.

You are abusing your invitation to use the site (which I'm assuming in this example you do not own), and if you feel you should be legally protected to publish what you like on someone else's website, you are restricting the owners right to freedom of speech.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Over-moderation is strangulating freedom of speech on the internet.

Unless you live in China the internet is not moderated. Individual websites (which you do not own) are moderated and when you use them you use them by invitation and should abide by the editorial restrictions of the owners because (again) it is not your publication.

Imagine you were asked to write a piece for the Irish Times reviewing the latest Bioshock game and instead you wrote a piece on how much you hate gay people. There is no concept of freedom of speech where the Irish Times is required to publish your article, and in fact to require that they do publish your article under the misguided notion that they have to protect your right to freedom of speech, would ironically be a violation of their right to freedom of speech.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Cyber-property rights have been elevated as more important to the fundamental human right to freedom of expression.

By the sounds of it Bertie you don't give a crap about the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. You want to express your views, but don't mind at all trampling over the right to freedom of expression of others in order to do so.

Zombrex

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Once again, you manifest what seems like an innate inability to grasp article 19 of the UDHR, and repeating it over and over again for your benefit seems like an exercise in futility. On the off-chance that this time it shall actually get through, I shall reluctantly repeat myself yet again:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The "any media and regardless of frontiers" pertains to everywhere and includes cyber-property such as privately owned internet fora. What part of this exactly do you not understand?

That is not what it means.

Any media means any publishing media, and platform. It means newspaper, not Irish Times. It means radio, not FM 104. It means internet, not Boards.ie

You have the right to freedom of speech on the Internet, you have the right to freedom of speech over the radio, you have the right to freedom of speech through books, you have the right to freedom of speech through print.

You have the right to publish your works through any media you like. But you have to publish it.

You do not have the right demand your works be publish through someone else's publication

You do not have the right to march into FM 104 and demand that they read our your manifesto.

You do not have the right to march into the offices of the Irish Times and demand that they publish your article on why Creationism is true.

You do not have the right to mach into Penguin Publications and demand that they publish your book on the diet to beat all other diets.

If you did actually have this right (which I stress again you don't), it would in fact deeply restrict the freedom of speech of those parties.

Which again makes your claim to be interested in protecting freedom of speech deeply ironic.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

It does not pertain to privately owned internet fora that you do not own. The United Nations clearly share my interpretation, since they moderate their own social media pages.

Do they tolerate a diversity of opinion, or just opinions which they agree with and delete all others?

And writing views that site owners do not wish to display is defacement of their property. Can I erect a billboard in your garden and write whatever I want on it? There is no defacement there, and a billboard is most definitely a medium. The only reason I would not be allowed to do so is if you wish to prevent my right to free speech anywhere I like. Do you own a phone? Another medium. Can I have it to call whoever I wish and express my views?

Writing views that site owners do not wish to display is not "defacement" of their property, it is exercising freedom of speech as outlined in the UDHR. Billboard/phone analogies are as null and void as your trite house analogy.

And you continue with your nonsensical allegations. I have done nothing but address your posts and points in good faith, and yet you, champion of free speech that you are, have repeatedly attacked me for doing so. If you wish to stop debating, then stop.

I have not "repeatedly attacked you". What I have done is called you a "troll", and that is because your posting style resembles that of "a troll". You then reported that post and I received a warning. Is referring to someone as "a troll" a huge offence? One which you feel is serious enough to warrant a warning?

The fact that you fear freedom of speech and agree with the suppression of it says a lot about your attitude to freedom, and explains your opposition to FOS. You obviously can't bear criticism, and you post on moderated fora not because they are free of "ad hominems", but because in those cyber-milieu you feel that you are not at risk of receiving criticism.

To the causal observer that speaks of insecurity.

Was that an "ad hominem attack", or a valid opinion based upon observation?

oscarBravo

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If a person displays a pretentious manner, and I refer to them as "pretentious"; is that negative and/or insulting? Or is that just accurately describing someone in a civil manner? Or other?

It's not "accurately describing someone", it's expressing a negative opinion of someone, which is to say insulting them.

If I decided that this thread demonstrated idiocy on your part, and called you an idiot as a result, I don't think you'd agree that I had accurately described you in a civil manner. Equally, it's unlikely that someone you describe as "pretentious" would agree with your assessment, and they would probably feel aggrieved.

Ultimately, you calling someone pretentious or them calling you an idiot contributes nothing to the sum of human understanding: it generates heat but not light. The owners of this website have decided that they would rather it generated light than heat, and have set parameters for the type of discussion that they would like to facilitate. The idea that your fundamental rights are being trampled because you're not allowed to lower the signal-to-noise ratio on someone else's privately-owned website is, frankly, ludicrous.

Expressing an opinion on someone has little to do with being civil or uncivil. By calling a pretentious person "pretentious" I am neither being positive or negative, civil or uncivil; I am accurately describing someone as they are, and a privately owned website should permit the expression of honest, accurate and valid opinions.

The accuracy of an opinion is highly subjective, and its honesty is all but impossible to judge impartially.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Do they tolerate a diversity of opinion, or just opinions which they agree with and delete all others?

You are not calling for a "diversity of opinion" (which Boards.ie and most websites have in spades). You are calling for totally unmoderated free speech. The UN does not allow totally unmoderated free speech on their social media pages, therefore they are in breach of their own list of rights (according to your interpretation of it anyway)

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Writing views that site owners do not wish to display is not "defacement" of their property, it is exercising freedom of speech as outlined in the UDHR. Billboard/phone analogies are as null and void as your trite house analogy.

When you actually put forward a reason as to why it is not valid comparison, I'm all ears.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I have not "repeatedly attacked you". What I have done is called you a "troll", and that is because your posting style resembles that of "a troll". You then reported that post and I received a warning. Is referring to someone as "a troll" a huge offence? One which you feel is serious enough to warrant a warning?

Ad hominem attacks have no place in reasoned discussion. If you are unable to discuss the topic without resorting to such, just don't bother (or go somewhere where they're tolerated, I won't be following)

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The fact that you fear freedom of speech and agree with the suppression of it says a lot about your attitude to freedom, and explains your opposition to FOS.

You obviously can't bear criticism, and you post on moderated fora not because they are free of ad hominems, but because in those cyber-milieu you feel that you are not at risk of receiving criticism.

To the causal observer that speaks of insecurity.

You are incorrect, and I've posted my reasons for posting here multiple times

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Was that an "ad hominem attack", or a valid opinion based upon observation?

No, and I never called that an ad hominem attack. As to whether it's valid... well, I've set out my reasons in as clear a manner as is possible. Readers can make up their own mind. Your response to why you post here was "I can post anywhere I choose". No reasons, no clarification, no discussion, just a declaration

Bertie Woot

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, it is more like saying (as has already been pointed out) that you cannot march into the offices of the New York Times and demand that they print your editorial on why hamsters should be allowed run for President.

And in fact this is a very good thing. You keep going on about your right to freedom of speech. You are ignoring that everyone else has a right to freedom of speech as well.

If a publisher does not control their publication (ie of the owners of Boards.ie do not control Boards.ie), then you are restricting their freedom of speech.

If you can demand that someone else publish your speech against their wishes then you are restricting their freedom of speech by requiring that they publish something they do not wish to. Freedom of speech includes the ability to refuse to say/publish something. The government for example cannot force a news paper to write a glowing editorial praising a political decision they took.

This is something neither you nor anyone else, has right to do. You cannot force Boards.ie to publish something Boards.ie do not wish to publish, as this restricts their freedom to publish what they like and have control over what they publish. Anything you post on Boards.ie must be approved by Boards.ie because they are the ones publishing it. And if you post something they don't approve of they remove it, all within their right to freedom of speech because it is their publishing system.

Which makes these discussion deeply ironic. You care about your freedom of speech, but don't seem all that bothered about the rights of others.

Not true. What you have done here is attempt to turn an argument on its head with perverse reasoning. By demanding freedom of speech I am not denying a forum owner his freedom of speech, I am simply insisting that he tolerate a diversity of opinion and in doing so does not suppress the right to FOS of the individual as outlined in the UDHR.

You are abusing your invitation to use the site (which I'm assuming in this example you do not own), and if you feel you should be legally protected to publish what you like on someone else's website, you are restricting the owners right to freedom of speech.

This is absolute nonsense. Refer to answer above.

Unless you live in China the internet is not moderated. Individual websites (which you do not own) are moderated and when you use them you use them by invitation and should abide by the editorial restrictions of the owners because (again) it is not your publication.

But what if the "editorial restrictions" suppress freedom of speech and breach the UDHR, which they do. Should that be tolerated?

Imagine you were asked to write a piece for the Irish Times reviewing the latest Bioshock game and instead you wrote a piece on how much you hate gay people. There is no concept of freedom of speech where the Irish Times is required to publish your article, and in fact to require that they do publish your article under the misguided notion that they have to protect your right to freedom of speech, would ironically be a violation of their right to freedom of speech.

Utter piffle. If I see a thread on a forum entitled "Bisochock game" and in the thread post comments on homosexuality, these are not relevant to the thread topic. Using elaborated and unrealistic hypothetical scenarios to argue a point may seem like a clever strategy, but it's not. Neither is insisting that the right to freedom of speech of the individual is somehow violating the FOS of the site owner.

By the sounds of it Bertie you don't give a crap about the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. You want to express your views, but don't mind at all trampling over the right to freedom of expression of others in order to do so.

This comment is so asinine and crass that legitimising it with a considered response would be to validate your intentionally warped take on FOS.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If I see a thread on a forum entitled "Bisochock game" and in the thread post comments on homosexuality, these are not relevant to the thread topic.

So? Removing the comments because they're off-topic is moderating. It's exactly what you're calling for the freedom to do

Bertie Woot

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not what it means.

Any media means any publishing media, and platform. It means newspaper, not Irish Times. It means radio, not FM 104. It means internet, not Boards.ie

You have the right to freedom of speech on the Internet, you have the right to freedom of speech over the radio, you have the right to freedom of speech through books, you have the right to freedom of speech through print.

You have the right to publish your works through any media you like. But you have to publish it.

You do not have the right demand your works be publish through someone else's publication

You do not have the right to march into FM 104 and demand that they read our your manifesto.

You do not have the right to march into the offices of the Irish Times and demand that they publish your article on why Creationism is true.

You do not have the right to mach into Penguin Publications and demand that they publish your book on the diet to beat all other diets.

If you did actually have this right (which I stress again you don't), it would in fact deeply restrict the freedom of speech of those parties.

Which again makes your claim to be interested in protecting freedom of speech deeply ironic.

This is your interpretation of the UDHR, and no more valid than mine. By demanding freedom of speech I am not "restricting the FOS of other parties", I am simply insisting that other voices are allowed to be heard, as well as the site owners.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

So? Removing the comments because they're off-topic is moderating. It's exactly what you're calling for the freedom to do

I didn't mention anything about "removing" the comments, just that they are not relevant to the thread topic. It is you who has suggested "removal".

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about "removing" the comments, just that they are not relevant to the thread topic. It is you who has suggested "removal".

So you think anybody should be allowed post as much off-topic as they like, and they shouldn't be prevented from doing so? So I can take over this thread and just post page after page of, say, the text of "War and Peace", and you're perfectly fine with that?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

So you think anybody should be allowed post as much off-topic as they like, and they shouldn't be prevented from doing so? So I can take over this thread and just post page after page of, say, the text of "War and Peace", and you're perfectly fine with that?

This post is off-topic and diversionary to this discussion. I don't deem that a serious misdemeanour. Posting excerpts from W&P may be pushing it.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This post is off-topic and diversionary to this discussion. I don't deem that a serious misdemeanour.

You didn't answer the question. Are you fine with me filling up page after page of this thread with off-topic walls of text, drowning out any attempt at discussion, and having absolutely no consequence for me whatsoever? A straight yes or no answer, if you can

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Are you fine with me filling up page after page of this thread with off-topic walls of text, drowning out any attempt at discussion, and having absolutely no consequence for me whatsoever? A straight yes or no answer, if you can

If this diversionary effort is a means of taking focus off your fear and opposition to freedom of speech on the internet; fora in particular, there's a reason for it. If you provide an answer on your fear of freedom of speech which I perceive as not being truthful, is that a breach of fora rules? Equally, if I don't comply with your authoritarian demands for clear cut yes and no answers to your diversionary questions; am I in breach of forum regulations?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If this diversionary...

I'll stop you right there. You claim there should be no moderation on internet forums. A direct consequence of that would be me having the right to fill up page after page of this thread with off-topic walls of text, drowning out any attempt at discussion, and having absolutely no consequence for me whatsoever. If you can either answer the question or explain how it's diversionary, I'd love to hear it

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

I'll stop you right there. You claim there should be no moderation on internet forums. A direct consequence of that would be me having the right to fill up page after page of this thread with off-topic walls of text, drowning out any attempt at discussion, and having absolutely no consequence for me whatsoever. If you can either answer the question or explain how it's diversionary, I'd love to hear it

If you can stop dropping red herrings, and truthfully explain your real reason for your vociferous opposition to freedom of speech on the internet, equally, I'd love to hear it.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If you can stop dropping red herrings, and truthfully explain your real reason for your vociferous opposition to freedom of speech on the internet, equally, I'd love to hear it.

I don't have opposition to freedom of speech on the internet. Fortunately, I can set up my own site and say whatever I want on it. I can even set up my own forum and let others say whatever they want on it. I just choose not to.

Your turn

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

I don't have opposition to freedom of speech on the internet. Fortunately, I can set up my own site and say whatever I want on it. I can even set up my own forum and let others say whatever they want on it. I just choose not to.

Your turn

You most certainly do have fierce opposition to freedom of speech on this site and other privately owned cyber-properties, as you believe that the property rights of site owners should take precedence over the rights of forum users to exercise freedom of speech as outlined in the UDHR. Somehow I doubt very much that if you set up up your own private forum and became a private cyber-property owner that you would suddenly metamorphose into a freedom loving individual and "let others say whatever they want" on your privately owned site. By choosing not to permit freedom of speech is consistent with your fear of and opposition to all freedom of speech, criticism in particular.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You most certainly do have fierce opposition to freedom of speech on this site and other privately owned cyber-properties, as you believe that the property rights of site owners should take precedence over the rights of forum users to exercise freedom of speech as outlined in the UDHR. Somehow I doubt very much that if you set up up your own private forum and became a private cyber-property owner that you would suddenly metamorphose into a freedom loving individual and "let others say whatever they want" on your privately owned site.

I also have "fierce" opposition to "freedom of speech" on the UN's Facebook and Google+ pages. They seem to agree with me. You might want to let them know that they're in violation of their own list of rights.

Incidentally, why haven't you set up your own site to let others say whatever they want?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

I also have "fierce" opposition to "freedom of speech" on the UN's Facebook and Google+ pages. They seem to agree with me. You might want to let them know that they're in violation of their own list of rights.

You'll need to provide solid, reliable and unambiguous evidence that they are "in violation of their own list of rights".

Incidentally, why haven't you set up your own site to let others say whatever they want?

I haven't gotten round to it, but thanks for your cognitively stimulating question. Has anyone ever remarked that you are an exhilarating poster?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You'll need to provide solid, reliable and unambiguous evidence that they are "in violation of their own list of rights".

I posted a link to a pornographic image on their Facebook page. They removed it. QED

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

I posted a link to a pornographic image on their Facebook page. They removed it. QED

Ah, that was a clever way to prove that they are "in violation of their own list of rights."

Shrewd move.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Ah, that was a clever way to prove that they are "in violation of their own list of rights."

Shrewd move.

Yes, yes it was. But then I'm not the one calling for the right to do it without fear of moderation. So are you going to contact them and let them know they're violating their own list of rights?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, yes it was. But then I'm not the one calling for the right to do it without fear of moderation. So are you going to contact them and let them know they're violating their own list of rights?

You posted the pornographic image, and they removed it. If you are upset about this I suggest that you contact them.

Was it child-porn?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You posted the pornographic image, and they removed it. If you are upset about this I suggest that you contact them.

Why would I be upset about it? I fully support their right to do so. You are the one claiming they should not be allowed to do so.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Was it child-porn?

Does it make a difference?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Why would I be upset about it? I fully support their right to do so. You are the one claiming they should not be allowed to do so.

Nowhere have I stated that site owners should not be allowed to remove objectionable pornographic imagery that you have posted on their site. With freedom comes responsibility, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the right to freedom of expression is qualified by restrictions that are necessary:

ECHR - Article 10 – Freedom of expression:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Does it make a difference?

If I'm not mistaken, child-porn is illegal in most geographical jurisdictions. If you have a predilection for pornography of that nature, drawing attention to yourself and revealing yourself as a paedophile by posting child-porn on the UN site probably hasn't been the wisest move.

Are you using a proxy server? Or are you quite happy to post child-pornography on the internet using your own IP address and thus risking a knock at the door by a law enforcement agency officer?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Nowhere have I stated that site owners should not be allowed to remove objectionable pornographic imagery that you have posted on their site. With freedom comes responsibility, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the right to freedom of expression is qualified by restrictions that are necessary

So we finally start to get to the restrictions on your 'total' free speech. So it's ok to moderate and censor "objectionable pornographic imagery". What about written erotica? I haven't tested, but I'm pretty sure the UN would remove written erotica just as quickly as a pornographic image. What about if I just spew a string of expletives on their page? Do you think they'll remove that? How about a load of totally irrelevant, off-topic posts that just fills up their page? Do you think they'll remove those? I feel pretty confident they will, the free-speech-hating bastards that they are

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, child-porn is illegal in most geographical jurisdictions. If you have a predilection for pornography of that nature, drawing attention to yourself and revealing yourself as paedophile by posting child-porn on the UN site probably hasn't been the wisest move.

Are you using a proxy server? Or are you quite happy to post child-pornography on the internet using your own IP address and thus risking a knock at the door by a law enforcement agency officer?

They surely wouldn't dare infringe on my universal right to free speech on any media

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

So we finally start to get to the restrictions on your 'total' free speech. So it's ok to moderate and censor "objectionable pornographic imagery". What about written erotica? I haven't tested, but I'm pretty sure the UN would remove written erotica just as quickly as a pornographic image. What about if I just spew a string of expletives on their page? Do you think they'll remove that? How about a load of totally irrelevant, off-topic posts that just fills up their page? Do you think they'll remove those? I feel pretty confident they will, the free-speech-hating bastards that they are

This is blatant hypocrisy, as you have made it abundantly clear that you are a "free-speech-hating bastard" yourself.

They surely wouldn't dare infringe on my universal right to free speech on any media

Refer to article 10 of the ECHR which I have provided.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This is blatant hypocrisy, as you have made it abundantly clear that you are "free-speech-hating bastard" yourself.

Sarcasm. It's blatant sarcasm, which should be pretty obvious to even a cursory reading. Once again, which of these do you think the UN will remove from their sites:

• Written erotica
• a string of expletives
• a load of totally irrelevant, off-topic posts that just fills up their page

So you honestly believe they would leave any of those on their pages? Again, a yes or no answer to start with, you can get into your reasons after you actually answer the question

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Sarcasm. It's blatant sarcasm, which should be pretty obvious to even a cursory reading. Once again, which of these do you think the UN will remove from their sites:

• Written erotica
• a string of expletives
• a load of totally irrelevant, off-topic posts that just fills up their page

So you honestly believe they would leave any of those on their pages? Again, a yes or no answer to start with, you can get into your reasons after you actually answer the question

Does it state anywhere in the posting terms and conditions of Boards.ie that a poster must answer a question issued by another poster with a simple "yes" or "no" answer?

Better still, is it specified anywhere in the posting rules of the politics forum that when a poster asks another poster a question that he MUST answer?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Does it state anywhere in the posting terms and conditions of Boards.ie that a poster must answer a question issued by another poster with a simple "yes" or "no" answer?

Better still, is it specified anywhere in the posting rules of the politics forum that when a poster asks another poster a question that he MUST answer?

Did I say anything about "must"? It was a request. One you (unsurprisingly perhaps) haven't fulfilled

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Did I say anything about "must"? It was a request. One you (unsurprisingly perhaps) haven't fulfilled

I reply to questions which I find interesting and which I choose to reply to, not because someone demands or dictates that I should, and then uses the euphemism "request".

It's called freedom of choice, and you too have that freedom. Incidentally, why do you genuinely hate freedom of speech?

This too is a question which you are not obligated to answer.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's called freedom of choice. You too have that freedom. Incidentally, why do you hate freedom?

This too is a question which you are not obligated to answer.

I don't. See? Easy to answer. You have about twenty outstanding questions to answer on the current topic which you've consistently dodged. If you ever feel inclined to answer any of them, I'll re-engage. Until then, it's time for me to get off the merry-go-round. I'll leave you to contact the UN and and let them know they're violating their own humand rights charter

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

I don't. See? Easy to answer. You have about twenty outstanding questions to answer on the current topic which you've consistently dodged. If you ever feel inclined to answer any of them, I'll re-engage. Until then, it's time for me to get off the merry-go-round. I'll leave you to contact the UN and and let them know they're violating their own humand rights charter

I've just checked the politics forum posting rules, and there is nothing to state that I am under any obligation to answer anyone's questions, and there is particularly nothing on irrelevant, uninteresting or diversionary questions. Check for yourself.

You created your own merry-go-round and now you're hopping off as you can see that it is going round in circles and thus nowhere. As regards your predilection for posting pornographic images on the UN site and their outrageous removal of aforementioned images; that's something that you and no-one else needs to take up with the UN.

Good luck with that.

Zombrex

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Not true. What you have done here is attempt to turn an argument on its head with perverse reasoning. By demanding freedom of speech I am not denying a forum owner his freedom of speech

Yes you are, because part of his freedom of speech is the right not to publish something through his own publication. You are denying him that freedom by insisting that he publish your comments. Part of freedom of speech is having control over what you publish.

The classic example is government control, the government cannot force Boards.ie to publish a glowing recommendation to re-elect the government.

But this also applies to individuals. You cannot force Boards.ie, or any other group for that matter, to publish something they don't want to. That is a breach of their rights, their right to freedom of speech.

The fact that you don't care about trampling all over this right makes a mockery of your claim that you are interested in protecting freedom of speech.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense. Refer to answer above.

You might think it is nonsense, but then you don't seem to actually understand that the right to freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just you.

The owners of Boards.ie (or any forum) have the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to control their publication, a right you seem to have zero respect for.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

But what if the "editorial restrictions" suppress freedom of speech and breach the UDHR, which they do. Should that be tolerated?

Again unless we are talking about China I'm unaware of any website that stops you expressing your opinion on your own website, so how are they suppressing your right to freedom of speech?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Utter piffle. If I see a thread on a forum entitled "Bisochock game" and in the thread post comments on homosexuality, these are not relevant to the thread topic.

And ... ? You should be allowed post only if it is relevant to the thread topic

What you have just described is moderation.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Using elaborated and unrealistic hypothetical scenarios to argue a point may seem like a clever strategy, but it's not.

These aren't hypotheticals at all. I'm sure the Irish Times constantly get crazy people demanding that they publish their manifesto. And I'm sure the Irish Times ignore them, as they are perfectly entitled to.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Neither is insisting that the right to freedom of speech of the individual is somehow violating the FOS of the site owner.

It is violating the fos of the site owner. The site owner owns the site. If you over rule what he can or cannot publish on his site you are restricting his right to freedom of speech.

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point. But then I suspect you don't give a crap about freedom of speech as a concept, you just are annoyed that someone moderated you.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This comment is so asinine and crass that legitimising it with a considered response would be to validate your intentionally warped take on FOS.

Or in other words, you didn't think this through properly and now are a little embarrassed you put forward such a foolish idea.

No problem Bertie, it happens to the best of us.

Bertie Woot

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes you are, because part of his freedom of speech is the right not to publish something through his own publication. You are denying him that freedom by insisting that he publish your comments. Part of freedom of speech is having control over what you publish.

The classic example is government control, the government cannot force Boards.ie to publish a glowing recommendation to re-elect the government.

But this also applies to individuals. You cannot force Boards.ie, or any other group for that matter, to publish something they don't want to. That is a breach of their rights, their right to freedom of speech.

The fact that you don't care about trampling all over this right makes a mockery of your claim that you are interested in protecting freedom of speech.



You might think it is nonsense, but then you don't seem to actually understand that the right to freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just you.

The owners of Boards.ie (or any forum) have the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to control their publication, a right you seem to have zero respect for.



Again unless we are talking about China I'm unaware of any website that stops you expressing your opinion on your own website, so how are they suppressing your right to freedom of speech?



And ... ? You should be allowed post only if it is relevant to the thread topic

What you have just described is moderation.



These aren't hypotheticals at all. I'm sure the Irish Times constantly get crazy people demanding that they publish their manifesto. And I'm sure the Irish Times ignore them, as they are perfectly entitled to.



It is violating the fos of the site owner. The site owner owns the site. If you over rule what he can or cannot publish on his site you are restricting his right to freedom of speech.

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point. But then I suspect you don't give a crap about freedom of speech as a concept, you just are annoyed that someone moderated you.



Or in other words, you didn't think this through properly and now are a little embarrassed you put forward such a foolish idea.

No problem Bertie, it happens to the best of us.

The first time you make an intelligent and realistic comment on FOS on the internet it shall be reciprocated. Until then, I look forward to reading more of your posts and being entertained.

Great sense of humour.

K-9

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The first time you make an intelligent and realistic comment on FOS on the internet it shall be reciprocated. Until then, I look forward to reading more of your posts and being entertained.

Great sense of humour.

Looking at your replies today you aren't treating your own thread with much seriousness, so I don't see why others should bother wasting their time replying.