ROFL
Please ban ZZZzzzzzzz. He debases every thread in which he participates.
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
No, here's the real question:
Let's say you own an auditorium that can be used for lectures, plays, small concerts, etc.
You put in countless hours of hard work to create it, building the place from the ground up with your own two hands. The auditorium is your only significant asset, and your only source of income.
Now, let's say some guy wants free use of your podium tomorrow night, in order to give a seven hour lecture on 'the art and science of nose-picking'. <b>Would you be restricting his right to free speech in any way by refusing this request?</b>
Depends on whether the town council is for the art of nose picking
or
against the sin of nose picking.
Individuals don't matter. I didn't write the rule, but the rule exist.
or
against the sin of nose picking.
Individuals don't matter. I didn't write the rule, but the rule exist.
Not a bad analogy, Hank. I guess the question that arises is whether or not a 'public' web site with no barrier to admission and free membership is a public place. If you run a movie theatre and you refuse admission to someone because you don't like her politics, you face sanctions. In your analogy, the owner will want to make a decision that protects the integrity of the establishment. The implication is that granting the absurd lecturer the right to speak will undermine the reputation of and otherwise hurt business (he probably generates income from advertising if there is no admission fee. If there is an admission fee, then there's no problem - you can choose your lecturers according to your preferences).
I don't think ET or any is a public place, legally speaking, is it?
In this case, Z's idiotic posts actually help Baron because they generate page views, which is his bread and butter (as far as I understand it).
I always suspected that Z paid his way back on after being banned twice. Don't you think the page views Z generates (or used to generate) affects (or affected) Baron's decision?
Anyhow, I want Z here so that people can see how disgusting his brand of solipsism actually is.
Nik, IMO this website is <b>most definitely</b> Baron's privately owned property, to do with as he sees fit. I'm not sure whether he considers LoZZZer an asset or a liability... or if he's even spent any time considering the creature at all.
My main point is that individuals don't even have the capacity to perform bona fide censorship or restrict the free speech of other individuals- Only a government can do that! All an individual can do, is say: "Not on my property. Take it somewhere else."
"If you run a movie theatre and you refuse admission to someone because you don't like her politics, you face sanctions."
True... and that policy goes against everything Libertarianism & America's founding fathers stand for! The government should have the legal ability to violate an individual's private property rights, <b>only</b> in cases when actions must be taken against serious human rights abuses like kidnapping or rape. Anything else would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
My main point is that individuals don't even have the capacity to perform bona fide censorship or restrict the free speech of other individuals- Only a government can do that! All an individual can do, is say: "Not on my property. Take it somewhere else."
"If you run a movie theatre and you refuse admission to someone because you don't like her politics, you face sanctions."
True... and that policy goes against everything Libertarianism & America's founding fathers stand for! The government should have the legal ability to violate an individual's private property rights, <b>only</b> in cases when actions must be taken against serious human rights abuses like kidnapping or rape. Anything else would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
I believe that the talk about free speech in the context of my complaint about ZZZzzzzzzz is misguided. RM gave an example of where it need not necessarily apply. Allow me to provide another.
Imagine that you are a member of a privately owned club. One member is habitually abrasive and malicious in his conduct towards others, and has shown himself time and again to be disingenuous and entirely without scuples in his conduct with other members. He almost always initiates the abuse. And, as I noted earlier in this thread, and provided a link, he even flirts with pedophilia. As a club member, would you willingly put up with that kind of crap? And if the club owner had any standards, what would he do?
Imagine that you are a member of a privately owned club. One member is habitually abrasive and malicious in his conduct towards others, and has shown himself time and again to be disingenuous and entirely without scuples in his conduct with other members. He almost always initiates the abuse. And, as I noted earlier in this thread, and provided a link, he even flirts with pedophilia. As a club member, would you willingly put up with that kind of crap? And if the club owner had any standards, what would he do?
T^-dog.. I find you annoying, and whiny.and generally an uncool PIA
let's ban both of you
let's ban both of you
Complain to Baron. It's his joint. Let him decide. All I did was state my case. Feel free to do the same.Quote from armoured saint:
T^-dog.. I find you annoying, and whiny.and generally an uncool PIA
let's ban both of you
i did hahha
Yes, I can see how serious you are about your case.Quote from armoured saint:
i did hahha