Is It Me Or Has Free Speech
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now look you know you had your final warning yesterday now stop being a naughty boy and go and stand in the corner for 2 weeks.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
Don't make me sit on the 'Naughty Step' ...... Please ...... I only made a lighthearted joke in Policy yesterday
AND, YOU got told off as well because you sniggered at my joke, nah, nah, nee, nah nahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Last edited by pslewis; Jan 16, 2008 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Edited to conform ............
Public forum/freedom of speech of users I think has got less and less since IB took over, maybe they should read the disclaimer, which is at the bottom of each page if they are worried about legal action :-
Important - Opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of ScoobyNet or any individuals directly or indirectly involved in this website or the companies and individuals associated with it. No responsibility is taken or assumed for any comments or statements made on this or any associated or relating bulletin board. Your personal information will be kept private except to comply with applicable laws or valid legal reasons.
Important - Opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of ScoobyNet or any individuals directly or indirectly involved in this website or the companies and individuals associated with it. No responsibility is taken or assumed for any comments or statements made on this or any associated or relating bulletin board. Your personal information will be kept private except to comply with applicable laws or valid legal reasons.
Trending Topics
BANNED
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
If you find that the facts don't support our Policies ..... please speak up.
http://www.clipartof.com/images/clip..._his_mouth.jpg
http://www.clipartof.com/images/clip..._his_mouth.jpg
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
From: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
BANNED
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 0
From: Your home is worthless.You can't afford to run your car.Your job is on the line.Schadenfreude rules.
Free speech would have had to have existed in the first place for it to have disappeared.
The webmaster has stated on numerous occasions that scoobynet does not support the concept of free speech. Do a search on it.
The webmaster has stated on numerous occasions that scoobynet does not support the concept of free speech. Do a search on it.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
From: Next door to the WiFi connection
Nope, nothing at all changed, say what you want when you want 
p.s. if you create an allias or 2 dont make it known who you are, Webby hides your posts to everybody other than yourself so you think youre posting as per normal but nobody can see you
p.s. if you create an allias or 2 dont make it known who you are, Webby hides your posts to everybody other than yourself so you think youre posting as per normal but nobody can see you
Maybe a re-naming is in order ....... Maybe 'communistnet'
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,430
Likes: 1
From: Away from this place
Disclaimers are not always able to be found upon in law, hence the stance taken on legal issues.
Freedom of speach must be taken in the context of personal opinions or points of fact. The pont that you can't libel or defame a pseudonym (with certain reservations where the pseudonym is clearly recognisable as the person) must also be considered.
Hence - "the webmaster is a facist dictator" is, without proof, either libel or defamation (depending upon where in the UK you are based).
whereas, "the webmaster is, in my opinion, exhibiting the traits of a facist dictator" completely acceptable in law and hence ok. Although it might receive an infraction depending upon the individual's sensitivity to the issue.
or, and perhaps more topically,
"Those who issue multiple infractions because they disagree with a point of view are pathetic saddos with no life" would, whilst not necessarily be libel or defamation and hence should be allowable under freedom of speach, probably result in an infraction, perhaps, ironically, for being in many cases factually correct?
Freedom of speach must be taken in the context of personal opinions or points of fact. The pont that you can't libel or defame a pseudonym (with certain reservations where the pseudonym is clearly recognisable as the person) must also be considered.
Hence - "the webmaster is a facist dictator" is, without proof, either libel or defamation (depending upon where in the UK you are based).
whereas, "the webmaster is, in my opinion, exhibiting the traits of a facist dictator" completely acceptable in law and hence ok. Although it might receive an infraction depending upon the individual's sensitivity to the issue.
or, and perhaps more topically,
"Those who issue multiple infractions because they disagree with a point of view are pathetic saddos with no life" would, whilst not necessarily be libel or defamation and hence should be allowable under freedom of speach, probably result in an infraction, perhaps, ironically, for being in many cases factually correct?
![[Davey]'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%23806b84' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>[</text></svg>)
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,327
Likes: 1
From: Berkshire
Disclaimers are not always able to be found upon in law, hence the stance taken on legal issues.
Freedom of speach must be taken in the context of personal opinions or points of fact. The pont that you can't libel or defame a pseudonym (with certain reservations where the pseudonym is clearly recognisable as the person) must also be considered.
Hence - "the webmaster is a facist dictator" is, without proof, either libel or defamation (depending upon where in the UK you are based).
whereas, "the webmaster is, in my opinion, exhibiting the traits of a facist dictator" completely acceptable in law and hence ok. Although it might receive an infraction depending upon the individual's sensitivity to the issue.
or, and perhaps more topically,
"Those who issue multiple infractions because they disagree with a point of view are pathetic saddos with no life" would, whilst not necessarily be libel or defamation and hence should be allowable under freedom of speach, probably result in an infraction, perhaps, ironically, for being in many cases factually correct?
Freedom of speach must be taken in the context of personal opinions or points of fact. The pont that you can't libel or defame a pseudonym (with certain reservations where the pseudonym is clearly recognisable as the person) must also be considered.
Hence - "the webmaster is a facist dictator" is, without proof, either libel or defamation (depending upon where in the UK you are based).
whereas, "the webmaster is, in my opinion, exhibiting the traits of a facist dictator" completely acceptable in law and hence ok. Although it might receive an infraction depending upon the individual's sensitivity to the issue.
or, and perhaps more topically,
"Those who issue multiple infractions because they disagree with a point of view are pathetic saddos with no life" would, whilst not necessarily be libel or defamation and hence should be allowable under freedom of speach, probably result in an infraction, perhaps, ironically, for being in many cases factually correct?
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
From: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Disclaimers are not always able to be found upon in law, hence the stance taken on legal issues.
Freedom of speach must be taken in the context of personal opinions or points of fact. The pont that you can't libel or defame a pseudonym (with certain reservations where the pseudonym is clearly recognisable as the person) must also be considered.
Hence - "the webmaster is a facist dictator" is, without proof, either libel or defamation (depending upon where in the UK you are based).
whereas, "the webmaster is, in my opinion, exhibiting the traits of a facist dictator" completely acceptable in law and hence ok. Although it might receive an infraction depending upon the individual's sensitivity to the issue.
or, and perhaps more topically,
"Those who issue multiple infractions because they disagree with a point of view are pathetic saddos with no life" would, whilst not necessarily be libel or defamation and hence should be allowable under freedom of speach, probably result in an infraction, perhaps, ironically, for being in many cases factually correct?
Freedom of speach must be taken in the context of personal opinions or points of fact. The pont that you can't libel or defame a pseudonym (with certain reservations where the pseudonym is clearly recognisable as the person) must also be considered.
Hence - "the webmaster is a facist dictator" is, without proof, either libel or defamation (depending upon where in the UK you are based).
whereas, "the webmaster is, in my opinion, exhibiting the traits of a facist dictator" completely acceptable in law and hence ok. Although it might receive an infraction depending upon the individual's sensitivity to the issue.
or, and perhaps more topically,
"Those who issue multiple infractions because they disagree with a point of view are pathetic saddos with no life" would, whilst not necessarily be libel or defamation and hence should be allowable under freedom of speach, probably result in an infraction, perhaps, ironically, for being in many cases factually correct?
I don't see how someone can be infracted for criticising the giver of an infraction since no-one other than the person who issued the infraction (and the webby, if he is asked to investigate) knows who it is from. Therefore, by definition, you can't have insulted another member because no other member has been identified.
Ns04
Scooby Senior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
From: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Morning dave
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,430
Likes: 1
From: Away from this place
I don't see how someone can be infracted for criticising the giver of an infraction since no-one other than the person who issued the infraction (and the webby, if he is asked to investigate) knows who it is from. Therefore, by definition, you can't have insulted another member because no other member has been identified.
Ns04
Ns04
Scooby Senior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
From: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Scooby Senior
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
From: Next door to the WiFi connection
Confused myself with which names I was playing about with there was that many, even kept an account active too confuse webby so he didnt follow my trail with mulitpile usernames
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
From: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Maybe Gene should bring this up with his one-on-one thread with the webby?
Ns04
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
From: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
PS welcome back Dave.
In case you didn't see it
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...e-you-bud.html
Ns04
In case you didn't see it
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...e-you-bud.html
Ns04
