Anyway to inform moderators of inappropriate content posts ?

[sheldonsmom]

HOW DARE YOU!!!!! Who are you to claim I am joking???? It did grave harm to my soul and psyche to view that filth. I had problems sleeping after reading that. I am very grateful that my son was not reading over my shoulder when that popped up. He reads these forums to learn from those who have experience.

NO ONE should ever be exposed to raw toxin such as that was. I repeat, if you don't like the rules here, take your marbles and go home. When we are in someone else's house as we are on this forum, we play by their rules. My children understand that concept even if you don't.

 

I asked my son what freedom of speech means. He replied "freedom of speech is open discussion of ideas, freedom to speak out against precieved wrongs at a time and place appropriate." Just for the record, he is 17 and standing at my shoulder now.

 

[packsaddle]

Sheldonsmom, Please take what I am about to advise as friendly advice. I saw what you saw and read what you read. I agree. But The Scout is baiting you. He is blathering about ideals from a position of ignorance of the actual event. His mind is a stone wall and nothing you write will penetrate it. Let it go. It isn't worth it. Just move on to a more profitable activity...as I am going to do now.

[TheScout]

Do you have any bumps, bruises? Bleeding at all? Still have all your property? Any of it stolen, or trashed?

 

I didn't think so.

 

You seem ok.

 

So if anyone claims their "soul" is damaged we can regulate another's speech.

 

"freedom of speech is open discussion of ideas, freedom to speak out against precieved wrongs at a time and place appropriate."

 

Thats nice. Too bad it seems you are all so willing to put restrictions on the liberty of others.

 

By limited speech to "percieved wrongs" at certain times and places look at all the limits you create.

 

Who determines whether they are percieved wrongs.

 

Who determines what the place is?

 

Who determines what the time is?

 

The whole time I have said in a private forum such as this the owner has the right to do so. However should he? Or should he promote liberty and not decide to make such decisions.

 

I chose liberty. Too bad you don't.

 

[sheldonsmom]

I agree, and am considering the source but I couldn't let him make that last comment a joke. We will not change the other's mind on the topic. I just wish once someone would honestly debate a topic and not be provocative for the sake of being provocative. I don't take pedophelia as a joke and am saddened that anyone could.

[Eamonn]

Our home computer is in the shop. - The guy tells me I need a new motherboard. I think it must have got held up in the Saint Patrick's Day celebrations in Ireland.

I'm using a laptop which for some reason isn't allowing me to use Outlook Express, where I read most of my emails.

I missed the inappropriate pots.

 

On the topic of free speech.

 

I have owned and operated a couple of bars over the years.

People came in to relax and have a good time.

There were times when topics were discussed and people disagreed.People were of course free to voice their opinion.

Their opinion might not and very often didn't agree with mine. -If I had an opinion on what was being discussed.

That was fine and dandy with me.

But when they started using bad language. That wasn't fine and they were asked to leave.

Here in the forum we have at the bottom of the page posted:

"This is a private community provided by SCOUTER Network

and reserved for Scouting related discussions."

 

As I say I didn't see what was posted.

But by what I'm reading, I kinda think it didn't fall into or under a "Scouting related discussion"

Whoever posted whatever was posted??

Has every right to post whatever it was. -Only he isn't free to do it here.

Having not seen it. I'm not sure where it would be OK to post? But if he really wants to say or share it, I'm sure he can find a more suitable place.

I'm not saying that this person isn't free to say whatever he likes.

I'm just saying that he isn't free to say it here.

Eamonn.

 

[gwd-scouter]

Packsaddle - thanks for the offer, but I don't really need to know the content of the posts.

[Lisabob]

See now, I'm perfectly ok with people showing their ignorance, idiocy, hot headedness, shallowness, narrow-mindedness, and/or sheer lack of common sense for all to see.

 

As with packsaddle, I'm done with this thread. Seems there's only one person "upset" about all this, and that one person didn't even see the original posts. Well, you can't please everybody all the time.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[vol_scouter]

I think that everyone on this board support the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. That right was delineated to be certain that the people have a guarunteed right to criticize their government. That is the purpose. We tend to want to extend the concept to other situations which is a good thing. However, as the scout himself points out, this is a private board that can control what is posted. I am against censorship in the public realm but at the same time support the controls placed on the users of this board. Just as the BSA would nopt support maintaining a scout or scouter who used profuse profanity, consistently insulted others, and/or made threatening remarks. We should fight to keep our freedom of speech but we should also fight to keep the right of free association which implies the ability of organizations to have standards.

 

I do not know what this poster said but others were obviously quite disturbed. Even though curious as to the details, that is enough for me.

 

There is considerable latitude in the issues and politics section as to views expressed as long as the postings keep to the Scout Oath and Law. That is appropriate as well. Arguments do not have to be foul to be effective. In general, the more name calling and insults from a poster correlate with weaker arguments that are losing the debate.

 

So keep these forums clean and reasonably respectful to others.

[OldGreyEagle]

The First Amendment does protect public free speech, and this is not a public place, so there is no promise of Free Speech here although I do believe a lot is tolerated.

 

But if the concept of Freedom of expression is being discussed one must consider socialized norms. One could consider George Carlin's Seven Words you can't say on the Radio. Why not? Would the world end if they were uttered on the radio? Why can't Howard Stern do his show over the "Free" radio waves? Why can't I run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine?

 

Because we accept the social contract and realize there are parameters to behavior in public. While a man's home may be his castle and whatever goes on between two consenting adults is not society's concern, that which goes on in view of society must conform to the views of that society. We acquiece to society's norms because society norms provides security

 

[Eamonn]

Green Jello?

You are originally from Chicago?

You might get away with it on March 17th.

Eamonn

[OldGreyEagle]

Well, originally from Chicago, but thats not where the green jello comes from

 

 

PS there is a huge void between Liberty and Anarchy(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[SR540Beaver]

thescout,

 

I support free speech, but free speech has it limitations depending on where you are attempting to speak freely. Come into my home and tell my wife she has a big butt (which she doesn't) and you'll likely find yourself with a split lip.......before I get hold of you. Same applies with "public" forums on the internet. Even though they are public, they are owned by someone and they get to decide what you can and can not say on their forum. I was one of those folks who PM'ed the majority of the mods as well as sent a message to Scouter-Terry fhru facebook to alert them to a mischevious troll on the forum who was trying to be disruptive and shock people. Regardless of your personal stance on freedom of speech, that only exists here based on what the owner and the mods decide. They didn't seem to care to have a user with a vulgar name who posted about sex with children and killing Jews. You might find that to be acceptable speech on a public Scouting forum, but you don't get to decide. They took the course of action they deemed appropriate.

[eagle1977]

thescout:

 

okay I'll bite. Just how devoted to the freedom of speech are you? Do you think that it is okay to burn the American flag?

[BrentAllen]

Those who didn't see the messages didn't miss much. It was a brand new poster who logged on just to post some childish graffiti. This wasn't someone who posts regularly - just a troll popping in to post some trash.

 

I won't repost what he wrote, but it was basically one-liners, think Beavis & Butthead humor, with some double entendres. It was vulgar and had no place on this board. As was mentioned, if a moderator doesn't put an end to that nonsense, it will kill a board. Imagine security catching the streaker at a ballgame and removing him from the scene. Should he be allowed to streak around ruining the game, or should he be removed? I vote for removal.

[TheScout]

SR540Beaver,

 

If you read all I said, I never said that the moderator did not have the right to ban it. I was just arguing the propriety of it.

 

Eagle1977,

 

I don't think it is "ok" but I think someone can burn it if they wish.

 

I like the words of the 1989 Supreme Court decision on the matter in Texas vs. Johnson:

 

"Precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by -- as one witness here did -- according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

 

I like the words. Though I disagree with the opinon itself. That has more to do with the legal aspects of it, considering the scope of the 10th and 14th Amendments and the proper role of the federal courts.

 

I guess it gets me some grief, but somebody has to speak out for liberty. It is easy for you all to preach free speach when we talk about nice things. It really comes into play. If you really believe in it, if you let people talk about such vile thing this poster did.