[magentabluesky]

Michael, I think you are confusing fairness and law. They are different. People have a legal right to be unfair to other people. A parent may leave all of their wealth to the least deserving child. That's their legal right, but it does not always satisfy our common sense of fairness.

As a forum operator, I am painfully aware that I am providing a platform where people might post comments and ideas that may conflict with my own. That is a reasonable expectation that people have when they join a forum.

But beyond expectations, forums also have rules for conduct (such as the Bob and Scott rule). Fairness incorporates the notion that those rules will at least be followed. There was no rule stating that Joe could not promote USHGRS. So even if we accept that Jack could make such a rule (the Bob and Scott and USHGRS rule), it had not been made at the time of Joe being banned.

Having said all of that, if it is your opinion that Joe was fairly (justly) banned, then we clearly disagree on the term "justly". You seem to want to rob the word "justly" of its unique meaning and lump it into the word "legally". They are not the same.

Bob wants to mince words just like Bill.

Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is

[Bob Kuczewski]

Actually, Michael, it seems that you are trying to mince words to avoid admitting that Jack's actions were "unjust". Instead, you carefully state that Jack had a "right" to silence Joe. It seems that you are trying to carefully choose the wording that will relieve you of any sense of guilt in the matter. Again, your choice of video does not work in your favor.

Michael, I think you are confusing fairness and law. They are different. People have a legal right to be unfair to other people. A parent may leave all of their wealth to the least deserving child. That's their legal right, but it does not always satisfy our common sense of fairness.

As a forum operator, I am painfully aware that I am providing a platform where people might post comments and ideas that may conflict with my own. That is a reasonable expectation that people have when they join a forum.

But beyond expectations, forums also have rules for conduct (such as the Bob and Scott rule). Fairness incorporates the notion that those rules will at least be followed. There was no rule stating that Joe could not promote USHGRS. So even if we accept that Jack could make such a rule (the Bob and Scott and USHGRS rule), it had not been made at the time of Joe being banned.

Having said all of that, if it is your opinion that Joe was fairly (justly) banned, then we clearly disagree on the term "justly". You seem to want to rob the word "justly" of its unique meaning and lump it into the word "legally". They are not the same.

Bob wants to mince words just like Bill.

Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is

[magentabluesky]

So Bob to be clear, it is your position that Jack should be required to provide web space and band width on hanggliding.org to Joe even though Jack does not believe in promoting Joe’s USHRS?

No.

Bob, since you replied that Jack should not be required to provide Joe with web space and band width on hanggliding.org to promote Joe’s USHRS, it follows that Joe was not unfairly treated when Jack removed the USHGRS promotions from Jack’s web space.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, since you replied that Jack should not be required to provide Joe with web space and band width on hanggliding.org to promote Joe’s USHRS, it follows that Joe was not unfairly treated when Jack removed the USHGRS promotions from Jack’s web space.

No it doesn't follow at all. There is a wide chasm between what people should be required (forced) to do by law and what is fair treatment. If you cannot understand that difference, then you cannot understand my arguments.

Let me make this simple so you can understand it. If you want to post on a web site that bans Joe Faust and forbids the acronym "USHGRS", then go post on hanggliding.org. Every post you make there will proclaim your own willingness to post on a site where Joe cannot. If that's what you support, then go post there. Go tell the world with each keystroke that you are willing to support someone who would ban Joe.

Have fun!

[magentabluesky]

I am here speaking up because I have to defend my good name and reputation against a bully.

When I defend Jack’s rights as an owner, publisher, and editor, I am also defending Joe’s rights as an owner, publisher, and editor, because Jack and Joe have equal rights.

All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I am here speaking up because I have to defend my good name and reputation against a bully.

Right. It's all about you. You'll sit by and watch others be bullied and banned and dragged through the mud, but let someone criticize you for it and you'll squeal like a pig. Where was your tirade against Jack when he banned Joe? When he banned Scott? When he banned Warren? When he banned Al?

When I defend Jack’s rights as an owner, publisher, and editor, I am also defending Joe’s rights as an owner, publisher, and editor, because Jack and Joe have equal rights.

And what about my rights as an owner, publisher, and editor? You are very vocal and brave criticizing me page after page. Why is that fine for you to do in my "living room/coffee shop" but not in Jack's? If you'd been half this vocal to Jack when he banned Joe or Scott or Al, you'd still have my respect.

All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Exactly.

[magentabluesky]

Bob,

The difference between Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats is Conservative Republicans defend people’s rights and Liberal Democrats promote causes.

In this case you are promoting Joe’s “cause” and I am defending Jack and Joe’s rights.

You say you don’t believe or support the FCC Fairness Doctrine but in the same breath making a claim that Jack treated Joe unfairly arguing the basis for the FCC Fairness Doctrine to be applied to internet forums.

Bob, are you really just a closet Liberal?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Just documenting ...

Bob,

The difference between Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats is Conservative Republicans defend people’s rights and Liberal Democrats promote causes.

In this case you are promoting Joe’s “cause” and I am defending Jack and Joe’s rights.

You say you don’t believe or support the FCC Fairness Doctrine but in the same breath making a claim that Jack treated Joe unfairly arguing the basis for the FCC Fairness Doctrine to be applied to internet forums.

Bob, are you really just a closet Liberal?

[Free]

Conservative Republicans defend people’s rights and Liberal Democrats promote causes.

In this case you are promoting Joe’s “cause” and I am defending Jack and Joe’s rights.

Michael must be doing comedy satire because no thoughtful person could believe in an enumerated right to censure. That would be quite insane.
The legality of it is debatable but that is a different thing than an enumerated "right" to censor for any idiotic reason, in what is essentially a public square.
One has freewill to be an idiot but that is not a "right". So it has to be satire comedy that Michael is posting, as is this:
https://spectator.us/free-speech-threat/

In the UK, leading far-right figure Tommy Robinson Yaxley Lennon has had his Paypal closed down, his Twitter account banned and, most recently, his Instagram and Facebook accounts removed. Very much like in the US last year when probable white supremacist Alex Jones had his Twitter, Facebook and YouTube shut down, or when Facebook did a cull of almost 600 US political pages before the 2018 midterm elections.

As usual, the tinfoil hat-wearing alt-right Nazis are crying out that free speech is under threat. This ridiculous overreaction always makes me laugh. These people have no idea what free speech is. They assume that freedom of speech means you are free to say whatever you want without severe consequences! Imagine that?! What kind of fascistic society would allow unfettered, non-regulated speech?

The companies listed above are all private companies. They are entitled to ban whomever they wish if they feel that their views or behavior are unpleasant. In fact, I would like to see this approach taken a step further. I cannot wait for the day utility companies start banning people from having access to vital services such as electricity, gas and running water. Nextra, Enel and Duke Energy are all perfectly within their rights to deny power to the homes of people whose views they deem problematic. I welcome the idea of delivery companies refusing to transport goods to the addresses of deplorable Trump voters. In the UK, I would like to see the NHS denying Brexit voters medical treatment on the grounds of their rampant xenophobia. In this way, society would gradually become kinder and more tolerant. A modern spin on Darwin’s survival of the fittest if you will – apart from this time, only the wokest would survive.

When it comes to the latest social media bans, I’ve seen cries of ‘Urr, they are trying to silence us!’ What utter rot! Anyone who has almost every aspect of their online life taken away from them is not ‘silenced’. They are still perfectly free to send letters and postcards to people (for now). There is absolutely nothing stopping them from using CB radio, or sending a telegraph. Nothing prevents them from tapping out messages in Morse code to their followers on an intricate system of underground pipes they could easily have built if they obtain the appropriate planning permission. With a little creativity, Alex Jones could communicate his vile thoughts via the medium of interpretive dance on any street corner he chooses. Tommy Robinson could scribble his racist views on scraps of paper, fold them up, insert them into bottles (not plastic) and hurl them into the sea for his fellow Islamophobes to discover while walking their pitbull terriers on the beach.

The very idea that ‘freedom of speech’ is somehow ‘under threat’ purely because a handful of people in Silicon Valley who all hold similar views have the power to delete the internet presence of any person on the planet is laughable! I mean, if you really have a problem with it, then why not stop whining and make your own internet? It can’t be that difficult. I remember making my own telephone as a child using two paper cups and a length of string. If these people cannot be bothered to put in a bit of effort, then I have no sympathy for their flimsy arguments.

Or they could of course do something which would ensure their precious free speech isn’t infringed upon; they could stop saying problematic things. Simple as that.

I would continue to explore this subject in more detail with my followers on Twitter, but unfortunately, Jack has accidentally suspended my account. Again. Godfrey Elfwick

[magentabluesky]

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.