So, a little clarification about necroposting, if I were to, say, randomly necropost this thread occasionally would that be...bad? Funny?? Grounds for burning in Hell for all eternity, maybe? Oh, and would the answer change if I was "The really cool guy on the forum"? Or if I were the far more likely, "Biggest prick on the forum?"

(December 28, 2015 at 2:17 am)Maelstrom Wrote: I mean, seriously, when does free speech start or end?  Is there a point when free speech must be silenced?

Thankfully not here.

Oh, it does. Even here. When I posted some cartoons from one of our political mainstream magazines, someone took issue. And that says something since our authorities are usually pretty strict in overstepping the line of "freedom of expression" how it's called here.

For me it ends when someone is inciting hatred and violence. Be it against a person or a group of people. Words can be weapons and some less balanced people could react to the trigger.

We draw the line at the latter, of those two, here in the states Abaris.  You can incite hatred all you like, not violence.  Probably a matter of time until both are verboten, though...seeing as one may be designed specifically and exclusively to lead to the other.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

(October 18, 2016 at 6:54 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 6:12 am)Monalisa Dey Wrote: controversial.. hmm.. i am new here..

Have you tried reading the rules about necroposting?

Guess I am still a noob ..

(October 18, 2016 at 6:55 am)Nymphadora Wrote: Double post.

(October 18, 2016 at 5:51 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 2:17 am)Maelstrom Wrote: I mean, seriously, when does free speech start or end?  Is there a point when free speech must be silenced?

Thankfully not here.

Oh, it does. Even here. When I posted some cartoons from one of our political mainstream magazines, someone took issue. And that says something since our authorities are usually pretty strict in overstepping the line of "freedom of expression" how it's called here.

Only because it was a cartoon of a kid being molested by a priest - even if drawn facetiously -, and a public internet forum has to be very careful when treading on those grounds. In this case it's strictly better safe than sorry.

Freedom of speech refers to your right to say whatever you like within certain very specific boundaries. It is a right you have anywhere and everywhere. However, it does not grant you the right to have the speech delivered in any specific format not wholly owned and controlled by you. For instance, nobody can stop you from writing something, printing it and handing it out, or preaching on the street corner. However, a book publisher is under no obligation to print it for you, a radio station is under no obligation to give you air time and an Internet forum is under no obligation to leave posts intact.

I find that people in forums often confuse their rights as being absolute. You do have the right to free speech and nobody can take that away from you. When you are exercising that right in a forum, however, the moderators also have rights. While no one person's rights trump another, you control your speech, they control the method of delivery you would like to use. You are not silenced when they censor or delete your post. You can still speak your mind. But you have the right to free speech, only, not the right to have that speech delivered for you in a particular method or format. The moderators can't stop you from saying what you want and you can't force them to allow you to say it here. Like many Christians these days, those screaming loudest about their rights are often those who understand rights the least.