Which way did it go???

[Bigjohn]

I understand what you're saying but all the same, the first amendment also gives people the right to tell him he shouldn't post that stuff.

That same amendment also gives that poster the right not to listen. It's a Moral issue for this individual... He has none!

 

[gesan]

I understand what you're saying but all the same, the first amendment also gives people the right to tell him he shouldn't post that stuff.

Its hard to argue with a man who is gonna resort to facts - you are certainly right relative to shouting fire etc.. and as far as the teens are concerned on youtube

on the other hand the original poster I think was simply relaying what he saw as news and it seems to me some of the posters were in favor of "shooting the messenger" JMHO

 

[Terry Ardeno]

I just checked on this thread and I am so impressed with the quality of everybody's responses to each other. You guys all expressed your views and how you saw things in a great way. Nobody got ignorant and none of the old tush-hog in any of us had to come out.
Very nice job fellows.

 

[Tom M]

On the contrary, Freedom of Speech is not absolute. You cannot walk into a crowded room and yell, "fire" and then cite the First Amendment. Other people have rights, too and they need to be respected.

What's more, although this forum is dedicated to public use, it is NOT a public forum. It is privately owned and operated and the site administrator gets to decide what is or is not appropriate.

The bottom line is, Free Speech requires a huge amount of responsibility and you don't possess a right to post. I've read the Constitution thoroughly and studied each and every sentence. I am 100% certain nothing about posting is there. However, Earl Strickland has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Last I checked, that means something, too.

Agreed, and I'll add that the consitutional freedom of speech does not prohibit youtube or our forum mods from deleting or prohibiting anything they choose. Gesan, you need to look up the word "censorship" in the dictionary. The consititution does not guarantee unedited access to private media. Thats' rediculous.

If youtube pulled that video, they were simply exercising judgement about the content that THEY chose to publish on the medium that THEY OWN.

Judgement...what a concept!

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Its hard to argue with a man who is gonna resort to facts - you are certainly right relative to shouting fire etc.. and as far as the teens are concerned on youtube

on the other hand the original poster I think was simply relaying what he saw as news and it seems to me some of the posters were in favor of "shooting the messenger" JMHO

Yeah, I hold no grudges against the original poster. The thread was even titled "bad joke" or something like that so the OP wasn't approving it, either.

 

[klockdoc]

deleted for now

 

[raybo147]

I have been on here for a little while and for the most part everything here is handled with a lot of respect. We don't have a right to post here, it is a privelige and I think most of us realize that and really enjoy our time on AZB. I was one of the people who responded to this thread and I basically said 'please not here' but like everybody else I did not bash the thread starter. I don't think Jule meant any harm but I don't think this is the forum for us too see stuff like that. I do not know Earl at all but I do not think he deserves to have stupid little children pull stunts like that on him. This is just how I feel and I thought I would share it.

 

[gesan]

Agreed, and I'll add that the consitutional freedom of speech does not prohibit youtube or our forum mods from deleting or prohibiting anything they choose. Gesan, you need to look up the word "censorship" in the dictionary. The consititution does not guarantee unedited access to private media. Thats' rediculous.

If youtube pulled that video, they were simply exercising judgement about the content that THEY chose to publish on the medium that THEY OWN.

Judgement...what a concept!

I'll look up censorship and you can look up freedom - i guess it can work both ways - It may not guarentee - but it doesn't prohibit either - concept may not mean what you think it does either - do you know what the guys intent was?
if you read my original post you would know I said nothing about the constitution - I said censorship of what they (the posters) think should be censored - is that not the case?

 

[Tom M]

I'll look up censorship and you can look up freedom - i guess it can work both ways - It may not guarentee - but it doesn't prohibit either - concept may not mean what you think it does either - do you know what the guys intent was?
if you read my original post you would know I said nothing about the constitution - I said censorship of what they (the posters) think should be censored - is that not the case?

I did read your original post but I'll admit that I got off on the "constitutional free speech" angle mostly based on another poster's reply, but with a little help from you. I kind of felt that it was implied by your statement that "this is still America". But, you're right, it's not a constitutional discussion because we're not talking about "illegal censorship" which we'll define for the sake of discussion as censorship which would violate the Bill of Rights.

Now it's your turn. I think I understand what freedom means. What aspect of freedom do you feel I need to look up and how does this freedom apply to Youtube subscribers? I'm asking this sincerely. Maybe it will help me understand your point.

Here's what I took from your post (paraphrasing): "Forum members who agree with Youtube in deleting "that" post are in favor of censorship".

Well, that's me, and you know what? Now that I think of it, I AM in favor of censorship! I censor my own speech everyday, especially when I'm angry or upset. I censor myself in every public post for many reasons such as clarity and to avoid conveying the wrong emotion. I certainly censor myself with my wife and the kids that are in my life when I'm angry or when the subject matter is inappropriate.

I have a habit of using the full color of the english language in situations where it's acceptable, but I censor that vocabulary around people whom it might offend. I didn't do that when I was 20 and I was an obnoxious jerk in that regard. I had the attitude that if someone was offended by that language it was their problem and I'd let it rip. Now, even though I still feel it's their problem if they get upset about it, I censor myself just out of plain old courtesy. What's the harm in that?

Basically I'm saying that I use MY judgement regarding what comes out of my mouth and off my keyboard. You busted me! I'm for censorship!

I applaud Youtube and our moderators for attemping to impose better judgement on those who fail to exercise it, and I fully support their right to use their own concept of appropriateness for the PRIVATE media that they administrate.

Obviously I am not talking about illegal censorship and restricting the FREE exchange of ideas in the PUBLIC DOMAIN but then again neither were you, right? Youtube and our forum are NOT the public domain. There's a big difference and it might be a little bit inflammatory to call what Youtube did "censorship".

Tom

 

[gesan]

I did read your original post but I'll admit that I got off on the "constitutional free speech" angle mostly based on another poster's reply, but with a little help from you. I kind of felt that it was implied by your statement that "this is still America". But, you're right, it's not a constitutional discussion because we're not talking about "illegal censorship" which we'll define for the sake of discussion as censorship which would violate the Bill of Rights.

Now it's your turn. I think I understand what freedom means. What aspect of freedom do you feel I need to look up and how does this freedom apply to Youtube subscribers? I'm asking this sincerely. Maybe it will help me understand your point.

Here's what I took from your post (paraphrasing): "Forum members who agree with Youtube in deleting "that" post are in favor of censorship".

Well, that's me, and you know what? Now that I think of it, I AM in favor of censorship! I censor my own speech everyday, especially when I'm angry or upset. I censor myself in every public post for many reasons such as clarity and to avoid conveying the wrong emotion. I certainly censor myself with my wife and the kids that are in my life when I'm angry or when the subject matter is inappropriate.

I have a habit of using the full color of the english language in situations where it's acceptable, but I censor that vocabulary around people whom it might offend. I didn't do that when I was 20 and I was an obnoxious jerk in that regard. I had the attitude that if someone was offended by that language it was their problem and I'd let it rip. Now, even though I still feel it's their problem if they get upset about it, I censor myself just out of plain old courtesy. What's the harm in that?

Basically I'm saying that I use MY judgement regarding what comes out of my mouth and off my keyboard. You busted me! I'm for censorship!

I applaud Youtube and our moderators for attemping to impose better judgement on those who fail to exercise it, and I fully support their right to use their own concept of appropriateness for the PRIVATE media that they administrate.

Obviously I am not talking about illegal censorship and restricting the FREE exchange of ideas in the PUBLIC DOMAIN but then again neither were you, right? Youtube and our forum are NOT the public domain. There's a big difference and it might be a little bit inflammatory to call what Youtube did "censorship".

Tom

If you read the original post you would see that I aked the question - I did not say youtube censored anything and to my knowledge they did not.

If you are sincere in that you are trying to understand what I meant - I simply felt the thread originator was being piled on for his attempt to share news - not to broadcast profane language or to attack Earls reaction- it appeared to me that Jule was being censored by the some of the posters (perhaps a poor chose of words)- and I asked the question - is that the intention? (censorship)

as far as youtube goes I like the fact that it is realively uncensored (my freedom of opinion) I hope it stays that way - I would rather see the news as it happened and tolerate the profanity - then have some one decide for me what should be censored

as far as the rules of this forum or anyother private enity I hope some common sense is applied and I believ that is the case with this forum


I did not intend to start a constitutional debate



and I don't support anyones right to shout fire in a crowded building - however I do support that right when there is in fact a fire. -I consider that a civic responability (not to cause panic).

in this case i was trying to be AZ responable and defend a relativly new poster who was being lambasted a bit unfairly I thought

 

[Tom M]

If you read the original post you would see that I aked the question - I did not say youtube censored anything and to my knowledge they did not.

Well, my mistake, I guess. I kind of thought you did, but I accept that it wasn't your intention.

If you are sincere in that you are trying to understand what I meant - I simply felt the thread originator was being piled on for his attempt to share news - not to broadcast profane language or to attack Earls reaction- it appeared to me that Jule was being censored by the some of the posters (perhaps a poor chose of words)- and I asked the question - is that the intention? (censorship)

Yes, I was sincere. Thanks for clarifying.

as far as youtube goes I like the fact that it is realively uncensored (my freedom of opinion) I hope it stays that way - I would rather see the news as it happened and tolerate the profanity - then have some one decide for me what should be censored

as far as the rules of this forum or anyother private enity I hope some common sense is applied and I believ that is the case with this forum

I agree for the most part. I'm glad that Youtube doesn't censor much, but my point is that they can do whatever they choose whether I like it or not. I agree that most AZ posters are pretty sensible, but I also strongly believe that the fact that it's moderated is one of the reasons it's the best forum around. I guess I made my feelings pretty obvious in my previous rant.

I did not intend to start a constitutional debate

You didn't, it was me and one or two others who took it that way.

and I don't support anyones right to shout fire in a crowded building - however I do support that right when there is in fact a fire. -I consider that a civic responability (not to cause panic).

Absolutely!

 

[9balllvr]

Yeah, I hold no grudges against the original poster. The thread was even titled "bad joke" or something like that so the OP wasn't approving it, either.

not to mention he was not even in the US, so how was he to know about Earl's father passing? people assumed this individual knew that this happened. as I posted in that same thread, what was viewed on the youtube video was nothing worse than what has been said in the forums against him or insert any other player people don't like (remember the Grady threads). it appeared to me that the original poster was simply posting what he found, not bashing Earl. also, people acted like that post was the worst they have ever seen, but I have to say I have seen much worse than that recently on the forums and know that Mike H. is working on fixing that issue - the removal of the thread proves this point.

on another note, people in the public eye should be aware of their actions - there is a cost for fame and that comes in the form of scrutiny (justified or not). the one thing that came out of the video is that you can see how people antagonize him and why he has a negative attitude, but he could have reacted differently, if ego wasn't in play. his choice was to respond as he did - unfortunately, this time, he was caught on tape.

 

[gesan]

Well, my mistake, I guess. I kind of thought you did, but I accept that it wasn't your intention.



Yes, I was sincere. Thanks for clarifying.



I agree for the most part. I'm glad that Youtube doesn't censor much, but my point is that they can do whatever they choose whether I like it or not. I agree that most AZ posters are pretty sensible, but I also strongly believe that the fact that it's moderated is one of the reasons it's the best forum around. I guess I made my feelings pretty obvious in my previous rant.




You didn't, it was me and one or two others who took it that way.




Absolutely!

IT WAS A PLESANT EXPERIANCE TO have this type of a discussion via this format with people that are able to articulate issues in a resonable fashion good luck and happy new year