Here's what mgmt. should do to improve this community

[emilynghiem]

Censor, suspend and BAN chronic liars. Seriously.

For instance. If someone makes a claim, they should be prepared to back it up. There are times that people come into this community and make statements that are patently false and, when challenged, they fail to either back up their statement or acknowledge that their statement was wrong. Basically, they're lying and spreading disinformation. I am NOT advocating for people who are well-intentioned to be censored. I AM advocating for posters who, as a matter of routine procedure, spew lie after lie after lie and are permitted to do so, day after day.

Another option would be to relegate proven and repeated, serial liars to forums such as the rubber room, conspiracy theories, etc.

Dear K9Buck
I think under CDZ you can set more specific rules for posting on threads you start.
Check with the rules and the Mods.
You can ask for ppl to be banned but they have to break the global rules.
for local threads, they can be removed or banned from that specific area or thread
for refusing to comply. Check on this, you can have close to what you ask.
But no one has the time to do it for you.
if you want rules to be followed, then lay them out and enforce them yourself.
People who agree to follow the same rules will follow you.
Others who don't will stay away if you are too much trouble to meet your conditions.

 

[OldLady]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

I agree with you, K9Buck

 

[usmbguest5318]

Chronic liars get their freedom of speech here and you have the freedom of putting them on ignore or simply just ignoring them.

Censor, suspend and BAN chronic liars. Seriously.

For instance. If someone makes a claim, they should be prepared to back it up. There are times that people come into this community and make statements that are patently false and, when challenged, they fail to either back up their statement or acknowledge that their statement was wrong. Basically, they're lying and spreading disinformation. I am NOT advocating for people who are well-intentioned to be censored. I AM advocating for posters who, as a matter of routine procedure, spew lie after lie after lie and are permitted to do so, day after day.

Another option would be to relegate proven and repeated, serial liars to forums such as the rubber room, conspiracy theories, etc.

Sorry, your preference of filtering 1st Amendment content works on College Campuses.

But not here

-Geaux

freedom of speech

1st Amendment

Clearly you are not aware of the scope of the First Amendment's applicability. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

One observes that the 1st doesn't say a damn thing about what constraints a private organization may exert on speech. The First Amendment is a shield only against government retaliation, and just 7 percent of Americans are employed by state, local or the federal government. It does not guarantee free speech in interactions to which no government organization is party.

• The First Amendment won’t save you from your own bad judgment
  
  Like every provision of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment applies only to the government. The free speech clause says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” (emphasis added). The text was properly understood only to restrain the U.S. Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech. Over the past century, courts have expanded the First Amendment to apply against state and local governments as well as the federal government, but never against a private company or individual.
  
  
• The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does - CNNPolitics
  
• The First Amendment "Playing Field": Regulating Speech in the Workplace | New Jersey Law Blog
  
  The right to freedom of speech is fundamental and is one of our most cherished rights, yet it is not absolute. Federal free speech protections apply only to the government. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not apply to private employers. Generally speaking, private sector employees are not entitled to First Amendment free speech protection, even when speaking about job-related matters in the course of their employment duties results in adverse employment action. For example, employers can prohibit employees from engaging in speech during work time that is not work-related. Similarly, employers must take action against employees who engage in speech that would violate an anti-harassment policy or create a hostile work environment, and private employers have every right to regulate or prohibit any category of “unprotected” speech such as “fighting words,” offensive speech or obscenity.
  
  When considering the issue of employee free speech rights in the private sector, courts have consistently held that private employers can significantly curtail employee free speech rights. For example, in the recent case of Schumann v. Dianon Sys....the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that a private sector employee was not entitled to free-speech protection, even though his speech concerned job-related matters, where the speech was disruptive to his employment, interfered with his job performance, strained his relationship with his supervisor, created division, and was insubordinate. A good counterpoint to this decision is the Third Circuit’s ruling in Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., in which the court found a violation of public policy where an employer terminated an employee for refusing to participate in the employer’s political activities (lobbying efforts).

Private organizations are well within their rights to countenance or not pretty much whatever speech they deem suitable. The government and its elected and appointed officials, on the other hand, cannot, aside from in limited circumstances, implement the provisions the OP-er suggests.

When considering the scope of the 1st Amendment, the distinction between a private sector and public sector entity or individual is profound. While a private sector person/entity may do a variety of things, s/he/it has no authority, tax or imprison anyone. Moreover, while one can escape the orbit of private entities and their goods and services, the same is not true for governments.

 

[miketx]

Bad idea. Over half the members would be gone.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Clearly you are not aware of the scope of the First Amendment's applicability. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

One observes that the 1st doesn't say a damn thing about what constraints a private organization may exert on speech. The First Amendment is a shield only against government retaliation, and just 7 percent of Americans are employed by state, local or the federal government. It does not guarantee free speech in interactions to which no government organization is party.

• The First Amendment won’t save you from your own bad judgment
  
  Like every provision of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment applies only to the government. The free speech clause says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” (emphasis added). The text was properly understood only to restrain the U.S. Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech. Over the past century, courts have expanded the First Amendment to apply against state and local governments as well as the federal government, but never against a private company or individual.
  
  
• The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does - CNNPolitics
  
• The First Amendment "Playing Field": Regulating Speech in the Workplace | New Jersey Law Blog
  
  The right to freedom of speech is fundamental and is one of our most cherished rights, yet it is not absolute. Federal free speech protections apply only to the government. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not apply to private employers. Generally speaking, private sector employees are not entitled to First Amendment free speech protection, even when speaking about job-related matters in the course of their employment duties results in adverse employment action. For example, employers can prohibit employees from engaging in speech during work time that is not work-related. Similarly, employers must take action against employees who engage in speech that would violate an anti-harassment policy or create a hostile work environment, and private employers have every right to regulate or prohibit any category of “unprotected” speech such as “fighting words,” offensive speech or obscenity.
  
  When considering the issue of employee free speech rights in the private sector, courts have consistently held that private employers can significantly curtail employee free speech rights. For example, in the recent case of Schumann v. Dianon Sys....the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that a private sector employee was not entitled to free-speech protection, even though his speech concerned job-related matters, where the speech was disruptive to his employment, interfered with his job performance, strained his relationship with his supervisor, created division, and was insubordinate. A good counterpoint to this decision is the Third Circuit’s ruling in Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., in which the court found a violation of public policy where an employer terminated an employee for refusing to participate in the employer’s political activities (lobbying efforts).

Private organizations are well within their rights to countenance or not pretty much whatever speech they deem suitable. The government and its elected and appointed officials, on the other hand, cannot, aside from in limited circumstances, implement the provisions the OP-er suggests.

When considering the scope of the 1st Amendment, the distinction between a private sector and public sector entity or individual is profound. While a private sector person/entity may do a variety of things, s/he/it has no authority, tax or imprison anyone. Moreover, while one can escape the orbit of private entities and their goods and services, the same is not true for governments.

That's a darned good post. Very good. And agreed completely.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

Its a good idea the problem is that some people want so much freedom that even facts arent really facts if you have the freedom to twist them around to other things. There are some people who will only jump into a thread to troll and dismantle with lies. There should be some system where that isnt allowed or is even tagged with big ass L or something.

But with Brietbart and other Russian outlets being the favorites around here tagging false information would essentially shut down most of the conservative accounts on the board

 

[norwegen]

When someone lies, make him sit up.

That's what my grandma always did to me.

 

[K9Buck]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

Its a good idea the problem is that some people want so much freedom that even facts arent really facts if you have the freedom to twist them around to other things. There are some people who will only jump into a thread to troll and dismantle with lies. There should be some system where that isnt allowed or is even tagged with big ass L or something.

But with Brietbart and other Russian outlets being the favorites around here tagging false information would essentially shut down most of the conservative accounts on the board

Since you brought it up, my motivation for this post is the incessant lies told by liberals.

 

[miketx]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

Its a good idea the problem is that some people want so much freedom that even facts arent really facts if you have the freedom to twist them around to other things. There are some people who will only jump into a thread to troll and dismantle with lies. There should be some system where that isnt allowed or is even tagged with big ass L or something.

But with Brietbart and other Russian outlets being the favorites around here tagging false information would essentially shut down most of the conservative accounts on the board

Since you brought it up, my motivation for this post is the incessant lies told by liberals.

It's almost non stop. Edited to add:

Doh! non stop, that what incessant means!

 

[ClosedCaption]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

Its a good idea the problem is that some people want so much freedom that even facts arent really facts if you have the freedom to twist them around to other things. There are some people who will only jump into a thread to troll and dismantle with lies. There should be some system where that isnt allowed or is even tagged with big ass L or something.

But with Brietbart and other Russian outlets being the favorites around here tagging false information would essentially shut down most of the conservative accounts on the board

Since you brought it up, my motivation for this post is the incessant lies told by liberals.

LMAO! Thats interesting. What lies are so pervasive that made you start the thread?

 

[K9Buck]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

Its a good idea the problem is that some people want so much freedom that even facts arent really facts if you have the freedom to twist them around to other things. There are some people who will only jump into a thread to troll and dismantle with lies. There should be some system where that isnt allowed or is even tagged with big ass L or something.

But with Brietbart and other Russian outlets being the favorites around here tagging false information would essentially shut down most of the conservative accounts on the board

Since you brought it up, my motivation for this post is the incessant lies told by liberals.

LMAO! Thats interesting. What lies are so pervasive that made you start the thread?

Oh wait. Liberals don't lie, right?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I see my idea has not been too well received.

I see this community as a group of honest people engaging in give-and-take discussions on a multitude of subjects. But when someone comes here and tells a blatant lie followed by another blatant lie and continues to do that daily, then they are obviously not "well-intentioned" nor interested in engaging in honest discussion. I believe this community would be better off without such disingenuous people. If their only purpose here is to engage in deception by spreading falsehoods on a daily basis, why would management want them to remain here? Why would you?

In any event, I suppose I'll have to be content to put them on "ignore".

Its a good idea the problem is that some people want so much freedom that even facts arent really facts if you have the freedom to twist them around to other things. There are some people who will only jump into a thread to troll and dismantle with lies. There should be some system where that isnt allowed or is even tagged with big ass L or something.

But with Brietbart and other Russian outlets being the favorites around here tagging false information would essentially shut down most of the conservative accounts on the board

Since you brought it up, my motivation for this post is the incessant lies told by liberals.

LMAO! Thats interesting. What lies are so pervasive that made you start the thread?

Oh wait. Liberals don't lie, right?

Thats what I thought. Gawd, with one question the whole thread falls apart

 

[usmbguest5318]

Clearly you are not aware of the scope of the First Amendment's applicability. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

One observes that the 1st doesn't say a damn thing about what constraints a private organization may exert on speech. The First Amendment is a shield only against government retaliation, and just 7 percent of Americans are employed by state, local or the federal government. It does not guarantee free speech in interactions to which no government organization is party.

• The First Amendment won’t save you from your own bad judgment
  
  Like every provision of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment applies only to the government. The free speech clause says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” (emphasis added). The text was properly understood only to restrain the U.S. Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech. Over the past century, courts have expanded the First Amendment to apply against state and local governments as well as the federal government, but never against a private company or individual.
  
  
• The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does - CNNPolitics
  
• The First Amendment "Playing Field": Regulating Speech in the Workplace | New Jersey Law Blog
  
  The right to freedom of speech is fundamental and is one of our most cherished rights, yet it is not absolute. Federal free speech protections apply only to the government. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not apply to private employers. Generally speaking, private sector employees are not entitled to First Amendment free speech protection, even when speaking about job-related matters in the course of their employment duties results in adverse employment action. For example, employers can prohibit employees from engaging in speech during work time that is not work-related. Similarly, employers must take action against employees who engage in speech that would violate an anti-harassment policy or create a hostile work environment, and private employers have every right to regulate or prohibit any category of “unprotected” speech such as “fighting words,” offensive speech or obscenity.
  
  When considering the issue of employee free speech rights in the private sector, courts have consistently held that private employers can significantly curtail employee free speech rights. For example, in the recent case of Schumann v. Dianon Sys....the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that a private sector employee was not entitled to free-speech protection, even though his speech concerned job-related matters, where the speech was disruptive to his employment, interfered with his job performance, strained his relationship with his supervisor, created division, and was insubordinate. A good counterpoint to this decision is the Third Circuit’s ruling in Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., in which the court found a violation of public policy where an employer terminated an employee for refusing to participate in the employer’s political activities (lobbying efforts).

Private organizations are well within their rights to countenance or not pretty much whatever speech they deem suitable. The government and its elected and appointed officials, on the other hand, cannot, aside from in limited circumstances, implement the provisions the OP-er suggests.

When considering the scope of the 1st Amendment, the distinction between a private sector and public sector entity or individual is profound. While a private sector person/entity may do a variety of things, s/he/it has no authority, tax or imprison anyone. Moreover, while one can escape the orbit of private entities and their goods and services, the same is not true for governments.

That's a darned good post. Very good. And agreed completely.

That's a darned good post. Very good.

Thank you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey guys I started a whole thread because I'm tired of liberals constant lies! So much so that I wish the mods would do something about it. Just dont ask me what example I am using for inspiration for this thread because I'll dodge the answer repeatedly and frequently

 

[K9Buck]

Hey guys I started a whole thread because I'm tired of liberals constant lies! So much so that I wish the mods would do something about it. Just dont ask me what example I am using for inspiration for this thread because I'll dodge the answer repeatedly and frequently

That's beside the point and will derail the thread.

It was ok for you to claim that conservatives habitually lie but, when I informed you that liberals also lie, you went into denial and ridicule mode.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey guys I started a whole thread because I'm tired of liberals constant lies! So much so that I wish the mods would do something about it. Just dont ask me what example I am using for inspiration for this thread because I'll dodge the answer repeatedly and frequently

That's beside the point and will derail the thread.

It was ok for you to claim that conservatives habitually lie but, when I informed you that liberals also lie, you went into denial and ridicule mode.

Only if you consider asking you what you are referring to as "denial and ridicule". But this is how it goes. You make a claim, I ask you a question and then you dodge being snarky first "Right because liberals never lie" then when called on the artful dodge you suggest that I am a bully.

Lets remember the only thing I asked you was this:

What lies are so pervasive that made you start the thread?

And you find that question to be unfair. Should I start with what is your favorite color and work my way up?

 

[RodISHI]

Chronic liars get their freedom of speech here and you have the freedom of putting them on ignore or simply just ignoring them.

That's a fair point and I have put some of them on "ignore". However, by not permitting them to continually lie without consequence, they might feel compelled to become better posters.

Ultimately they expose themselves (even if you don't recognize them right away). Sometimes you just have to have patience or use that ignore feature.

 

[RodISHI]

Hey guys I started a whole thread because I'm tired of liberals constant lies! So much so that I wish the mods would do something about it. Just dont ask me what example I am using for inspiration for this thread because I'll dodge the answer repeatedly and frequently

That's beside the point and will derail the thread.

It was ok for you to claim that conservatives habitually lie but, when I informed you that liberals also lie, you went into denial and ridicule mode.

K9Buck perhaps you could request the administration create 'a liar-liar pants on fire' button. Be aware though that the extremist will have the option to use it back on you.

 

[Votto]

Censor, suspend and BAN chronic liars. Seriously.

For instance. If someone makes a claim, they should be prepared to back it up. There are times that people come into this community and make statements that are patently false and, when challenged, they fail to either back up their statement or acknowledge that their statement was wrong. Basically, they're lying and spreading disinformation. I am NOT advocating for people who are well-intentioned to be censored. I AM advocating for posters who, as a matter of routine procedure, spew lie after lie after lie and are permitted to do so, day after day.

Another option would be to relegate proven and repeated, serial liars to forums such as the rubber room, conspiracy theories, etc.

Holding citizens to a higher standard than our political leaders that control our financial future.

Typical.

 

[Boss]

Censor, suspend and BAN chronic liars. Seriously.

For instance. If someone makes a claim, they should be prepared to back it up. There are times that people come into this community and make statements that are patently false and, when challenged, they fail to either back up their statement or acknowledge that their statement was wrong. Basically, they're lying and spreading disinformation. I am NOT advocating for people who are well-intentioned to be censored. I AM advocating for posters who, as a matter of routine procedure, spew lie after lie after lie and are permitted to do so, day after day.

Another option would be to relegate proven and repeated, serial liars to forums such as the rubber room, conspiracy theories, etc.

I disagree wholeheartedly. First of all, many people lie without intending to do so. They are simply uninformed or misinformed which leads to them saying something that isn't true. And perhaps they are telling the truth and you've been misinformed, leading to the impression they are lying. Look at how many so-called "fact check" sites have popped up, only to become heavily politicized and biased in what they determine to be fact or not fact. Sometimes, facts are determined by subjective perceptions and several facts can be true at the same time.

No, what we need is for more people to be open minded and objective when it comes to communicating with others. To reestablish mutual respect for one another and value a difference of opinion or a differing perspective. We used to have that. Once it was lost, dialogue has spiraled and devolved into a hideous abyss of insult and denigration. The answer to that problem is not censorship. The answer is NEVER censorship.