Originally Posted by pslewis (Post 7566574)

We all know the answer to that one - to raise your question is probably going to result in an Infraction .......... ****, I've mentioned the word Infraction, BOLLOX, where is the delete key????

Originally Posted by ************** (Post 7566578)

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.

Originally Posted by SwissTony (Post 7566585)

its okay guys, my other alias on here is DCI GENE HUNT :thumb:

Originally Posted by DCI Gene Hunt (Post 7566697)

ergo... I can also pop round to see your, I mean my missus :D *rubs hands*.....

Originally Posted by New_scooby_04 (Post 7566702)

Are you really rubbing your hands DCI? ;) :D

Originally Posted by DCI Gene Hunt (Post 7566697)

ergo... I can also pop round to see your, I mean my missus :D *rubs hands*.....

Originally Posted by Supercue (Post 7566565)

Is It Me Or Has Free Speech On SN all but disappeared?:wonder:

Originally Posted by NACRO (Post 7566709)

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.

Originally Posted by Devildog (Post 7566785)

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?

Originally Posted by Devildog (Post 7566785)

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?

Originally Posted by davegtt (Post 7566727)

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 ;)

Originally Posted by New_scooby_04 (Post 7566802)

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

Originally Posted by davegtt (Post 7566823)

Good Morning Gene, nice to be back without the face mask on :D

Originally Posted by Devildog (Post 7566820)

I absolutely agree, but, in my opinion, that doesn't stop certain members issuing infractions for that very reason, who should, according to the rules if i have read them correctly, be banned for abuse of the system.