Is It Me Or Has Free Speech
16 January 2008, 09:18 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
![[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>)
Its not that free speech has disappeared its just that someone who is running the site is under the impression that they can be sued for what is said on here.. Deluded some what!
16 January 2008, 09:23 AM
#3
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.
16 January 2008, 09:32 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
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; 16 January 2008 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Edited to conform ............
16 January 2008, 09:36 AM
#7
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
16 January 2008, 09:41 AM
#8
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
16 January 2008, 10:17 AM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 January 2008, 10:22 AM
#16
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Your home is worthless.You can't afford to run your car.Your job is on the line.Schadenfreude rules.
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
16 January 2008, 10:30 AM
#17
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
16 January 2008, 10:52 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
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?
16 January 2008, 10:58 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
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?
16 January 2008, 11:01 AM
#21
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
16 January 2008, 11:07 AM
#22
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning dave
16 January 2008, 11:12 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
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
16 January 2008, 11:16 AM
#25
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 January 2008, 11:26 AM
#26
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
16 January 2008, 11:32 AM
#28
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
