I am fed up to the eyeballs with the fucking blowhards who pull the first amendment out of their pus-filled assholes and think that means they can do or say any small-minded thing they want on my website.
This is what I’d love to be able to say:
You madam are an idiot, and don’t deserve citizenship in this fine nation of ours if you can’t understand this most basic, simple and elegant part of our constitution. It means the GOVERNMENT has no right to abridge your freedom of speech and not that any old media outlet that you happen to stumble across has to let you have your pointless little say.
You see ma’am, that means when I delete your post I’m not censoring you, and if I type real slow you might be able to understand. I would even be kind enough to quote the text of this amendment for you, and explain ever so gently what it really means. Really, I’d love to help.
But no, you have stomped away shrieking about your lawyer and how you are going to shut us down for “sensorship.” I hope you get laughed out of their office. I hope that you do file a lawsuit and that all the might and fury of our corporate law group comes hailing down on your head. Looser.
Twiddle
P.S. My first rant in the BBQ. Pretty lame but I sure do feel better.
I was with you until the end. I don’t like people who think the First Amendment applies to private message fora either. But feeling tough behind a corporate law group, meh.
Besides, there’d be no might and fury, probably just a 12(b)(6).
Actually, you are censoring her: “To examine and expurgate” — American Heritage. But if it is your website, you have at least an ethical right to censor her.
Well, you ARE censoring her when you delete her post. It’s just that you’re allowed to do that.
I like to think of a messageboard as someone’s living room, and I’m their guest. They might set up great rules for guests (“Don’t hit other guests! Don’t vomit on the rug!”), in which case I’ll enjoy being there. They might set up arbitrary rules for guests (“Don’t swear! Don’t discuss politics!”), in which case I may or may not enjoy myself. They might set up terrible rules (“Don’t pretend like the HOlocaust really occurred!”) in which case, I’ll hate being there.
Here’s the thing, though: if I don’t like the rules someone sets up in their house, I leave. I don’t tell them that I have a first amendment right to sit on their sofa and argue about the Holocaust with them; I’ve got no such right whatsoever, no matter how stupid their beliefs or rules are.
Censorship!=illegal, as long as a private party is doing it internally.
I’d like to add a friendly amendment and add the morons that quote a particular paragraph of a legal decision (that frequently is not particularly relevant) and which they haven’t even read, as support for their argument and then go on referring to the case as if it is suppose to overwhelm all logic and common sense.
Anyone read the Legal Threats at Something Awful? Though I think their responses to such threats are stupid the person making the threats usually does a skillful job of making themselves look like utter asses.
I have more than one seventh grade student who believes that his ‘freedom of speech’ legally gives him the right to speak as loudly and as often in class as he wishes.
You have a real hard-on for corporal punishment. And I mean that literally. If corporal punishment had physical form, I have no doubt you would want very much to have sex with it.
