I was threatened by Wrong Planet based on my opinions here.

Post Reply New Topic

Four thoughts:

--The ACLU is concerned with GOVERNMENTAL restrictions on Internet speech. They do not care about your complaint.

--You haven't described anything that even remotely relates to unconstitutional behavior. I am confident that people do not have a constitutional right to post anything they want, wherever they want on the Internet and have it stay accessible in perpetuity.

--You have every right to start your own website or set up your own blog (which costs you nothing to do) or post your thoughts on any of the millions of other websites on the Internet that allow comments. You have free speech.

--My 8 year old son has a blog and he turned off the "comments" feature so you cannot post your comments on his page. Please add him to your lawsuit because he is also unconstitutionally restricting your free speech.

bored now

Merle

Sinsboldly,

Here is a member that instead of debating the issue decided to directly insult me. He or she called me dumb and a douche. If you ban me this person should be the next in line to go. Clearly, Sinsboldly this person has gone far and beyond anything I have said or done. Don't you think? If you ban and/or warn me obviously you're a hypocrite if nothing happens to this user even with your own draconian rules here.

Why richardbenson! we have chatted about your beautiful agates and talked over living on your own stragies. We have PMed back and forth since before you left your mom's house and then when you were living on your own. We have even discussed your unique avatars and here you are saying no mod likes you! I like you! remember?

Merle

well stop your foolishness then you cry baby you cant expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a public display such as this. the moderators can ban me for my unruley behaviour but its the truth and i dont care. i think its time for you to grow up or get off the internet

ah yes, i remember now. it was just such an obscene amount of pms i was getting from the mods so i thought none of them liked me. my apologys, but you know what? i should have thought about a lawsuit at the time. i hope the statues of limitations hasnt expired yet! you hurt my feelings!

I think freedom of speech is important, but in it the Internet the thing about it that promotes freedom of speech equally is that fact that anonymity prevents you from bashing a fellow's free speech with nasty phone calls, spit in your burger being OUTED as the proverbial red, when you have a valid opinion that some don't like especially in small towns. where can you go if people reject you everywhere? the Internet gives that safety net and provides a platform to communicate with diffuse set of people who share the same values as you rather than being spanked by tyranny of COMMUNITY STANDARDS in the sense of locality.

the problem is people have learned to get around this by making the Identity that has bin built up of an individual on-line subject to persecution by Identifying and posting anything that can Identify about them and crowd sourcing that info. Posting about someones on-line Identity is damaging in that It provides a precedent setting tool for that on forums that allow that.

I haven't seen the context of said thread that was censored but If it was about a forum member it cant help but scare people away by attracting all of there enemies and people who judge them into it and get a large enough audience to create problems.

It scares me that if for saying anything that differs from you or somebody else I would get a thread about me.that might turn nasty. that wouldn't be fair and that is a form of censorship that you can see in the bible era and today. chilling effect


If it stayed up it would become standard fair from your example staying up.

EDIT: I see there is more current discourse about the details when I got done making my post. It certainly isn't right what they did but a post souly about a specific person rather than an action of nastiness that happens a lot should be made general so that more discrete prevention and interdiction can occur for others foolishness is a common thing that we all suffer as much as our own.

Aside from grudges that members have, what is your main goal in posting this topic, i agree Freedom of Speeech is limited in some areas and it shouldn't be, but what are you planning to do? You stated how you were treated un-fair, and many have said sorry for whatever pain/hardship we caused you, though there were those whom held there ground and sounded there opinions, what would you have us do?

No need to delve into philosophy at all. Just have both sides of the issue meet with their lawyers in front of a judge and, if necessary, a peerage-based jury.

You might have heard of this method. It's called the legal process, wherein conflicts are resolved in a sane and orderly fashion, rather than being hashed out in an on-line forum by a cast of rank amateurs. What's more, the results of any legal process are immensely more binding than the results of any philosophical debate - the former involving the mandatory exchange of millions of dollars in settlement, while the latter might require only the surrender of a "Best Debate Team" cup.

I didn't see the thread in question, so I can't comment on it.

I can comment on your allegations though. Ain't nobody got views as offensive as mine, on one issue anyway. I've expressed those views on numerous occasions here and nobody's interfered with my freedom of speech.

Matter of fact, last time I looked, the ACLU stated on their home page that they wouldn't consider the violations of my most fundamental human rights that me and my children have been subjected to by government agencies in the United States of America purely because of my gender. Me and millions of other Americans.

Considering the facts, I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that you're fullofshit.

You want to talk about protecting the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. I spent three years in the United States Army. How about you?

Personally, I do not agree with the "privately owned website" idea because I grew up in the American south during the civil rights era, so I believe that there are cases where private property ownership does not imply unrestricted license.

In a free market economy, people obtain necessities through privately owned enterprises, and necessities must be recognized as necessities. If the only grocery store in the area refuses to sell groceries to black people, that's not a legitimate expression of private property rights.

Theoretically, the most impoverished members of the community could establish their own grocery store, but that isn't realistic in the real world.

So is wrongplanet a necessity? I don't think anybody planned it that way, but I think that's how it ended up.

It would be impossible to obtain any statistics on this since it's obvious that most aspies don't know they're aspies, but I think there's reason to believe that suicide is correlated with asperger's something like the way lung cancer is correlated with cigarette smoking.

This has much to do with the isolation from other humans so many aspies experience. Humans have never lived as isolated individuals anywhere in the world at any time in history. Humans are not a solitary species.

Internet forums provide an alternative to this isolation where the nonverbal limitations of asperger's are irrelevant and aspies can experience equality with non-aspies. Theory aside, the fact is that wrongplanet is at the present time the only aspie and autistic forum on the internet large and diverse enough to be considered truly significant.

So I don't believe that private ownership in this case means that the people who run wrongplanet can do anything they want.

I also believe that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Since the people who run wrongplanet aren't suppressing views as radical and unfashionable as mine, I find it difficult to believe they're suppressing anybody else's.

OK, lets say this so that all can understand:

The constitution protects your rights against government entities, not private ones.

You have no basis here for any lawsuit and any judge in the USA would at least laugh you out of court. If you get and ornery judge, he may actually try to charge you with filing a malicious lawsuit and the loser can be forced to pay the winners costs IF it is proven that the lawsuit should not have been filed.

WrongPlanet is not a government entity. It is a private web page, no different that your home. Within your home, you can make up the rules. In WP, Alex Plank (who owns the site) makes the rules and than recruits people (who mostly volunteer their time) to enforce them. In the same way, the government may not violate your privacy without court action and following specific steps, but I as an individual can look into your private life (and you would be surprised at what one can find out using something like Lexis Nexis).

Simply put, your thread violated the rules, you were warned, and the offending thread was removed. Consider yourself lucky you were not banned but if you keep it up, you will be banned. If you want to be a critic of Amanda Bragg, then create your own website (which you have the constiutional right to do).

Irrelevant, it's a private website. The Admins get to chose what they find proper for the website.

If I was a judge I'd throw you out of court.

+1

reddingcal, you say that Amanda Baggs is a public figure, and therefore you can talk about her, but (as Merle says) if she is a member of this website, then you are violating the website rules by defaming(?) (I haven't read the original post so I don't know what you actually said) a fellow member. By being a member of this website, Amanda Baggs falls under the protection of this website and its rules, therefore, although I don't know much about law here, your argument seems vitally flawed to me.

I didn't see the thread in question, but I think it's quite reasonable for members to want to discuss other members who are in the public eye, many of them have books, or are purporting to represent 'autism' so I think it's absurd to try to apply this kind of rule about 'public' autistics. They chose to be in the spotlight, so they have already given their permission.

besides, I don't think Amanda posts here anymore.

We do however, get regular appearances from Amanda's foes here, I don't know why, but then her 'crew' turn up here to defend her. It's like some game going on in some other part of the internet.

Amanda's been here for a long time, and has only been away for a few months, so I wouldn't consider her a "former" member yet. She's just busy offline right now.

Of course we're going to discuss each other. Aren't there appreciation threads here and there? The problem is when you get these threads attacking people. There have been two other such threads recently, and it got pretty ugly. This is supposed to be a safe place for all of us, including whichever famous auties care to show up. That means keeping it fair. I don't know what people were saying that the mods didn't like, but I'd suggest erring on the side of caution in the future.