[eric343]

D'oh! I forgot about that...

 

[Mic]

I almost feel like ACLU or NAACP.

I guess it's the whole debate about necessary censorship vs. freedom of speech.
But then again, it is true that this is a private forum and that the moderators can kick whomever they please.

 

[JMT]

Quote:

But then again, it is true that this is a private forum and that the moderators can kick whomever they please.

I disagree, this is a public forum. Anyone who shares the interest in the subject matter of the community is free to sign up as a member. There are no restrictions and/or requirements to become a member other than a true interest. Also, the moderators do not and cannot "kick whomever they please." They/we will ban those who have been found deterimental to the community as a whole, not those who excersize their right under the First Amendment. This is usually done only after some discussion between moderators. That is why the number of outright bans can be counted on one hand.

 

[Mic]

Well, public in that anyone can join but private in that they don't have to let you join, sort of like Costco and Sam's Club. Is there a statute that says that moderators can't ban at will? I believe that just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. The moderators are aiming to strike a good balance of having a good tolerant community but at the same time not letting the forums get trolled. I don't think civil safeguards apply here as opposed to the "real" physical world. Of course, this is just my speculation. Macdef and Jude can correct me on this if I'm wrong.

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by Mic I almost feel like ACLU or NAACP. I guess it's the whole debate about necessary censorship vs. freedom of speech....

[/size]

NAACP? I'm not sure how the NAACP applies in the context of this discussion, but anyway....

Assuming Ricky (who is in Spain) is protected by the First Amendment, this would not violate his First Amendment rights -- there's nothing happening here that prevents him from creating his own web site and/or forum, posting in other places (like Usenet, where he does regularly post), publishing a newsletter, shouting his opinions on the streets, etc.

It's pretty surprising to me how First Amendment rights get brought into these discussions when it comes to forums (I've seen it many times before) and a situation like this. How is what happens here in a case like this any different than if someone was doing it at an in-person meeting of audio enthusiasts? I'll continue to use this example, because I think it's very valid. If I physically followed the World of Headphones Tour, attended the stops, pretty much only to say repeatedly to everyone who started discussing, for example, headphone cables, "Don't bother. There's no difference between the cables. No, I haven't listened to them, but it's likely placebo effect you're 'hearing' here." And then, while there, I was also vigilant about source component discussions, just so I could interrupt them with, "Yeah, the differences you're 'hearing' between the Meridian and the BAT are probably placebo effect. The only way for you to tell for sure is with DBT testing." And whenever someone mentioned they liked the Max better than the Maxed Out Home, I said, "What? The primary difference between them internally is one uses Telema transfomers, and the other Avel-Lindberg transformers -- the difference you're hearing is probably in hour head." Imagine me doing this repeatedly, at every opportunity, at the actual tour stops, interrupting any conversations there about these things with such comments. Would that be okay? Or would you understand if they booted me out of the room? Would that be a violation of my First Amendment rights if they did?

A forum-specific example:

I'm a member of the National Rifle Association. Like many on either side of issues related, I have very strong opinions. There are many anti-gun-ownership boards out there. But do you think I go into those forums leaving posts with links to pro-gun-ownership sites and articles? No. If I visited an anti-gun-ownership forum, and answered a post that asked something like, "What web site can I go to to get more information on anti-gun-ownership clubs local to me?" with an answer like, "It is my opinion that your stance on gun ownership is wrong, and therefore you shouldn't even bother joining such clubs," and did things like this repeatedly, how long do you think I'd be allowed to stay? Or if someone posted a summary of an anti-gun-ownership convention he attended, coming to the conclusion that it was a productive meeting, and I replied, "No, it couldn't have been productive. I wasn't there, but how could it have been productive when the premise behind the meeting in the first place (not to mention this forum) is wrong and flawed?" Wouldn't I simply be exercising my freedom of speech, as you see it? How long do you think I'd be exercising it within that forum? I can almost assure you I'd likewise be banned. My options at that point would be to exercise my rights to free speech elsewhere.

Or what if someone came into Head-Fi and simply posted repeatedly, "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"? Would banning him be, in your opinion, a violation of his rights to free speech?

When I saw he was starting his own thread, I was cool with that. When I saw him interrupting other threads to hijack them to create debates completely out of the context of the thread just because he found it "entertaining", I wasn't cool with that.

And, again, he can still speak very freely elsewhere. I really don't see this as a First Amendment issue in the least.

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by Mic ....But then again, it is true that this is a private forum and that the moderators can kick whomever they please.

[/size]

Yes, technically that's true. But your comment, to me, might suggest that somehow we do this frequently, or take it lightly. I think you should read my post above about banning.

 

[andrzejpw]

Isn't this a private forum? I mean, jude owns it. Jude can do anything he wants. I mean, if he wanted the forum devoted to poultry products, I'm pretty sure he could do it. . .

 

[DanG]

I think it's clear that Ricky has made his goodbye and Jude has sufficiently explained why Ricky was banned. Furthermore, all the relevant questions regarding the banning have been answered. Should you wish for a moderator to provide further elucidation, PM us.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzejpw Isn't this a private forum? I mean, jude owns it. Jude can do anything he wants. I mean, if he wanted the forum devoted to poultry products, I'm pretty sure he could do it. . .

Yeah, but if he did that, it would likley be chicken, or just for the turkeys. Jude's neither chicken, nor a turkey. Nuff said.