Jump to content

Banned Cacher!


sheppardnik
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Recently there was a brouhaha :laughing: (I love that word) with a local cacher and his rather indelicate note to a reviewer. Subsequently this cacher was banned from the site. There may have been more to the story, but if there is I'm not aware of it.

 

I happen to know the cacher in question and he's a good ki... err, person... just had a lot going on in his life in the past year. He's a good guy that just made a poor decision.

 

I'd really like to see him continue to participate, as this is such a great hobby and it was nice to see a younger cacher take initiative to hide his own caches. There is a definite learning curve to this sport, as there is in everything in life, and I hope patience and forgiveness from the community will play a role here. (That being said, an apology from his end would probably help, too!)

 

My question is, will he ever be un-banned or is this a "for life" thing? I realize he could just start a new account, but what happens to his un-archived caches?

Link to comment

With the concerance of the owner his cache could be adopted by someone else, on the other hand he might just ask that it be achived. Can't speak to whether or not he would be allowed back in to the caching community but its pretty hard to ban someone from geocaching forever.

Edited by Team Polarbear
Link to comment

Recently there was a brouhaha :laughing: (I love that word) with a local cacher and his rather indelicate note to a reviewer. Subsequently this cacher was banned from the site. There may have been more to the story, but if there is I'm not aware of it.

 

I happen to know the cacher in question and he's a good ki... err, person... just had a lot going on in his life in the past year. He's a good guy that just made a poor decision.

 

I'd really like to see him continue to participate, as this is such a great hobby and it was nice to see a younger cacher take initiative to hide his own caches. There is a definite learning curve to this sport, as there is in everything in life, and I hope patience and forgiveness from the community will play a role here. (That being said, an apology from his end would probably help, too!)

 

My question is, will he ever be un-banned or is this a "for life" thing? I realize he could just start a new account, but what happens to his un-archived caches?

 

I know of a cacher who was banned for over a year, and was allowed to come back. I'm told he "asked nicely". :P

Link to comment

Ki.....er.... people make mistakes! I would like to think that an honest apology would go a long way in returning this banned cacher to the status quo. It is sad that someone could have so poor people skills that they would make the statements that were made, but life's lessons can be enlightening, if learned.

Link to comment

Ki.....er.... people make mistakes! I would like to think that an honest apology would go a long way in returning this banned cacher to the status quo. It is sad that someone could have so poor people skills that they would make the statements that were made, but life's lessons can be enlightening, if learned.

 

Oh yeah, an apology and admission of wrong doing would go a long way here.

 

Bad_CRC, I could be wrong, but the offending notes may have been the subject of a thread that was quickly locked about 2 weeks ago. If that is the one, all the notes posted to the cache page are gone.

Link to comment

When I first started geocaching I became aware of a few archived caches that were placed by someone that was previously "banned" from the site. I have no idea what the reason was for banning this cacher (also a younger person) but he was subsequently "un-banned" soon after I started and there were quite a few of the caches that he had hid unarchived. I've since found a few of his caches and they are typically some of the most challenging in terms of terrain (though none require special equipment or skills). One of them is high on my todo list as it's becoming one of the closest caches to home that I haven't found. I have no idea why this person was banned from the site but I'm glad that he was reinstated. I believe he was banned for a year but was able to retain all his account information.

 

In any case, it looks like there is certainly a precedent for un-banning a cacher that has riled the powers that be.

Link to comment

If I recall the "log" that got him in trouble, the said cache was very close to a gated community, is that the one?

 

You don't call a reviewer a pile of poo and not have some action taken.

 

I don't care if you are a kid or an adult.

You can get upset with the reviewer, trade remarks and other stuff, but don't drag it into the notes.... There is email for that.

Link to comment

You can get upset with the reviewer, trade remarks and other stuff, but don't drag it into the notes.... There is email for that.

It is fine to do this... politely. I am happy to explain things, listen to supplemental information, consider requests for exceptions, etc., if done in a polite manner.

 

It's not acceptable to be abusive in e-mail or private notes, any more so than posting to a cache page. Some banned cachers could confirm this. Oh wait... they can't. :laughing:

Link to comment

When I first started geocaching I became aware of a few archived caches that were placed by someone that was previously "banned" from the site. I have no idea what the reason was for banning this cacher (also a younger person) but he was subsequently "un-banned" soon after I started and there were quite a few of the caches that he had hid unarchived. I've since found a few of his caches and they are typically some of the most challenging in terms of terrain (though none require special equipment or skills). One of them is high on my todo list as it's becoming one of the closest caches to home that I haven't found. I have no idea why this person was banned from the site but I'm glad that he was reinstated. I believe he was banned for a year but was able to retain all his account information.

 

In any case, it looks like there is certainly a precedent for un-banning a cacher that has riled the powers that be.

 

That's exactly who I was talking about. No names, of course. :laughing:

Link to comment

When I first started geocaching I became aware of a few archived caches that were placed by someone that was previously "banned" from the site. I have no idea what the reason was for banning this cacher (also a younger person) but he was subsequently "un-banned" soon after I started and there were quite a few of the caches that he had hid unarchived. I've since found a few of his caches and they are typically some of the most challenging in terms of terrain (though none require special equipment or skills). One of them is high on my todo list as it's becoming one of the closest caches to home that I haven't found. I have no idea why this person was banned from the site but I'm glad that he was reinstated. I believe he was banned for a year but was able to retain all his account information.

 

In any case, it looks like there is certainly a precedent for un-banning a cacher that has riled the powers that be.

 

That's exactly who I was talking about. No names, of course. :laughing:

 

This must have been the time I had to study a lot of Icelandic.

Link to comment

You can get upset with the reviewer, trade remarks and other stuff, but don't drag it into the notes.... There is email for that.

It is fine to do this... politely. I am happy to explain things, listen to supplemental information, consider requests for exceptions, etc., if done in a polite manner.

 

It's not acceptable to be abusive in e-mail or private notes, any more so than posting to a cache page. Some banned cachers could confirm this. Oh wait... they can't. :laughing:

 

Or rude PMs. :D

Link to comment

What is to stop a "banned" cacher from just creating a new account and keep right on going. Suddenly, he might have a whole bunch of caches he could "refind"

There are ways to stop it.

 

There are even more ways to get around it.

 

I agree. There is no way Groundspeak could tell if a banned person created a new account. I supposes someone might be able 'suspect' it by tracking caches found and doing some sort of log analysis for word patterns. But, if they have resources to do that, they would be better utilized elsewhere.

Link to comment

What is to stop a "banned" cacher from just creating a new account and keep right on going. Suddenly, he might have a whole bunch of caches he could "refind"

There are ways to stop it.

 

There are even more ways to get around it.

 

They could ban an IP address of a user with a broadband (T1, cable, DSL, etc.) connection. They probably could not ban an IP address of a dial-up internet user. Does anyone still do that? :rolleyes: A person with a banned IP address could walk over to a friends or relatives house, and open up a new account no problem.

Link to comment

What is to stop a "banned" cacher from just creating a new account and keep right on going. Suddenly, he might have a whole bunch of caches he could "refind"

There are ways to stop it.

 

There are even more ways to get around it.

 

I agree. There is no way Groundspeak could tell if a banned person created a new account. I supposes someone might be able 'suspect' it by tracking caches found and doing some sort of log analysis for word patterns. But, if they have resources to do that, they would be better utilized elsewhere.

Not at all true. While a well-schooled and dedicated person with some extra cash and resources could find a way to get around these measures, there are several ways -- beyond the cumbersome methods listed in your post -- to easily detect if a banned member were to attempt to re-join, and, in fact, the record shows clearly that a great number of such attempts have been detected and deflected by Groundspeak.

 

I am not speaking hypothetically here, but rather from long experience. I operate over 34 email list groups and forums, with membership totaling tens of thousands of members, and some of these venues cover topics which tend to attract hotheads, fanatics and flamers, and my moderators and I ban at least a few of people per day from these venues. My best estimate is that, using the methods that I have referenced above, my moderators and I catch over 95% of the banned members who try to sneak back in; the other 5% almost invariably give themselves away within a couple of weeks via their insane online behaviors, and they too are dealt with appropriately when we realize that they are a "rogue dog" that needs to be quickly and quietly euthanized.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

What is to stop a "banned" cacher from just creating a new account and keep right on going. Suddenly, he might have a whole bunch of caches he could "refind"

There are ways to stop it.

 

There are even more ways to get around it.

 

I agree. There is no way Groundspeak could tell if a banned person created a new account. I supposes someone might be able 'suspect' it by tracking caches found and doing some sort of log analysis for word patterns. But, if they have resources to do that, they would be better utilized elsewhere.

Not at all true. While a well-schooled and dedicated person with some extra cash and resources could find a way to get around these measures, there are several ways -- beyond the cumbersome methods listed in your post -- to easily detect if a banned member were to attempt to re-join, and, in fact, the record shows clearly that a great number of such attempts have been detected and deflected by Groundspeak.

 

I am not speaking hypothetically here, but rather from long experience. I operate over 34 email list groups and forums, with membership totaling tens of thousands of members, and some of these venues cover topics which tend to attract hotheads, fanatics and flamers, and my moderators and I ban at least a few of people per day from these venues. My best estimate is that, using the methods that I have referenced above, my moderators and I catch over 95% of the banned members who try to sneak back in; the other 5% almost invariably give themselves away within a couple of weeks via their insane online behaviors, and they too are dealt with appropriately when we realize that they are a "rogue dog" that needs to be quickly and quietly euthanized.

 

Going to the public library is free and less than cumbersome.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

My best estimate is that, using the methods that I have referenced above, my moderators and I catch over 95% of the banned members who try to sneak back in; the other 5% almost invariably give themselves away within a couple of weeks via their insane online behaviors, and they too are dealt with appropriately when we realize that they are a "rogue dog" that needs to be quickly and quietly euthanized.

 

I HAVE ONLY BEGUN TO FIGHT! :) *sneaksneak* :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Isn't there a BANNED member on Death Row?

 

People are banned left and right from the forums, there are rules there that we all have to abide by.

But there are no rules that I can see as to how someone would get in trouble on geocaching.com.

To my best knowledge, the answer to your first question is YES (but he may not be executed for years, due to the appeals process...)

 

And, for your last question, regarding whether folks can and do get banned from the Geocaching.com site, the short answer is YES, and if you were to search the forum posts for the past six years, you would find some fascinating tales and examples of some of these odd cases! In fact, if I recall correctly, the case which triggered the start of this thread (that is, the matter referenced by the OP) resulted in the banning of the cacher in question from the entire site.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

...My question is, will he ever be un-banned...

 

Unbanning is entirly possible. Jeremy did pose the question once in a generic way to get a feel for the communities thoughts on bringing back banned cachers. He had someone in mind at the time but I think he was also trying to get a handle on the larger question since this site is (and likely has) going to face the question of bringing back folks who had their hair rubbed the wrong way by the exact wrong person to do the rubbing.

 

The decision is going to have to be made by The Powers That Be.

 

My answer applies to banned on both geocaching.com and the forums. The more common banning (that I can see...) is is for the forums only.

Link to comment

...My question is, will he ever be un-banned...

My answer applies to banned on both geocaching.com and the forums. The more common banning (that I can see...) is is for the forums only.

 

My own experience is 3 to 1 in favor of the forums. I feel the fourth one is impending.

Link to comment

For starters...it is impossible to ban anyone completely.I'll give anyone that tries credit for the attempt but where there's a will,there's a way & considering this is the internet it is IMPOSSIBLE to ban somebody permenently.

In regards to whom was banned & why they were banned...well that would depend on whom was banned.

From what I read here it was hinted that a person made abusive remarks in either e-mail or pm.

My only question to that is...who decides what is abusive?

The one thing to keep in mind when making a ruling such as banning a person is who they are?

What I mean by that is that not everyone is diplomatic & there are some that feel it's best to be as blunt as possible.If this is a case of a person that falls into the latter then their ban was in error & should be corrected as quickly as it was placed.

I have been surfing the net for quite a few years now.I have been a server admin in a couple of chat progs,I've ran forums,& even ran a few online gaming communities.

I have been called every name under the sun but I have NEVER let comments directed at me personally affect my judgement .

Like it or not,everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless of how bluntly they put it.

If everyone that has ever offended another was to be banned then there would be next to nobody here.

Link to comment
For starters...it is impossible to ban anyone completely.I'll give anyone that tries credit for the attempt but where there's a will,there's a way & considering this is the internet it is IMPOSSIBLE to ban somebody permenently.
I agree, but I also realize that this is a game and that most people probably won't go out of there way to swim in a pool that they are not welcome in.
In regards to whom was banned & why they were banned...well that would depend on whom was banned.

From what I read here it was hinted that a person made abusive remarks in either e-mail or pm.

My only question to that is...who decides what is abusive?

Since this is a private site, Jeremy and his crack team of flying monkeys lackeys decides.
The one thing to keep in mind when making a ruling such as banning a person is who they are?

What I mean by that is that not everyone is diplomatic & there are some that feel it's best to be as blunt as possible.If this is a case of a person that falls into the latter then their ban was in error & should be corrected as quickly as it was placed.

Too often, we allow people to excuse their boorish behavior as 'calling it as they see it'. One has to remember that the other half of that saying is 'and let the chips fall where they may'. In other words, the person should be willing to abide by the affects of his/her behavior. One of those, obviously, is possible bannination. The person doesn't get a pass on being banned simply because he feels it is best 'to be as blunt as possible'.
I have been surfing the net for quite a few years now.I have been a server admin in a couple of chat progs,I've ran forums,& even ran a few online gaming communities.

I have been called every name under the sun but I have NEVER let comments directed at me personally affect my judgement .

For the most part, the mods and reviewers are unpaid volunteers doing their best to make this game the best it can be. As such, no one should be able to fling abusive carp at them. If someone does, he/she might be banned. Many would argue that they should be banned.
Like it or not,everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless of how bluntly they put it.If everyone that has ever offended another was to be banned then there would be next to nobody here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, they are not entitled to express that opinion in any way that they want. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The best solution is to not allow yourself to be put in a position of being banned. In other words: Don't worry be happy, I like doing this because it is fun and gives me a break from all the other things that make the nerves twang, and the BP rise. I met some nice folks doing this. I have had some laughs doing this. I have even had some nice comments from reviewers. Step away from the keyboard and no one gets hurt.

Link to comment

The best solution is to not allow yourself to be put in a position of being banned. In other words: Don't worry be happy, I like doing this because it is fun and gives me a break from all the other things that make the nerves twang, and the BP rise. I met some nice folks doing this. I have had some laughs doing this. I have even had some nice comments from reviewers. Step away from the keyboard and no one gets hurt.

hahahere is a litle song I wrote.

 

Here is a little song I wrote

You might want to sing it note for note

Don't worry be happy

At every cache we have some trouble

When you worry you make it double

Don't worry, be happy......

 

Ain't got no place to lay your cache

Somebody came and kicked your ache

Don't worry, be happy

The reviewer say your cache is late

He may have to litigate

Don't worry, be happy

Look at me I am happy

Don't worry, be happy

Here I give you my phone number

When you worry call me

I make you happy

Don't worry, be happy

Ain't got no cache, ain't got no style

Ain't got no swag to make you smile

But don't worry be happy

Cause when you worry

Your face will frown

And that will bring everybody down

So don't worry, be happy (now).....

 

There is this little song I wrote

I hope you learn it note for note

Like good little children

Don't worry, be happy

Listen to what I say

At your cache expect some trouble

But when you worry

You make it double

Don't worry, be happy......

Don't worry don't do it, be happy

Put a smile on your face

Don't bring everybody down like this

Don't worry, it will soon pass

Whatever it is

Don't worry, be happy

Link to comment
I agree, but I also realize that this is a game and that most people probably won't go out of there way to swim in a pool that they are not welcome in.

 

On that I disagree...this is'nt a game,it's a message board & as such personal feelings of the staff or owners have no place here as it is open to the public.

 

Since this is a private site, Jeremy and his crack team of flying monkeys lackeys decides.

 

Since it is open to the public & a fee is not required to be a member it would technically not be private.As for the "lackeys" comment,you should be carefull because that could possibly be seen as abusive/disrespectfull.

 

Too often, we allow people to excuse their boorish behavior as 'calling it as they see it'. One has to remember that the other half of that saying is 'and let the chips fall where they may'. In other words, the person should be willing to abide by the affects of his/her behavior. One of those, obviously, is possible bannination. The person doesn't get a pass on being banned simply because he feels it is best 'to be as blunt as possible'.

 

What one person considers "boorish" others might see as being logical.All to often people let their emotions & personal feelings cloud their judgement when dealing with a person that they might have a dislike for.

 

For the most part, the mods and reviewers are unpaid volunteers doing their best to make this game the best it can be. As such, no one should be able to fling abusive carp at them. If someone does, he/she might be banned. Many would argue that they should be banned.

 

As I said earlier this is not a game,it is a message board.In regards to the volunteers,well dealing with heated e-mails/pm's/or whatever are part of the job.I have seen many things posted on this very Forum that I felt were abusive/disrespectfull & can't help but wonder why they were allowed to remain when other people's remarks are deleted instantly.I suppose it would all go back to interpretation.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, they are not entitled to express that opinion in any way that they want.

 

I hate to be the one to tell you this,but the Constitution might disagree with you.For the most part citizens of the United States are entitled to Freedom of Speech.To stifle one voice due to personal feelings while others are allowed to shout only leads to issues that nobody should ever have to deal with.

There are more & more caching sites popping up on the internet & it is only a matter of time before "what was" becomes "what used to be" & then becomes forgotten for good.

Times are changing & those that will not change with them are bound to ground to dust.

Link to comment

 

I hate to be the one to tell you this,but the Constitution might disagree with you.For the most part citizens of the United States are entitled to Freedom of Speech.To stifle one voice due to personal feelings while others are allowed to shout only leads to issues that nobody should ever have to deal with.

There are more & more caching sites popping up on the internet & it is only a matter of time before "what was" becomes "what used to be" & then becomes forgotten for good.

Times are changing & those that will not change with them are bound to ground to dust.

 

Well, good thing we aren't having to address a ban issue of a non-US cacher. Otherwise the ol' US constitution argument wouldn't come into play. :)

Link to comment

1. "Lackeys" is actually the preferred term for referring to Groundspeak employees. From the "About Groundspeak" page:

 

What's a Lackey?

 

A "Groundspeak Lackey" is a term used to refer to the employees and founders of Groundspeak who do the most basic tasks to support the overall needs of the community. This willingness to serve each other and provide recreation for a worldwide community is a core value of our company.

 

We accept the term Lackey with pride since we are beholden to the community for our success.

 

So, the term "Lackeys" is much preferred over "TPTB" ("The Powers That Be").

 

2. This is a privately owned and operated forum. Geocachers are welcome here for so long as they are able to follow the Forum Guidelines. Those who violate the Forum Guidelines are first warned, then temporarily suspended, and in a rare minority of cases, banned permanently from the forums (and sometimes the website as well). There is a process for all of this. It takes a lot of effort to earn a permanent ban. A single volunteer, for example, would not be able to ban someone permanently on a whim. An appeals mechanism is in place for those who disagree with disciplinary action taken by Groundspeak employees and volunteers.

 

3. The last I checked, Groundspeak was a private company, not an arm of the United States Government. As such, the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech has no applicability here, except as a rhetorical device. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There's no Federal law about geocaching discussion forums. Let's keep it that way. :)

Link to comment

1. I can understand that Groundspeak considers the term "Lackey" to be acceptable,but the actual definition is far from being politically correct.

 

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Lackey

 

2. To get technical even though the Forum is privately owned it is open to the public,hence it is a public forum.

 

3. While Groundspeak is a private company it can still be held accountable to the laws of the Country it resides in.Many do not realize that Freedom of Speech protected on the internet.A quick search on the net will show several web sites that talk about the changes that have been made to the laws in order to accomodate the internet,including message boards.

 

We can continue this stimulating debate or we could agree to disagree.

Personally I enjoy the debate I can provide the url's that show what I'm saying to be true,but I feel that dragging all the legal mumbo jumbo to the thread would only kill the debate.

Link to comment

1. I can understand that Groundspeak considers the term "Lackey" to be acceptable,but the actual definition is far from being politically correct.

 

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Lackey

 

2. To get technical even though the Forum is privately owned it is open to the public,hence it is a public forum.

 

Open to the public, so it is public. That's why we're allowed to cache in the Wally World parking lot, right? OK, maybe not. :)

 

3. While Groundspeak is a private company it can still be held accountable to the laws of the Country it resides in.Many do not realize that Freedom of Speech protected on the internet.A quick search on the net will show several web sites that talk about the changes that have been made to the laws in order to accomodate the internet,including message boards.

 

We can continue this stimulating debate or we could agree to disagree.

Personally I enjoy the debate I can provide the url's that show what I'm saying to be true,but I feel that dragging all the legal mumbo jumbo to the thread would only kill the debate.

 

Actually, some interesting points. I never really looked past the simplistic, one sentence argument "Groundspeak is a private company".

Link to comment

A more careful search would reveal that there are still limits on free speech--You simply cannot say whatever you want to whoever you choose whenever you please without regard to consequence. Simply put, your right to free speech (or indeed any action) ends at my right not to be abused.

 

A good example is perjury--It is illegal to deliberately lie in court.

 

Limitations on freedom of speech may include:

 

* threats

* profanity

* obscenity

* defamation of character (slander or libel)

* inciting a riot or any kind of hate mongering (attempting to promote harm to some particular group)

* speaking out of turn in a civic forum (i.e. "not having the floor")

* talking about a legal situation after a gag order is in place

* noise pollution (preventing others from being able to communicate)

* giving away protected information (i.e. company secrets, political strategies, etc) by an insider

* giving away classified information (i.e. military secrets)

Link to comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendme...eedom_of_speech

 

The internet is a great place to learn things,providing a person actually wants to learn.

 

* threats

* profanity

* obscenity

* defamation of character (slander or libel)

* inciting a riot or any kind of hate mongering (attempting to promote harm to some particular group)

* speaking out of turn in a civic forum (i.e. "not having the floor")

* talking about a legal situation after a gag order is in place

* noise pollution (preventing others from being able to communicate)

* giving away protected information (i.e. company secrets, political strategies, etc) by an insider

* giving away classified information (i.e. military secrets)

 

A little research might go a long way......

 

Limitations to Freedom of Speech are:

 

1. Sedition

2. War protests

3. Anonymous speech

4. Flag burning

5. Obscenity

6. Libel, slander, and private action

7. Political speech

8. Involuntary commitment

9. Memoirs of convicted criminals

 

Maybe it's just me but I don't see things like noise pollution,or speaking out of turn there.

The big question to ask when thinking of restricting a persons Freedom of Speech is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

In order to know this one would have to know what "clear and present danger" is exactly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

 

Since I don't believe Groundspeak is at war with anyone there would be no clear and present danger from anything that a person would say on the Forum,in e-mail,or even a pm.

 

Open to the public, so it is public. That's why we're allowed to cache in the Wally World parking lot, right? OK, maybe not.

 

You are trying to compare apples & oranges.Micro spew has nothing to do with a persons Freedom of Speech being taken away.

However,if you wish to debate caches my own personal feelings are there should be a limit placed on how many micro's a person is allowed to place.

I doubt that would ever happen,but it's something that should be condsidered.

Micro's as a whole are'nt that bad,but when you look at a map & see more micro's than anything else in some areas it kinda takes something away from the reason some of us go caching.

Link to comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendme...eedom_of_speech

 

The internet is a great place to learn things,providing a person actually wants to learn.

 

 

Yes, it is.

From http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

 

(Which I trust a little more than wikipedia)

 

"Also note that the language is a prohibition on Congressional action. The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the First Amendment unless the State does the suppressing. The State could be either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many mistakenly thank that any suppression of speech, including suppression by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it does not present a constitutional issue."

 

Groundspeak is running a private forum. You agree to abide by the terms of use on their site when registering and to abide by their forum guidelines when posting.

 

When you violate the terms, you face the consequences.

 

Congress has made no law regarding these guidelines; therefore, the 1st amendment isn't applicable.

 

Edit to add the quotation marks around the quoted text.

Edited by KoosKoos
Link to comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendme...eedom_of_speech

 

The internet is a great place to learn things,providing a person actually wants to learn.

 

 

Yes, it is.

From http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

 

(Which I trust a little more than wikipedia)

 

"Also note that the language is a prohibition on Congressional action. The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the First Amendment unless the State does the suppressing. The State could be either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many mistakenly thank that any suppression of speech, including suppression by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it does not present a constitutional issue."

 

Groundspeak is running a private forum. You agree to abide by the terms of use on their site when registering and to abide by their forum guidelines when posting.

 

When you violate the terms, you face the consequences.

 

Congress has may no law regarding these guidelines; therefore, the 1st amendment isn't applicable.

 

Edit to add the quotation marks around the quoted text.

KK, thank you very much for stating this so clearly! I have been going rather cross-eyed with insane rage over the past half-day after reading the incredibly inane and asinine (but self-serving...) claims made in this realm of so-called "free speech" by some of the less well-informed but highly-opinionated posters to this thread. In fact, I must forthwith go to my laboratory and quaff a large mugful of radioactive water from my radium water dispenser in order to soothe my irritated nerves. Thank you for doing the needful!

Link to comment

A more careful search would reveal that there are still limits on free speech--You simply cannot say whatever you want to whoever you choose whenever you please without regard to consequence. Simply put, your right to free speech (or indeed any action) ends at my right not to be abused.

 

A good example is perjury--It is illegal to deliberately lie in court.

 

Limitations on freedom of speech may include:

 

* threats

* profanity

* obscenity

* defamation of character (slander or libel)

* inciting a riot or any kind of hate mongering (attempting to promote harm to some particular group)

* speaking out of turn in a civic forum (i.e. "not having the floor")

* talking about a legal situation after a gag order is in place

* noise pollution (preventing others from being able to communicate)

* giving away protected information (i.e. company secrets, political strategies, etc) by an insider

* giving away classified information (i.e. military secrets)

Thank you for the list.

 

After reading it, I've decided to ban Vinny permanently from the forums.

 

:D

Link to comment

A more careful search would reveal that there are still limits on free speech--You simply cannot say whatever you want to whoever you choose whenever you please without regard to consequence. Simply put, your right to free speech (or indeed any action) ends at my right not to be abused.

 

A good example is perjury--It is illegal to deliberately lie in court.

 

Limitations on freedom of speech may include:

 

* threats

* profanity

* obscenity

* defamation of character (slander or libel)

* inciting a riot or any kind of hate mongering (attempting to promote harm to some particular group)

* speaking out of turn in a civic forum (i.e. "not having the floor")

* talking about a legal situation after a gag order is in place

* noise pollution (preventing others from being able to communicate)

* giving away protected information (i.e. company secrets, political strategies, etc) by an insider

* giving away classified information (i.e. military secrets)

Thank you for the list.

 

After reading it, I've decided to ban Vinny permanently from the forums.

 

:D

:D

Link to comment

A more careful search would reveal that there are still limits on free speech--You simply cannot say whatever you want to whoever you choose whenever you please without regard to consequence. Simply put, your right to free speech (or indeed any action) ends at my right not to be abused.

 

A good example is perjury--It is illegal to deliberately lie in court.

 

Limitations on freedom of speech may include:

 

* threats

* profanity

* obscenity

* defamation of character (slander or libel)

* inciting a riot or any kind of hate mongering (attempting to promote harm to some particular group)

* speaking out of turn in a civic forum (i.e. "not having the floor")

* talking about a legal situation after a gag order is in place

* noise pollution (preventing others from being able to communicate)

* giving away protected information (i.e. company secrets, political strategies, etc) by an insider

* giving away classified information (i.e. military secrets)

Thank you for the list.

 

After reading it, I've decided to ban Vinny permanently from the forums.

 

:D

 

I'll give you a nickel if you let me do it!

spin_nickel.gif

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...