Free speech issue...

[ƵenKlassen]

So... I guess the lesson I learned is: "If you have an opinion, then make sure you have the right opinion."





I mean, what happened to the freedom of speech, and why am I getting censored for having an
unpopular opinion?

And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then let me explain...

I had my post "Did the Sandy Hook shooting really happen?" deleted because I have an unpopular opinion,
so if everyone else is entitled to their opinions, then why not me too?

[vulcanlogician]

The Prime Directive
The purpose of these forums is first and foremost to allow members to discuss various topics with people who may disagree. The staff believe that the best discussions are those that stay polite and friendly, and it is with this in mind that we implement the following rules.

The staff are aware that any thread may devolve into flaming, either indirect or direct, over time. Staff reserve the right to ban certain members from these threads if they are deemed to be flaming or trolling. Posts which are comprised of mostly insulting language, name calling rather than addressing points, overly negative generalizations of entire groups of people (unless strongly supported by evidence), etc. will be considered as flaming. Posts which are comprised of outrageous misrepresentations of events within the public record will be considered as trolling. Staff reserve the right to close or delete threads which were created for the purposes of flaming or trolling, and not for discussion.

Thread ban durations are decided by staff and may be lifted if the member in question agrees to keep a more level-headed approach to the discussion. Threads that continue to devolve into flaming and/or trolling will be closed.

Repeat violations of the Prime Directive will result in site-wide bans, possibly permanent.

These are the guidelines that the site uses. I don't think they just ban posts willy-nilly because they don't like them. Do you feel that you have been unjustly censored by the mods? As a stipulation of the forum, all members must function within the parameters of the forum rules.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, sorry if you feel picked on but I don't want to see the site looking like an online version of the National Enquirer. I'm happy with the new rule.

[Rev. Rye]

I'm not sure if deleting it wholesale was the best option, but, really, there was no point in keeping it open if he was just going to say "why don't we have footage of Adam Lanza entering Sandy Hook, so it could have been staged" and then weasel his way out of it when we told him, well:

[Minimalist]

What do you think "Freedom of Speech" means?

[ƵenKlassen]

What do you think "Freedom of Speech" means?

 The right to have controversial opinions and say other stuff as long as it's not:
 Death Threats
 Slander
 Sexual Harassment

 And some other exceptions...

---

 Also, I read "The Prime Directive" rule and haven't seen a single rule on there that I have broken...

[c172]

Other exceptions, you say?

[ƵenKlassen]

Other exceptions, you say?

 Well, I don't feel like typing out every single exception, but yeah.
 If you want to know the other exceptions, then Google it yourself.

[FFaith]

Free speech is about the government not being able to punish you for your speech, not internet forums.

A thread about why people doubt that the shooting was real might be interesting. I will admit that Gene Rosen comes off as a huge freak show on camera, but plenty of people in the real world are freak shows. This doesn't mean that the shooting didn't happen. Some of it might be the power of suggestion. People tell you that someone seems like they're acting, and now that they've put that idea in your head, you're more likely to think people are behaving oddly or like they seem to be acting out a script when you watch the interviews for yourself. It's like when someone has a stupid ghost recorder thing and they tell you what they think it says. You might hear the same thing, but you wouldn't have if they didn't already put that idea in your head.

The mind plays tricks on us, but no matter how fake some interviews may look to you, why would the government make things so much riskier for themselves by having to keep so many more people quiet, when they could just send someone in to kill the kids? (Not that I think that's what happened, but if you're going for the conspiracy angle, that makes a heck of a lot more sense) The "it was all fake" idea starts to fall apart when you use even a little bit of logic.

[Losty]

 Also, I read "The Prime Directive" rule and haven't seen a single rule on there that I have broken...

“ Posts which are comprised of outrageous misrepresentations of events within the public record will be considered as trolling.”

Yes you have