[Free]

I do not know what country you live in Warren, but in the United States there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press covering much more than mere censorship.

For 228 years in the United States the owner, publisher, editor have been and are the authority and are responsible for the content of their particular media, newspaper, broadcast, or the web. The one exception was the FCC Fairness Doctrine, a liberal Democratic policy determined to be unconstitutional by the FCC.

My opinion is the Supreme Court is going to continue upholding that interpretation of the First Amendment supporting the right of the owner, publisher, and editor as the authority for their content unless the court is filled with more of the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would be supporting justices of your cause.

As it is now, you are free to exercise your freedom of speech and press by starting your own newspaper or Warren’s Facebook or Warren’s Twitter.

I can tell you from personal experience there were some who thought a privately owned airline was a public forum where they could pull out their soap box and exercise their free speech. They were told to pick up their soap box and carryon and exit the jet. They did not go with the rest of us. They were left behind.

Social media are not newspapers. If they were they would be held responsible for all that is printed. They are not private airlines either.
The problem you have Michael, is that much of your foundational assumptions are skewed from reality. You are trying to make a legal case out of something that does not fit your foundational misconceptions.

You then continue in your confusion and attempt to put words to my position.

Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would be supporting justices of your cause.

Michael, taking your lead, I have to ask you to cease and desist in your lying fraud.
Please comply with my wishes or feel the full brunt of all legal remedies available in order to clear my good name and reputation!
I mean it!
W.

[Free]

As it is now, you are free to exercise your freedom of speech and press by starting your own newspaper or Warren’s Facebook or Warren’s Twitter.

As it is now, you are incorrect about all of these because all examples censor at will, anyone that does not tow the line of the fascistic left in this country.
This is the same as you argue in favor for Jack Axaopolous.
Fail. Please try again.

OOPS. Edit PS:
I see you said I could START my own newspaper. Like my own telephone company or my own internet, even though the public has already paid for these utilities.
This was the argument in the satire piece I posted. Again, are you posting satire or just don't get it?

Newspapers don't have to post all entries. OK.
Social media are not newspapers. See above.
What you are arguing is not settled law.
You are defending the un-defendable position of a pussified jerk and trying to call it law.
There is no law or enumerated right to be a jerk.
This is ethics and not law.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael, you continually try to make this a matter of law rather than a matter of morality. I didn't say your actions were criminal. I said they were shameful.

You keep trying to make this about property rights rather than about doing what's right for your fellow human being. Jack can have his property rights and you can still criticize him for how he uses them to harm others. The two are not mutually exclusive. Your excuses for not standing up for Joe ring hollow to me.

I do not know what country you live in Warren, but in the United States there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press covering much more than mere censorship.

For 228 years in the United States the owner, publisher, editor have been and are the authority and are responsible for the content of their particular media, newspaper, broadcast, or the web. The one exception was the FCC Fairness Doctrine, a liberal Democratic policy determined to be unconstitutional by the FCC.

My opinion is the Supreme Court is going to continue upholding that interpretation of the First Amendment supporting the right of the owner, publisher, and editor as the authority for their content unless the court is filled with more of the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would be supporting justices of your cause.

As it is now, you are free to exercise your freedom of speech and press by starting your own newspaper or Warren’s Facebook or Warren’s Twitter.

I can tell you from personal experience there were some who thought a privately owned airline was a public forum where they could pull out their soap box and exercise their free speech. They were told to pick up their soap box and carryon and exit the jet. They did not go with the rest of us. They were left behind.

[Bob Kuczewski]

One more comment ...

Michael, you keep hiding behind some supposedly "conservative" patriotism. But you forget that this country was founded by defying the existing laws that were felt to be unjust. By your logic, the colonists had no justification for rebellion because the King could make any laws he wanted, right? If they didn't like it, they should go establish some other 13 colonies somewhere else, right?

Don't try to make this a left/right issue when it's really a right/wrong issue.

[magentabluesky]

Talk about morality, Bob why can't you stop lying?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Documenting ...

Talk about morality, Bob why can't you stop lying?

[wingspan33]

Talk about morality, Bob why can't you stop lying?

Mikey, what you're saying above is a lie. And I see it as defaming Bob's character. Bob wrote that he thought three people who were members here and over on sg.org should be ashamed for not speaking up, or for not speaking up MORE for Joe Faust (way back in August?). So, why should anyone speak up for Joe Faust?

Joe Faust was right there at the beginning of the USHGA. He's a kind and gentle person who had one particular idea to create a non-U$hPa rating system and announce it on sg.org. Why would ANY hang glider pilot object to Joe's new (non U$hPa) HG ratings system? But somehow Jack the Ax was offended and decided to ban Joe from sg.org.

In doing so, Jack the Ax hurt the hang gliding community! And this is a community that Jack the Ax claims to support and promote. What Jack the Ax did is called "Being a hypocrite". You have implicitly given Jack the Ax the A-Okay to do damage to the US hang gliding community while he proclaims (lies) that he supports it. You have done so by repeatedly saying that Jack the Ax has the "right" to do that on his own "property". Well, sg.org happens to be a communication channel for the US hang gliding community. If you deny that then you deny reality. And Jack the Ax is much closer to a totalitarian then anyone over here on the US Hawks. Yet you use double speak and accuse Bob, in a defamatory way, of being what Jack the Ax comes off as being.

Here on the US Hawks there are 5 people who are called the (informal) B.O.D. I am one of them. One of the 5 is Bob K. If a decision on an issue needs to be made we all have an equal voice. While Bob K created this web forum, if a majority of the B.O.D. vote counter to Bob K then what Bob K may like becomes irrelevant. The majority rules. Bob could do what Jack the Ax does and be a totalitarian dictator, but he doesn't. Bob has urged me to put my opinions on your recent negative postings up where the whole B.O.D. can see them. And this is part of that effort. That fits with a "majority rules" system, not a totalitarian, one person rules system.

Only a person who has problems recognizing reality would make claims that "Bob" is a "Totalitarian". Another option is that said person is purposefully acting to disrupt this typically civil and positive recreational hang gliding focused community. What motive would such a person have? To hurt our otherwise positive community? To hurt the sport of hang gliding? Hey, Mikey, maybe you could give us your opinion on why such a person may be acting in such a manner.

As a member of the US Hawks (informal) B.O.D. I am insulted by your failure to honestly (or sanely) recognize how or system of "governance" works here at the US Hawks. Every time you insult Bob you are insulting me, as well as every other member of the board. One of those other members is Joe Faust. So you appear to go from not doing much or anything to support Joe and his USHGRS over on sg.org to (months later) insulting Joe by ignoring his (and 3 other peoples') position as a voting member of the US Hawks' B.O.D.

In my opinion it's time for you to stop your disruptive behavior.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Talk about morality, Bob why can't you stop lying?

Mikey, what you're saying above is a lie. And I see it as defaming Bob's character.

Thanks Scott. I agree completely. Michael has told several lies and they should be dealt with. I would suggest that we wait on taking up that matter until after we've resolved Michael's Cease and Desist request.

Michael, your conduct has been "over the top", and it saddens me more than you may ever know. Your name calling alone makes you look childish. I am sorry to see someone I deeply respected stain their reputation so severely. I strongly urge you to conduct yourself in a more professional manner while we work our way through your complaint.

With best intentions.

[magentabluesky]

Scott,

In your above post you are entitled to your opinion.

The specific issue is you or Bob are not entitled to tell the world that is also my opinion when I have provided you with statements and facts clearly informing you and Bob that I do not share those beliefs.

The specific issue is Bob stop telling the world what I belief and what my motives are when in fact those are not my beliefs and not my motives.

Period.

It is very simple.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Just documenting ...

Scott,

In your above post you are entitled to your opinion.

The specific issue is you or Bob are not entitled to tell the world that is also my opinion when I have provided you with statements and facts clearly informing you and Bob that I do not share those beliefs.

The specific issue is Bob stop telling the world what I belief and what my motives are when in fact those are not my beliefs and not my motives.

Period.

It is very simple.