# What are the rights of neo-Nazis and such?



## Webmaster (Dec 27, 2005)

The other day I had to, for the umpteenth time, ban an individual from chat and these forums for using Nazi names, terminology and ideology. The person claims to simply want to connect with likeminded fat women and seems baffled and outraged that access is denied, and will remain denied. Yet, when I read the abuse policies of most ISPs, this sort of thing is not directly addressed. You can't spam, disseminate viruses and do other dirty deeds, but expressing objectionable political leanings is not addressed. Now I know that this is my site and I can grant or deny access as I see fit, but what exactly is free speech and what isn't? Have no fear, I won't tolerate any such nonsense, and especially none that glorifies one of the darkest deeds of humanity, but it made me wonder what goes and what doesn't.


----------



## Jane (Dec 27, 2005)

Good question. On the political board of which I'm a moderator, I will not tolerate racist posts. However, it is a political board. We are trying to persuade and discuss and engage political discussion. I let people go just so far, but the members of the forum usually play slice and dice with the poster, so they tend to delete their posts and slink away.

Posters can say anything they want about me. I can either defend, ignore, or allow my friends to say what they will.

I tend not to delete. I tend not to ban. However, that being said, we have had one poster who registers over and over and over with different names, email addresses, etc. His thinking is pretty much in line with the rest of us, but at the least sign of emotional distress in a poster, he jumps on it and picks them apart. This "gentleman" is supposed to be a licensed counselor. I pity his patients.

This is not a political board. As a rule (and this is not firm, just at the moment) I try not to make overly political statements on this board.

I consider any form of intolerance to be objectionable. As I've stated, if society is wrong to prejudge me based on my weight, why would it not be wrong for me to prejudge for racial, religious, ethnic, sexuality, and other differences.

No answer here, Conrad. But just a wish for good luck.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 27, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> The other day I had to, for the umpteenth time, ban an individual from chat and these forums for using Nazi names, terminology and ideology. The person claims to simply want to connect with likeminded fat women and seems baffled and outraged that access is denied, and will remain denied. Yet, when I read the abuse policies of most ISPs, this sort of thing is not directly addressed. You can't spam, disseminate viruses and do other dirty deeds, but expressing objectionable political leanings is not addressed. Now I know that this is my site and I can grant or deny access as I see fit, but what exactly is free speech and what isn't? Have no fear, I won't tolerate any such nonsense, and especially none that glorifies one of the darkest deeds of humanity, but it made me wonder what goes and what doesn't.




Well, free speech is constitutionally protected (and not so much any more I fear). I personally am glad of this. I don't want anyone in political power deciding what is or isn't acceptable speech. This site would not be seen as acceptable speech by many, I fear.

This doesn't mean that I support Nazi idealogy, but I do support everyone's right to speak as they see fit. 

That being said, I'm quite glad you don't allow it here.


----------



## r-nadiv (Dec 27, 2005)

It's an excellent question. The issue, I think, has nothing to do with freedoms of speech as guaranteed by the constitution; rather it concerns the use of speech. Nazism holds to strict doctrines of racial and ideological supremacy. The resulting discrimination against all non-aryans--aryan being a term showing up in the banned posters ad and his profile--proved not just a violation of what democratic societies call civil rights, it proved homicidal. The resulting enslavement, torture and murder of Jews, Romani, people of color, gays, communists, social democrats... was, and the memory of it still is, so repugnant to the world community that they (the enslavement, torture and murder) became a standard by which to judge crimes against humanity. 

The reason why history records Hitler's genocides in a different column from, say, Stalin's or Mao's is because Nazi hate justified itself by way of a claim to supermacy; Stalin's crimes, and what continues to happen in China, are seen by historians as political, the perceived need to quash the dissident view. (To me, there is no difference, and it's why I work to bring abuses in Africa, Europe and the mid-East to light. If I had enough know-how, I'd do it in the Americas, too.) 

What Nazism puts forward is hate. Its language incites to the point of murder. Ditto our more homegrown brands of American white supremacy. There are no protections for such speech under our laws, despite the ACLU's position. (I support the ACLU in most things, but not here. Hate-speech is anti-civil liberty. That it can't see it is why I can't carry the card.) It's not just that the presence of Neo-Nazi rhetoric here on these boards may be a personal offense, it's that the language and literature of Nazism, the idea of racial supremacy and all that it carries, is viewed as a violation of civil liberty in this country because it advocates through violence a denial of the rights to life and liberty. Some judges disagree with that reading of the hate-crimes laws and have allowed white power demonstrations, famously in Skokie, but more recently in Kingston, NY. From where I sit, it's a mistake. Again, not because the language of Nazism and white supremacy challenges the tenents of the Constitution--the civil rights we deem unalienable--but because the language urges violence against non-whites, and against people of different persuasions and preferences. We can tolerate talk of discrimination (though not the actions that result from discrimination itself); but we cannot condone violence as an act of free speech. 

That's why Neo Nazism, to name just one ideology, has no place on these boards.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Dec 27, 2005)

moonvine said:


> Well, free speech is constitutionally protected.



We do not have true free speech. We have "free-er" speech. For example, in the US we have laws for slander and libel.

Because hate speech can be viewed as a form of discrimination, harassment or means to incite violence, it may not actually fall into what is technically considered free speech and many countries do have strict laws against hate speech. 

I'm personally glad it is not allowed here and that politics are kept to a minimum as well.


----------



## The Kangaroo (Dec 27, 2005)

Ever hear the expression, "We have a free press as long as you own one"? It applies.

In America, if they want to be neo-nazis, that's their right, but this board like most others is a private enterprise. Conrad, if you choose to ban neo-nazis, that's your right. I fully support you in this and would do the same were I in your shoes.

It needs to be mentioned that neo-nazis try to reproduce at a high rate to increase their numbers like a lot of political and religious cults, and they prey on lonely people. Some Hitler-head FA might have heard the statistic fat women are often quite fertile and sensed a gold mine for their nefarious purposes. If a fat woman is receptive to neo-nazi ideology and wants to hook up with that community and be a baby factory for them, that's her right too, but it's not Dimensions' duty to aid her in that. You can find the neo-nazi web pages easy enough on your own.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Dec 27, 2005)

I may not like neo-nazis, but free speech is important. Even if I don't agree with them, freedom of speech applies. Everyone believes in freedom of speech for people they agree with, but the real test is freedom of speech for people you don't agree with.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 27, 2005)

kropotkin_fan said:


> I may not like neo-nazis, but free speech is important. Even if I don't agree with them, freedom of speech applies. Everyone believes in freedom of speech for people they agree with, but the real test is freedom of speech for people you don't agree with.



I agree. That's why I was glad the KKK was able to have a rally here earlier this year. I was even gladder that the counter-rally was much better attended. I don't want the government to determine what is and isn't appropriate speech, though.


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 27, 2005)

I believe in free speech, but that means that loner can stand on the street corner and state anything he wants to find the white, feeder, fantasy girl of his dreams. He can even start his own little website for himself and his quest, provided his hosting company has no policy against hate speech, which most do. This is YOUR forum and you can stop any type of speech, conversation, etc that you don't want here. 

I believe in, and would stand up for, his right to have his own views and express them in a public place, but this forum isn't the right place. It's also not the right place for fat-haters, or diet gurus, or many other interests out there-it's not only about him. 

If he feels maligned, he can start his own neo-nazis for fat white chicks board... he'll be the ruler of all he surveys, and he can do whatever he wants.


----------



## JoyJoy (Dec 27, 2005)

Freedom of speech is a very good thing, but even better is learning when and where to express certain opinions and beliefs at appropriate times. One wouldn't go into a bar or restaurant and start talking openly about nazi ideology...that smacks of someone out looking to start an arugment, in my opinion. I think Conrad is wise to not allow such discussions here. I've always viewed Dimensions as a sort of neighborhood bar atmosphere, like *Cheers*, where people try their best to get along, and those who can't are shown the door.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 27, 2005)

Well, freedom of speech doesn't apply here. It isn't a public space. I, too, am glad Conrad doesn't allow such rhetoric here


----------



## GeorgeNL (Dec 27, 2005)

I think there is no such thing as absolute freedom, also no absolute freedom of speech. The reason is that you always have a few dominant people that will use their freedom to dominate and limit the freedom of others, or hurt other people.

It sounds like a contradiction, but to guarantee the freedom and freedom of speech for everyone, I think you actually have to put some bounds on this freedom. It's balance between anargy (where a few dominate, and people hurt each other) and a lack of freedom.

In this light, Neo-Nazis cross the boundary of what can be tolerated, because they limit the freedom of others people.



If you think of it. This is actually one of the weaknesses of a democracy. A democracy can become the dictactorship of the majority, when they choose a leader like Hitler.


----------



## JMNYC (Dec 27, 2005)

I saw the post and almost responded with the most inane thing I could think of, then thought better of it, believing you or a moderator would just get rid of it, and that that was the best way it would be handled---repeatedly, if necessary.

I believe the poster likes fat women, but I also believe his underlying message is "please shout at me", "please disapprove of me" and "please be outraged".

He's as transparent as my 80-year-old father, who in his dementia loves to approach the security desks in Manhattan offices and tell them he has a bomb, or go up to supersize men and say, DIABETES! in a loud, clear voice.

There are people who want attention, and will get it any way they can---praise or condemnation.


----------



## EvilBob (Dec 27, 2005)

I am a firm believer that our freedoms must be upheld 100% of the time -- even when it allows hateful things to happen. As long as no physical harm is threatened or implied, words should be given full range to fly.

When a community like this one decides it does not want a member involved, the membership at large should just ignore the person. As with most bad ideas, when ignored, they fade away. However, when engaged, they thrive -- and the temptation to engage can be overwhelming at times when someone is offensive enough.

I spent almost a decade in Washington politics, ending up in the Clinton White House of all places, and after years of thought on the subject, I have decided that we need to be absolute in our protections of our freedoms. 

Even now, when there is a decent case to be made for spying on phone calls and email communications from Americans to others, it must be protected. Because we too often think that our system will protect us from any truly dangerous people getting into power -- so, we can trust the administration to be respectful of our rights while upholding our security. The plain fact is that once you set a precedent for spying on Americans without warrants, the practice can become much more commonplace. Once we set a precedent for banning certain speech that we don't like, we run the risk of someone, someday not liking what we have to say -- and quieting us.

So, if I have to err on one side or the other, I would protect any words someone may utter... no matter how hurtful that may seem. They are, after all, just ideas.

Best,
Scott


----------



## loves2laugh (Dec 27, 2005)

look i like this site a lot but there is also a lot on it that i think is offensive- i just stay away from those threads. i agree that everyone has the right to their own opinions an beliefs and they also have the right to express those beliefs. people find many of my beliefs upsetting and offensive, so i know what it feels like to have people silence you. i have the right to be heard just like i believe everyone else does.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Dec 27, 2005)

Here's my rule on my board.

I own it, as if I own a house (I live in an apt so um..yeah) and my rules are the rules of the house. Just like I don't have the right to come into your home uninvited, or invited and cause a ruckus, no one has the RIGHT to do things you don't want on your property. That is where free speech ends and property rights begin. Free speech is for public discourse out IN PUBLIC..that's it. This is why newstations and network TV can decide what can and can't go on it. It may be a public setting but it's still someones property.

Technically if you REALLY want to get into the works of the writings of the constitution, the right to free speech is merely to allow people to be free to say what they want about the nation, its policies, its leaders etc, without fear of punishment (except in situations of libel, fraud etc)...there is no right to be a shit-disturber against non-governmental agencys/entities


we now return you to your normal Chippy fare


WHEEEEEEEEEEE


----------



## 1300 Class (Dec 27, 2005)

Since this is a private forum that is essentially run by you, you can set whatever rules you want to it, and people must respect them if they want to post. You can also ban, delete and do whatever you want to any member who or user who enters onto the forum or chat. Simple as that. There are various laws in various countries than ban certain nazi material, however that is not in discussion now. Now I believe in Freedom of Speech as much as the next person, but things and people like this example are detrimental to freedoms and liberty. (As a student of history and politics, he shows a clear disregard for it, is a troller, and doesn't know anything about it. A historical n00b if you will. And anyone who persistantly tries to get in (bet Conrad hates those roving IPs everyone has these days) and goes completely over the top with their regalia, is cleary a troll and a nut). I say ban the filfth.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 27, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> The other day I had to, for the umpteenth time, ban an individual from chat and these forums for using Nazi names, terminology and ideology. The person claims to simply want to connect with likeminded fat women and seems baffled and outraged that access is denied, and will remain denied. Yet, when I read the abuse policies of most ISPs, this sort of thing is not directly addressed. You can't spam, disseminate viruses and do other dirty deeds, but expressing objectionable political leanings is not addressed. Now I know that this is my site and I can grant or deny access as I see fit, but what exactly is free speech and what isn't? Have no fear, I won't tolerate any such nonsense, and especially none that glorifies one of the darkest deeds of humanity, but it made me wonder what goes and what doesn't.



Conrad, this board is proprietary. You have the right to determine acceptable content on this board.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2005)

Conrad - 

I consider myself to be a liberal, but as far as I'm concerned neo-Nazis have no rights whatsoever. Neither do racists, homophobes, or similar hate-mongerers.

It's your board and you have the right to set the rules here. And if that little Nazi pinhead doesn't like it, he can always post on other sites where that crap is welcome, such as Free Republic and David Duke's site.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Zoom (Dec 27, 2005)

None of what we are doing is speech. It's called typing.

Is it the same guy as on the old boards?

By banning him, you are not infringing on his freedom to go and get his own damn Neo-Nazi FA message board.


----------



## saucywench (Dec 27, 2005)

One of the reasons Conrad founded Dimensions, as you can read at various locations on the site, is because of his horror (if I may be so extreme) that, in our current societal atmosphere, fat people are not considered worthy of basic civil liberties that most (non-fat) people take for granted. In this vein, then, it would be considered incongruous to those basic tenets that Conrad holds dear to allow such a person as loner80, or whatever he's now choosing to call himself, to spew his vile sentiments over something that Conrad owns. 

Conrad allows much freedom of discussion on topics that he, as he is quick to note, does not necessarily espouse as his personal opinion. I do think, though, that his conscience will lead him to draw a line regarding topics that challenge basic, human, civil liberties. I would take that to include affronts to anyone as it concerns their race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, as well as weight.


----------



## saucywench (Dec 27, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> .... Now I know that this is my site and I can grant or deny access as I see fit, but what exactly is free speech and what isn't? Have no fear, I won't tolerate any such nonsense, and especially none that glorifies one of the darkest deeds of humanity, but it made me wonder what goes and what doesn't.


 
Is a poll in order regarding this issue? Or, more specifically, this person, or people like him? I have made my position known further down the thread, but it might be interesting to see at a glance how people feel about this.


----------



## butterlexyfly (Dec 27, 2005)

My take on the situation is this: Dimensions is a 'community', in that like-minded people talk about things that interest them, or upset them, in a forum that will accept them. 
One owner of a community of people involved in body modification will delete and ban all people who make hateful comments about anyone...against the pierced/tattooed freaks that make up the site, against black people, against white people, against fat people, against thin people. These people who hate freaks, black people, white people, etc., are quite welcome on this site so long as they keep their hatred to themselves. 
People register at Dimensions to have a place where they feel safe and secure being themselves, but it shouldn't have to be at the expense of other members.


----------



## saucywench (Dec 27, 2005)

Jane said:


> ....I consider any form of intolerance to be objectionable. As I've stated, if society is wrong to prejudge me based on my weight, why would it not be wrong for me to prejudge for racial, religious, ethnic, sexuality, and other differences.


 
Sorry, Jane, I didn't read the thread all the way through before I posted. I pretty much echoed this sentiment.


----------



## saucywench (Dec 27, 2005)

Zoom said:


> ....Is it the same guy as on the old boards?


 
Yep. Same dude.


----------



## saucywench (Dec 27, 2005)

butterlexyfly said:


> ....People register at Dimensions to have a place where they feel safe and secure being themselves, but it shouldn't have to be at the expense of other members.


 
Absolutely. Dimensions is a haven for most of us, whether BBW, FA, BHM, whatever. Our fatness (or love/admiration of it) is what unites us, but it's the notion that we can come here, to this site specifically, and be free to be who we are, that is the main draw. And just because this jackass espouses hatred of ethnicities and/or races rather than fat people, makes no difference--show the loser the door (and I hope it _does_ hit his sorry ass on the way out.)


----------



## saucywench (Dec 27, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> The other day I had to, for the umpteenth time, ban an individual from chat and these forums for using Nazi names, terminology and ideology. The person claims to simply want to connect with likeminded fat women and seems baffled and outraged that access is denied, and will remain denied. Yet, when I read the abuse policies of most ISPs, this sort of thing is not directly addressed. You can't spam, disseminate viruses and do other dirty deeds, but expressing objectionable political leanings is not addressed. Now I know that this is my site and I can grant or deny access as I see fit, but what exactly is free speech and what isn't? Have no fear, I won't tolerate any such nonsense, and especially none that glorifies one of the darkest deeds of humanity, but it made me wonder what goes and what doesn't.


 
Your question got me curious, so I did a little Googling. I didn't get far before I found something of interest (and I have to admit, this site is as far as I've gotten.) The title is Canada, Censorship, and the Internet (Donald F. Theall, 1997) http://www.catalaw.com/logic/docs/dt-censor.html. What follows is an excerpt:

_As of the moment, it is apparent that there is a standard of tolerance in the United States concerning hate propaganda which does not necessarily apply in Canada. U.S. web sites have been willing and legally able to echo neo-Nazis sites banned in Germany and Canada. The difficulty of a nation reacting to such a ban has been exemplified when Germany tried to ban certain expression contrary to its laws banning neo-Nazi activity by blocking Internet sites within Germany from accessing a Bulletin Board in Denmark, which carried such material. Following the official German blocking, this site was immediately echoed by three major U.S. universities -- MIT, Stanford, and the University of California -- all of which were of vital importance to International Research networks. Consequently to ban the offensive material, Germany had to confront whether or not to prevent their research institutes and universities from contacting these sister institutions in the United States. And even if a ban were to have been effected, would it have been possible to control totally all possibilities for the dissemination of the offensive information? With vastly differing standards of what ought or ought not to constitute protected speech and expression, is a sensible, workable International agreement feasible and even it were, would it be desirable? _

As I said--interesting.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Dec 28, 2005)

I know there's a limerick in here somewhere with 'loner' and 'boner'... I keep egging the kid on and I shouldn't... I find his rants very 'Producers'-ish... mea culpa, comrades; my bad...


----------



## 1300 Class (Dec 28, 2005)

When it comes down to it, our fearless leader can ban and block anyone he wants because it is his forum. And what are we loosing by banning this kind of perverted generate? They are clearly phsycotic, or just trolling for the kicks, which is most likely the case. Every net forum has its set of loonies, and this muppet (who clearly doesn't know his arse from his elbow), is cleary just that; an idiot.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Dec 28, 2005)

I remember a saying that goes something like this. "Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the freedom to yell fire in a packed movie theater." 

Also just because someone has the right to speech, doesn't mean we are required to listen. 

Besides, in this case I believe that you can consider these boards your house, so you can use your rules.


----------



## Jane (Dec 28, 2005)

Ned Sonntag said:


> I know there's a limerick in here somewhere with 'loner' and 'boner'... I keep egging the kid on and I shouldn't... I find his rants very 'Producers'-ish... mea culpa, comrades; my bad...


Ned, everyone likes to poke sticks at the trolls, but then SOMEONE has to clean up the floor where they have been.

You poke, you clean. LOL


----------



## BBW Betty (Dec 28, 2005)

Conrad, I can only echo what many others have said here.

1) This is YOUR site, and you can choose to kick out anyone whom you find offensive. And hate-speech toward anyone is offensive, IMO.

2) Any freedom, such as freedom of speech, is a good thing, but only until someone uses it to try to stifle someone esle's freedoms. I often had to deal with this concept at my last job--with my students who were sex offenders. They knew they had rights, but couldn't catch the idea that others had the same rights, and the *right to be safe from them*.

3) We have a great place here, to express ourselves in a safe environment. And if this guy was making it a less safe place, it's a good thing he's gone.

My computer wasn't working well, for the last couple days, so I missed his posts. But I have studied a bit of history, and can just imagine what he was stirring up as a Neo-Nazi.


----------



## r-nadiv (Dec 28, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> I remember a saying that goes something like this. "Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the freedom to yell fire in a packed movie theater."


 
Here's what Alan Dershowitz writes about the distinction between advocacy and incitement ("The Best Defence" p. 222): 

_"Advocacy is the communication of ideas; it is directed at intellect; 
it affords the listener an opportunity to reflect on it. Incitement, 
on the other hand, ... is a spur to automatic action, 
intended to bypass the rational thought processes. It is against this 
oversimplified background that the classic case of shouting fire in a 
crowded theater can best be understood. Shouting the word "fire" is 
not the communication of an idea designed for reflective thought; it 
is precisely the same as if a fire *bell* were intentionally rung. It 
is intended to spur an automatic series of responses. 
_ 
Hate speech is not about the communication of idea. It's not directed at the intellect. It's directed at the gut and intended as a call to action--or as a means to produce fear and outrage. 

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a discussion of the proliferation of hate speech websites: 

_In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down 
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism 
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or 
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' 
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First 
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The 
Brandenberg test is the law today._ 

"Imminent lawless action." Hate speech here in the States has resulted in persecution, murder and terrorism. The jargon and symbols of Nazism should not be disseminated, not because they advocate violence, but because, in claiming that violent action is mandated by a claim to racial superiority (that whatever discomfort you may have about the "other," it's ok to trounce 'em because, hey, we're better), these words and symbols "are likely to produce...actions" that violate our rights to life and liberty, our basic civil rights.


----------



## Moonchild (Dec 28, 2005)

Tell him to quit whining and suck it up. He can "connect with likeminded fat women" without the Nazi stuff. Unless by "likeminded" he means other Nazis.


----------



## 1300 Class (Dec 28, 2005)

Nah, tell him to piss off. :nods:


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Dec 29, 2005)

Aieeee loner sent me a scary antisemitic cartoon yesterday , but then sent me an adorable picture of his 'mein coon cats' just now . I keep hoping that the cognitive dissonance will kick in and he'll grow up to be a middle-aged liberal. I see him as a microcosm. As loner goes, so goes the nation.:doh:


----------



## PooPooMcGoo (Dec 29, 2005)

I read the post our little "Nazi" wrote. While I don't subscribe to any of his views, I don't remember him saying anything other than the fact that he was a "Nazi", and he was looking for a like-minded lady. He wasn't saying anything off color, or racist. Would you ban someone for saying they were a Scientoligist?

Just wondering.


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 29, 2005)

PooPooMcGoo said:


> I read the post our little "Nazi" wrote. While I don't subscribe to any of his views, I don't remember him saying anything other than the fact that he was a "Nazi", and he was looking for a like-minded lady. He wasn't saying anything off color, or racist. Would you ban someone for saying they were a Scientoligist?
> 
> Just wondering.



There is a long history with his posts, back to long before pre-forum revamp. Recent bannings are just a end-result of bannings from long ago, so you can't base this on his most recent comments. 

And from what I can tell, although I'm not excessively well-versed, Scientologists don't espouse hate in their ideology so it's not quite comparing apples and apples, more like apples and... well, nazis. 

The fact remains, it's still Conrad's board, so he could ban them if he wanted... lol


----------



## PooPooMcGoo (Dec 29, 2005)

Very good points. I stand corrected. Nazis don't make a very good pie either.

By the way Ann Marie, I think you're wonderful.

-Poo


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 29, 2005)

PooPooMcGoo said:


> Very good points. I stand corrected. Nazis don't make a very good pie either.
> 
> By the way Ann Marie, I think you're wonderful.
> 
> -Poo



Thanks very much. And is there something I don't know about Scientologists and pie?? Do I need to go knock on TomKat's door??


----------



## Miss Vickie (Dec 29, 2005)

AnnMarie said:


> Thanks very much. And is there something I don't know about Scientologists and pie?? Do I need to go knock on TomKat's door??



Oh, you didn't know? Pie is a well known cure for postpartum depression. Much better than those nasty, mind altering medications. (Or so says Doctor Tom).


----------



## fatlane (Dec 29, 2005)

Free speech means if you don't like what someone says, you ignore it or turn it off or toss it into the trash, but you don't kill the guy for expressing his views.

Conrad tossed the posts into the trash. He did kill the guy for expressing his views. Free speech prevails.

And it's not like there isn't a neo-Nazi message board out there. According to Alexa, there's one ranked at #8315, well ahead of Dimensionmagazine's #22K. I've had to look over stuff there before and it's just sickening. I'm not posting the link because it's my free speech and I'm not giving them the press. I agree with Yoko Ono's idea of punishment through obscurity.


----------



## 1300 Class (Dec 30, 2005)

As far as I am concerned, if this board is going to become a haven for neo nazi's and their sympathiers, I think it prudent that such filfth be banned for the sake of the community as a whole, and hence, the action has been taken to safeguard the community.


----------



## Scotter (Dec 30, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> The other day I had to, for the umpteenth time, ban an individual from chat and these forums for using Nazi names, terminology and ideology. The person claims to simply want to connect with likeminded fat women and seems baffled and outraged that access is denied, and will remain denied. Yet, when I read the abuse policies of most ISPs, this sort of thing is not directly addressed. You can't spam, disseminate viruses and do other dirty deeds, but expressing objectionable political leanings is not addressed. Now I know that this is my site and I can grant or deny access as I see fit, but what exactly is free speech and what isn't? Have no fear, I won't tolerate any such nonsense, and especially none that glorifies one of the darkest deeds of humanity, but it made me wonder what goes and what doesn't.



Conrad seems to be asking for a definitive answer as to where the line should be drawn. Having walked that path myself, both as a chat owner and also in court, I can understand the dilemma... by what objective criteria can one measure acceptable speech in the chat room? 

The reason that ISP's do not have rules against Neo-nazis is the legal two edged sword that those rules would constitute. Under the law as I understand it, if an ISP gets into the business of regulating speech, then they also accept responsibility for the speech that they allow, and thus can be sued for allowing actionable speech. They don't want that headache, so they stay out of that business.

What is free speech, and what isn't?

In US constitutional law, as I understand it, free speech means that the government can not restrict speech unless it presents a clear and present danger of harm. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Another example is to tell a lie that "makes substantial danger to [another person's] reputation apparent" (i.e. libel or slander), or to invade someone's privacy (i.e. speech that intrudes upon one's seclusion, that places another in a false light in the public eye, that makes another's private facts public, or speech that appropriates another's name or likeness). Yet another is to use speech to make a contract to deliberately cause harm (ex. hiring a hit man to kill someone). The essence of the "clear and present danger" exception to unlimited free speech is that the words are so close to the harm that a reasonable person would conclude that the speech directly caused the harm (i.e. proximate cause).

With all due respect to other posters to the contrary, the Constitution emphatically does protect the speech of groups such as the neo-nazis, irrespective of how offensive or unpopular it may be. Speech whose sole flaw is that it offensive is especially protected, because, as the Supreme Court has ruled time and again, speech that is the seed corn of revolutionary ideas is likely to be, at first, considered offensive by most. Thus, the quality of offensiveness has no effect upon what should and should not be allowed into the "marketplace of ideas" under the Constitution.

However, on a forum of polite discourse, such as we have here with the message boards and chat, offensiveness is of key concern. If, on the one hand, one allows all manner of offensive speech, one risks being overrun by snerts and trolls. On the other hand, if one limits speech so tightly that nobody can know for certain where the safe harbor is, the inevitable oppressiveness of the atmosphere defeats the purpose of the site. 

While it may, at first, appear simple enough to merely have a rule agasint offensive speech, it quickly becomes clear that uniform enforcement of such a rule can present a challenge. If interpretation of the rule is left up to the discretion of the ones charged with enforcement, then there is no standard by which to measure abuse of that discretion. If a man with a hammer perceives a world of nailheads, and power corrupts, then enforcers so charged will quickly become a gang of bullies, and nothing more (I have found myself on the short end of this particular stick in the Dimensions chat room recently). 

So, it seems necessary to set about creating uniform rules that may be enforced fairly and impartially. The problem with trying to create uniform rules regarding the offensiveness of speech, however, is that offensiveness is both relative, and subjective. What might be horribly offensive to one person might be merely humorous to another (ex. dead baby jokes). Some might be offended by idle curse words, while others may be offended by what some would consider a compliment. Calling a woman handsome, or a man pretty, for instance, might easily offend the sensibilities of many. Still others, who might have a chip on their shoulder, might actively search for negativity in another's speech, in order to stake a claim to victimhood, and being offended by another. For instance, if wished a good morning, such a person might infer that he were being wished an unpleasant rest of the day. If such a person was told that they looked nice today, they might infer that the subtle message is that she looks bad most other days.

So where is the safe harbor -- the clearly defined area of speech in which we may be free from worry about retribution -- for what we say? There is a definitive solution that has shown to be workable. This solution arose under social circumstances that are similar to what we have here, in cases involving speech in the workplace, particularly with respect to men and women working together. 

In such cases, the standard of what is offensive is in the ear of the beholder, for the most part. If a person is offended, then that creates the presumption that offensive speech has been made, unless no reasonable person would consider it so. While this standard might, at first, suggest opening the door to widespread abuse, a simple caveat renders it safe. If someone finds speech offensive to him or her, it is the offended person's duty to object to it, and give the speaker the opportunity to discontinue the offensive or "unwelcome" speech. Until the person offended objects, there is no onus on the speaker to stop.

Under this paradigm, the speaker may safely fly under the radar of what has been established as "patently offensive" speech, and fear no reprisal unless first put on notice that his or her speech causes offense. If the speaker continues after being put on notice by the person offended, then a moderator can admonish the speaker to stop. Only if the speaker continues after that would action be either necessary or appropriate. Conversely, if the person offended, rather than asking the speaker to stop, interrogates or encourages the speaker in order to escalate the matter, then that person can not later complain that the speech was offensive, because by asking something like "and just what is that supposed to mean," the person offended is inviting the speech, and consequently must accept responsibility for having done so.

I, myself, have pet peeves regarding speech in this forum that get little attention, which I find highly offensive, even if others do not. In particular, I find it offensive when someon trashes my political party ("Libertarians suck!"), even if they try to mitigate the flagrant slam by putting "lol" after the comment. I also find the rampant epithets of male bashing particularly offensive, even if meant as a joke. Yet, there is little action taken on those fronts. The standard I have suggested above, which standard is now in full force as a matter of law in every workplace in the country, would go a long way toward striking a balance between free discourse of ideas and avoiding offensive speech, however relative or subjective it may be. This standard has the flexibility to hug the peaks and valleys of subjectivity, yet remain flexible enough to allow a safe harbor for free speech.

Just my two cents,

Scotter


----------



## Webmaster (Dec 30, 2005)

Scotter said:


> Just my two cents,...



And worth a lot more than that. 

I am currently reading "The Supreme Court" by William Rehnquist. The former Chief Justice basically organized the book as a timeline of major cases brought before the court, each fundamental in providing a definite interpretation of certain aspects of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, its interpretation as it applies to certain situations and changing times, and the common sense applied to everyday life in the form of laws and just commonly observed behavior make up the fabric and smooth running of a society such as ours. 

Yet, any such society is also a constant struggle as there is so much gray and so much room for different interpretation. By and large, as the fictitional alien philosopher Mr. Spock once said (or will say), "the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." In the same respect, preserving the rights of the one is just as fundamental. The discussion of that can go on endlessly.

What it comes down to is common sense acceptable behavior. Like I mentioned elsewhere, despite freedom of speech, none of us is ever more than a few words away from losing liberty and happiness, and perhaps even life. Inappropriate exercise of freedom of speech has almost immediate consequences to any of us, every day. As a result, we observe commonly accepted rules. 

Accepting such rules is one of the basics of society. We have a set of rules on how to behave in business, at home, in school, in a store, in a movie theater, at a security check at the airport, when talking to a police officer, and so on. Break those rules and there will be consequences. 

Dimensions is a place whose mission it is to bring fat people and their admirers together in a safe place. That is why it is not a place for those who hate fat people or for those who try to sell diets. It is also not a place where cultural values are trampled on in societally unacceptable ways. Hate has no place here, be it in overt expression, or by implication, such as glorifying racial supremacy, and especially not by conjuring up images that are representative of a regime that burned and murdered millions in the name of racial supremacy.


----------



## fatlane (Dec 30, 2005)

So if you're gonna regulate content, don't advertise it and blame deleted posts on not understanding how to maintain the database backing the forum properly. 

I run other boards, including general-interest ones, and I just modify posts from people who piss me off. I'm not regulating content. I'm just shouting louder than them with the tools I have at my disposal.


----------



## Chode McBlob (Dec 30, 2005)

They are sub human scum!


----------



## fatlane (Dec 30, 2005)

Indeed. The old Nazis were bad enough. Who needs neo-Nazis?

Same for Maoists and Stalinists. I have no use for such thoughts.


----------



## The Romantic Swordsman (Dec 30, 2005)

I have seen this topic come up many times in many forums. As many others have said before me, it is your boards and you can do whatever you want. And I do agree with you choice of banning the neo-nazi. I've been on other boards who have let people like them in, and they began to chase off the other members who were, impure, as one of them put it. And we certainly don't want that to happen here.


----------



## Vince (Dec 30, 2005)

No one in their right mind believes in free speech. We never enjoyed that as kids. We never could say what we wanted at school. We dare not say whatever we like to others expecially the opposite sex! 

It all comes down to what we approve of and disapprove of. Those with the power to control the speech of others usually do so when it suits them.

It is difficult to go through life free of error. We all believe heaps of false things including religions and other nonsense. There is no limit to human stupidity. I love it when some good people do their best to protect us from the nasties.


----------



## fatlane (Dec 30, 2005)

Which reminds me, Jorge Zaffino is awesome.


----------



## loves2laugh (Dec 31, 2005)

So what is the verdict- ban or not banned?


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 1, 2006)

Banned, IP banned and hopefully send a stern PM.


----------



## The Kangaroo (Jan 3, 2006)

Scotter said:


> Conrad seems to be asking for a definitive answer as to where the line should be drawn.



I support the banning of Neo-Nazis who spout their ideology here. You should be allowed to participate here whatever your political affiliation, but when you want to say that stuff, you need to go to Stormfront or the other Neo-Nazi boards.


----------



## Fuzzy (Jan 3, 2006)

If this was a truly public board that didn't require registration I'd have my doubts on what was then acceptable.

But its not a public board. I consider this community a private club for members. Conrad is the bouncer at the door. Regardless if you belong to a radical group or popular political party, if you start offending others, you are suspect, and at the mercy of the bouncer.


----------



## Scotter (Jan 3, 2006)

The Kangaroo said:


> I support the banning of Neo-Nazis who spout their ideology here. You should be allowed to participate here whatever your political affiliation, but when you want to say that stuff, you need to go to Stormfront or the other Neo-Nazi boards.



The Neo-nazis are a clear target in terms of acceptable rhetoric... it's a no-brainer that their ideology has no place here. But what about when the target is not so clear? Say... afficionados of the confederacy, and the civil war re-inactment fans?

The confederate battle flag is often referred to in Europe as the "American Swastika." Yet some states still protect it by law - it's a crime to desecrate the confederate battle flag in Georgia, for example. Yet many see it as a symbol of racism.

If someone uses the flag as their avatar here, what then?


----------



## Webmaster (Jan 3, 2006)

Scotter said:


> The Neo-nazis are a clear target in terms of acceptable rhetoric... it's a no-brainer that their ideology has no place here. But what about when the target is not so clear? Say... afficionados of the confederacy, and the civil war re-inactment fans?
> 
> The confederate battle flag is often referred to in Europe as the "American Swastika." Yet some states still protect it by law - it's a crime to desecrate the confederate battle flag in Georgia, for example. Yet many see it as a symbol of racism.
> 
> If someone uses the flag as their avatar here, what then?



Yes, a very fine, gray line. I watched "The Dukes of Hazzard" the other day and they had this hilarious scene where the General Lee, confederate flag on its roof, was stuck in traffic in Atlanta, with people in cars on either side either giving them the high-fives or cursing them. You could take it even further and, in personals, denounce those who seek a single WHITE female or a BLACK or ASIAN one. So perhaps the whole thing does come down to a mix of a) what is societally acceptable, b) what is in line with the purpose of a private site like this (weight loss promotions are socially acceptable, but frowned on here), and c) where the doorman draws the line.


----------



## The Kangaroo (Jan 3, 2006)

Scotter said:


> The Neo-nazis are a clear target in terms of acceptable rhetoric... it's a no-brainer that their ideology has no place here. But what about when the target is not so clear? Say... afficionados of the confederacy, and the civil war re-inactment fans?
> 
> The confederate battle flag is often referred to in Europe as the "American Swastika." Yet some states still protect it by law - it's a crime to desecrate the confederate battle flag in Georgia, for example. Yet many see it as a symbol of racism.
> 
> If someone uses the flag as their avatar here, what then?



That's a very good point. IME claims of "heritage not hate" fall short. The South's cause was not a moral one by any reasonable measure. I have plenty of ancestors who believed otherwise but the world has changed much since then. The "Stars and Bars" Confederate Battle Flag has in the last 50 years been used almost exclusively to taunt African-Americans and is indeed as Rev. Al Sharpton called it "America's Swastika". 

I have a patient who believes otherwise and is a semi-neo-confederate and a very nice fellow. I certainly accept him as he is as his counselor but OTOH I tell him wearing shirts that say things like "the South Shall Rise Again" in a mixed race workplace is not appropriate either. 

As a compromise I would not object if a person like that guy wanted to use The Confederate Flag which Six Flags Over Texas used for its "Confederacy" area (resembling the U.S. flag somewhat, several stars in a blue field, two red and one white stripes) but not the Stars and Bars. If some would counter that the Stars and Bars is based on St. Andrew's Cross, the Emblem of Scotland (The "X" pattern), I would say, it is not perceived as meaning that by the general public and would send the wrong message.


----------



## Scotter (Jan 3, 2006)

While this thread is about what speech is allowable, and what should be discouraged, there is an equal and opposite evil to be feared. This medium loses its purpose if the discourse is so chilled by enforcement that it loses its vibrancy. If people feel that they have to choose their words so carefully in order to avoid the wrath of the doorman, then it's not worth bothering with saying anything, and the vibrancy and liveliness of the discourse is lost.

If the doorman is given vague directives and broad discretion to publicly humiliate participants, then it is inevitable that many who would otherwise be lively participants will be put off, and will drop out. 

I count myself among those ranks, which is why I haven't been around much lately. I only write here because I saw this as a topic that could potentially effect change.


----------



## Elfcat (Jan 3, 2006)

Chode McBlob said:


> They are sub human scum!


The problem with that statement is, if you say that Nazis are subhuman, are you then claiming that they think the way they do because of a genetic defect which might be useful to eradicate?

That's the slippery contagion of fascism. It's very tempting to try to oppose it on its own terms. And the challenge of democracy is to prove that it is itself so powerful that it can allow all verbal and literary opposition to it an ask its own people to think for themselves about what they really want to support.


----------



## Chode McBlob (Jan 3, 2006)

Elfcat said:


> The problem with that statement is, if you say that Nazis are subhuman, are you then claiming that they think the way they do because of a genetic defect which might be useful to eradicate?
> 
> That's the slippery contagion of fascism. It's very tempting to try to oppose it on its own terms. And the challenge of democracy is to prove that it is itself so powerful that it can allow all verbal and literary opposition to it an ask its own people to think for themselves about what they really want to support.



Well, if the Nazis had it their way there would only be blue-eyed blond aryains because they think everyonne else is inferior to them. It is their thinking that makes them sub-human scum. I wouldn't be around if the nazis won WWII. But it is also the idiotic ideogy that brought their downfall.


----------



## Mini (Jan 3, 2006)

Freedom of speech has never been a good idea, and I should be arrested for saying it.

/Got nothing?


----------



## jdwhitak (Jan 3, 2006)

Many people say that they support free speech, but the second someone says something that is "socially unpopular" those very same people say, "That person needs to be shut up." You can't have it both ways.

I believe in free speech! And I would never want someone trying to limit what I can say, so I'm not going to try and limit what others can say. The freedoms gauranteed in the Bill of Rights should apply equally to everyone (even if their views are unsavory or politically incorrect) or no one.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 3, 2006)

The Kangaroo said:


> I support the banning of Neo-Nazis who spout their ideology here. You should be allowed to participate here whatever your political affiliation, but when you want to say that stuff, you need to go to Stormfront or the other Neo-Nazi boards.




This is a place of tolerance. The neo-Nazis have no place here.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 3, 2006)

The Kangaroo said:


> That's a very good point. IME claims of "heritage not hate" fall short. The South's cause was not a moral one by any reasonable measure.<snip>




The Southern States were fighting Northern economic oppression. American democracy had become a majority depriving the minority of its rights and those states opted to exit the United States - nowhere was it written that entry into the US was a one-way affair.

Granted, the slavery thing was a matter of an oppression of a minority, so the CSA claims seem to ring hollow. But after the War of Northern Aggression (or whatever one chooses to call it), slavery persisted in the 13th Amendment loophole allowing it to be assigned as a penalty in a criminal case. Jobless freed slaves arriving in Illinois were surprised to be arrested for vagrancy and face a penalty of one year of slavery as their punishment - and they were then sold to businessmen awaiting the latest sale of vagrant slaves at the courthouse.

Slavery as an issue was already fizzling. The UK had ended slavery in its empire in the 1830s (OK, so they replaced it with coolie labour, hardly any differnt...) and other nations had done away with slavery through legislation, not violence. Brazil's case in 1888 was particularly interesting: one state simply refused to enforce fugitive slave laws that required repatriation of slaves.Slaves began escaping to that state en masse and slave owners moved quickly to get a government buyout of existing slaves before they, too, escaped. All a Nothern state had to do in the US was refuse to enforce fugitive slave laws while remitting on tariffs and the Civil War could have been avoided entirely, for either the slavery or the states' rights issues.

But the CSA soldiers were fighting for their own freedoms in the face of an oppressive national government. To disparage their cause is to do a great disservice to the notions of liberty. I agree the CSA St. Andrews flag is now a symbol of intolerance in the hands of intolerant people, but the men who first marched under it were patriots to their lands who believed in their cause. I'm very sympathetic to the notion of a limited government, for it under such government freedoms flourish best.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jan 3, 2006)

for free speech as far as internet forums are concerned, i believe the limit is this: when a person consistently posts things that offend the board members almost unanimously, on a subject that is not the forum's main topic, i say ax the wanker. if it's the same prick i think it is you're talking about, i take comfort in the knowledge that he will never see happiness. not only will he never see nazism rise to power again during his mortal life, but the likelihood of finding a female feedee is already slim, and the remain odds are obliterated by the fact any he'd ever be lucky enough to come by would be put off by his frighteningly devolved fascist ideology.


----------



## Jane (Jan 3, 2006)

I really don't have a problem with someone spewing hate, since it only shows their ignorance. 

Prejudging is for those who care not to think.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 3, 2006)

PooPooMcGoo said:


> Would you ban someone for saying they were a Scientoligist?
> 
> Just wondering.


Scientology was not responsible for the extermination of six million people - Nazis, OTOH, were.


----------

