First Amendment

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
G

Gary Max

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
6,224
Location
Southern Kentucky
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.

Some things are worth fighting for and my rights as a American are still on the top of my list.

Censorship has on this site has gotton to the point where I feel threatened with any post I put up, even this one.
I am at a loss--------has Hilter taken over??????????
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Your rights within the constitution have not been squashed here on this site. We as member are guests. You are free to express your views and opionons Any time you wish to on your own website/forum/blog etc. Our rights as guests/members are defined under the terms of use. This subject comes up every now and then in every forum I have participated in. There is always a fine line that is constantly changing that defines what is acceptable to the host and what crosses the line. Sometimes its the actual wording and sometimes its the tone of the post that triggers a moderator to step in and say thats enough. I have seen several posts that had very strong and compelling point and counter point done civily, a few not so much. I applaud the efforts of the modrators on this site to both let us discuss our differences and yet keep the posts from degenerating into name calling. Mike
 
I am not sure what happened to cause you to post this concern.

I do not understand how your Constitutional right could possibly be violated on the IAP sight. Congress, nor any other agency of the Federal Government, established the IAP. Niether does Congress, or any other agency of the Federal Government have any control or censorship ability over IAP.

This sight is owned and operated by Jeff for the benefit of its members. As the owner, Jeff and those he designates can establish and maintain any rules he (they) deem necessary.

That, my friend, is not CENSORSHIP. It is OWNERSHIP.

As members, we agreed to abid by the rules established for the use of this forum. Therefore, as members of this community, all of us willingly subjected our "rights" to the rules of this forum.

If I wish to express views or opinions that are outside the terms of use for this site, there are plenty of other forums available for me to do that. Or, I have every RIGHT to start my own.

If you have concerns with the way the forums are maintained, perhaps it would be better handled through PMs with Jeff or one of the moderators.
 
Ditto for me

mredburn said:
Your rights within the constitution have not been squashed here on this site. We as member are guests. You are free to express your views and opionons Any time you wish to on your own website/forum/blog etc. Our rights as guests/members are defined under the terms of use. This subject comes up every now and then in every forum I have participated in. There is always a fine line that is constantly changing that defines what is acceptable to the host and what crosses the line. Sometimes its the actual wording and sometimes its the tone of the post that triggers a moderator to step in and say thats enough. I have seen several posts that had very strong and compelling point and counter point done civily, a few not so much. I applaud the efforts of the modrators on this site to both let us discuss our differences and yet keep the posts from degenerating into name calling. Mike
Click to expand...


Ditto from OldGrumpy
 
I have seen things I did not agree with and people have disagreed with me on some things but I have never seen anyone censored for expressing an opinion as long as they follow the terms of use for this forum. I have no problem with anyone giving an opinion whether I agree with it or not however I feel the comparison to Hitler crossed the line a little too far.
 
Well stated and I must say I could'nt have done it better!!!!!!


THarvey said:
I am not sure what happened to cause you to post this concern.

I do not understand how your Constitutional right could possibly be violated on the IAP sight. Congress, nor any other agency of the Federal Government, established the IAP. Niether does Congress, or any other agency of the Federal Government have any control or censorship ability over IAP.

This sight is owned and operated by Jeff for the benefit of its members. As the owner, Jeff and those he designates can establish and maintain any rules he (they) deem necessary.

That, my friend, is not CENSORSHIP. It is OWNERSHIP.

As members, we agreed to abid by the rules established for the use of this forum. Therefore, as members of this community, all of us willingly subjected our "rights" to the rules of this forum.

If I wish to express views or opinions that are outside the terms of use for this site, there are plenty of other forums available for me to do that. Or, I have every RIGHT to start my own.

If you have concerns with the way the forums are maintained, perhaps it would be better handled through PMs with Jeff or one of the moderators.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gary, I am not sure what prompted this but I would be more than happy to discuss this further via PM or even a phone call. I believe you have my phone number. If not, it is 512-738-0775

Let's keep this discussion civil and it will remain open. We can take criticism, even if you are a guest in a private "home".
 
I am pleased to say I have been allowed input on this topic in the past. Curtis and I disagree sometimes on how much "moderation" is required and when threads should be locked or deleted.

But, Curtis does an EXCELLENT job, overall! When this thread started, a lesser man who has the power to delete, would have done so. Curtis allows the debate to continue. Jeff supports Curtis' right to do so. I support the IAP and, since Curtis is the sheriff, I support HIM.

So, continue the debate. Just bear in mind that the "honchos" show their open minds by ALLOWING the debate.

And, this type of discussion DOES affect future decisions.

Curtis KNOWS my opinion and he KNOWS I respect HIS judgement, even when we disagree!!
 
MesquiteMan said:
Gary, I am not sure what prompted this but I would be more than happy to discuss this further via PM or even a phone call. I believe you have my phone number. If not, it is 512-738-0775

Let's keep this discussion civil and it will remain open. We can take criticism, even if you are a guest in a private "home".
Click to expand...

Curtis,
You blow me away sometimes. Your generosity of spirit far exceeds all bounds of reasonability. The "discussion" started with Gary comparing you and Jeff to Hitler. I don't know how any such discussion can be civil when it starts from such a ridiculous and inflammatory position. This is one of the most absurd threads I have ever seen. If any guest ever came into my private home and spewed such hateful nonsense, he'd be shown the door in a hurry.

Gary,
If you are so "threatened" by the evil Hitler-like supervision here, why don't you just go sell your stuff on Ebay? If this post by you does not prove the need for even more supervision on IAP, I don't know what possibly could.
 
Last edited:
To begin with

[The "discussion" started with Gary comparing you and Jeff to Hitler.]

I could of just as easy been talking about another member thinking they where running the site. Other members have added these names---Not Me

To all the folks who have PM'ed me----Thanks I knew I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

Cirtis------I am here all day long if you want to call---270-789-9647

Oh ---I am not one to stick my tail between my legs and hide. I strongly believe in this site.

I also can see by some of the post here that this thread ain't going to help so I am going to lay it to rest.
 
Gary,

I consider you my friend and this has not and will not change. On this issue we are in disagreement.

As has been noted, this is Jeff's site. After our experiment in democracy failed with the resignation of officers and the board of directors of the site, it reverted to a "benevolent dictatorship."

We are all guests in Jeff's "cyber home." Just as the First Amendment does not give you the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater, Jeff has the right to eliminate the discussion of religion and politics. He has the right to limit the use of profane language and to, with Curtis' help, to guide discussions in the way that he sees fit.

There are members with whom I disagree on the site, and I am sure there are members who, (wrongly! :wink: ) disagree with me. It is impossible to have all members of the site to agree on issues. If we become a herd of sheep with no differing opinions, the site will become worthless in my opinion.

Yes, we as the IAP have our squabbles, but in the end the site survives. As a controlled burn can improve forest land, so also can controversy strengthen our site. When someone posts in anger, answering in anger accomplishes little. Rather, answering in a tone of respectful disagreement can promote an atmosphere in which issues can be dissected and hopefully problems solved and some semblance of agreement reached.

Gary, I regret that you are angry. Email me when you are available and let's talk.
 
Gary Max said:
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.
Click to expand...
And each and every time throughout the history of America when it has heard a 1st Amendment case, the US Supreme Court has held that the right to freedom of speech is applicable to public spaces NOT private places.
The IAP is a private entity.

Gary Max said:
Some things are worth fighting for and my rights as a[n] American are still on the top of my list.
Click to expand...
Mine too. And I'll add: With rights come RESPONSIBILITIES.

Gary Max said:
Censorship has on this site has gotton to the point where I feel threatened with any post I put up, even this one.
I am at a loss
Click to expand...

I must say, I haven't had the time I'd like to spend with y'all here.
However, I can say that I've had several long emails with Curtis, some short ones with Jeff, and a long phone call or two with Curtis.
I have the utmost respect for Curtis and his judgement.

I'd like to add some thoughts directed to no particular individual although each statement is based on at least one particular incident:

I've seen things posted which I agreed with YET I knew they violated the principals and/or rules of this forum.
Numerous times, someone has initiated a post related to a political ideology, a spiritual belief, or some other topic which includes those areas of thought.
It takes a very large person to admit something may be outside the scope of this forum's permitted topics of discussion when the item not permitted is one they feel extremely strongly about.

If a post or sig. line is political or religious, then remember:
when we agreed to become members, we waived that particular right of discussion for those topics.
Having made that choice freely, we must abide by it.
Freedom and rights == responsibility.
We know that no one of us has the freedom to post whatever we choose to on this forum.
We are guests here, and it's our free choice to stay or go so long as we abide by the rules.
 
Folks, I called and had a nice, long conversation with Gary Max this afternoon. He and I are "cyber friends" and have talked on the phone numerous times over the years. We had a pleasant discussion and were able to talk about some misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

There is a thread that is up that looks like I posted with the title "My Turn To Rant". This is the remnant of a thread that was deleted not because of favoritism or protectionism of a certain member but rather a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy, specifically "No personal attacks. Criticize ideas, not people. Flaming will not be tolerated. Broad, negative statements about individuals or businesses are not permitted." There was a lot of this going on towards a couple of different people in the thread that was deleted, not just the original poster.

I went in and removed all the posts and simply left the title and my post. I was not intending it to be a rant of my own. I used that title simply so that those who were coming back to view that thread would be sure to read what I wrote about that thread.

I consider all of you my friends but sometimes, as the moderator of this site, I have to take action to protect the best interests of IAP. Those decisions and actions are not always popular, especially with the folks who get deleted. When I evaluate a thread that has gone south, the only criteria I use is "what portion of the AUP or TOS does it violate". If there is no violation, then I take no action. Contrary to what some believe, I do not enjoy deleting threads or posts or taking any action that I have to take. I do it because I committed to doing this job and believe in the IAP and what we have built here.

I have always had an "open mind" policy and encourage any member to criticise and question my actions when they feel I have been wrong. I will be the first to admit that I don't always get it right and encourage you to contact me anytime you think I got it wrong. I welcome the feedback, good or bad. You can always PM me or even call if you feel the need. My phone number is 512-738-0775

Curtis O. Seebeck
IAP Moderator
 
Gary,
As the person who made the attack on the original thread, I will once again apologize to the group. As someone who has had thread deleted for various reasons, sometimes I do get uptight at Curtis, Neil, or any others who do deletethem for some of the reasons that have been sent to me as reasons.

However, in retrospect, I also do agree with Curtis that it should have been pulled as well. It was too late for me to go and edit my initial response, because another member had already quoted it, and rather quickly too, otherwise, the last comment I made in the original statement would have been pulled publically.

And once again, Curtis, I apologize for you having to go through this grief as well.

Sincerely
Jerry Sambrook (resident troublemaker at times)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom