A PSA...First Amendment Rights / Freedom of Speech

[yitbos96bb]

Yes, the DIS is a privately owned website. When people sign up, they are shown and must accept a detailed terms of service agreement. If not, they are not permitted to use this service.

I agree everything has to be balanced, but I also feel that things need to be looked at as a whole entity. The DIS is one microcosm of Dreams Unlimited Travel. It's a service provided for free that not only brings business to the company, but also provides thousands of members with free information they can use on their own. Keeping it balanced means that certain rules and guidelines must be adhered to. If they are not, the individual is going against what the owner of this privately owned website had as his vision.

I frequent many areas of the boards, but have never seen things overly negative on the part of the moderators. Instead, I see very patient people trying to deal with those who purposely push the envelope of what is and is not acceptable. If a thread has to be closed, it's because it is violating the terms of service. I can't see someone closing a thread just for the heck of it. There's reasons behind doing so. This is also why the DIS is such a popular site around the world: it is moderated very well so that things run as smoothly as possible.

Bottom line, if you agree to the terms of service for any site, you conduct yourself in a manner that is in line with what is expected. If you can't do that, you might need to reconsider where you spend your time. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about following the rules. Rules are made for a reason. Even though we have freedom of speech, we also have laws we must abide by. I feel that this is a similar scenario. Just my two cents.

I don't disagree... It was a meta comment, not a directed one at anyone specific... In fact I said I think the DIS does a good job of maintaining that balance. It's not easy.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Aren't they connected though? Maybe I worded that wrong. I stand corrected!

Legally they would exist as two separate companies. THis is done for numerous reasons and benefits... one of the biggest being protection from lawsuit. So if someone sued the DIS and won, they wouldn't be able to collect from the owners personal finances nor from Dreams Unlimited. This is a real simplistic example, but it should help explain it.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I didn't say anything about silencing the celebrity, my issue is with the celebrity (or whoever) who complains after making a statement that turns out to be controversial because they seem to think, because of freedom of speech, that no one should disagree with them or like you said boycott their work, stop buying their merchadise, whatever.

Case in point....Remember when the Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made some comment about then President George Bush at a London concert? People were upset, they stopped buying their albums and concert tickets, burned their CD's and radio stations stopped playing their music (due to customer demand ) Natalie Maines repeatedly whined about her freedom of speech (never mind that she was in London when she said it) like she believed she should be able to say whatever she wants without repercussions from people who disagree with her and have the same rights she does.

Actually my intent wasn't to imply you were saying silence the celebrities. It was an observation on the irony of those who do. My bad for not being clearer as someone else misunderstood the meaning of that comment. I always find it disturbing as there are MANY who do think that some of these people should be banned from making their comments or killed for them... and was trying to point out the irony of people exercising free speech to advocate suppressing others free speech. THe comment was not directed at ANYONE on the DIS or anyone in particular.

I do want to correct your Natalie Maines example as you are missing one fact that puts the whole thing into context... she complained about the free speech violations, NOT because of people not attending their concerts but due to various threats of violence and legal actions made against her and the Dixie Chicks. People weren't just peacefully boycotting their shows and CDs... they were making death threats, throwing beer bottles, even some politicians blowing hot smoke about taking legal action. THAT is why she said she had the right to make those comments... and she is 100% right... she did. Just as the people who boycotted the concerts and CDs had the right too as well. BUT NO ONE has the right to make death threats or promote violence or perpetrate violence (which I am sure you would agree).

 

[yitbos96bb]

Other examples....

You can paint, draw, sculpt anything you want....no one is required to display what you've created.

You can write anything you want. No one is required to publish it

You can record anything you want. No one is required play it on the radio.

You can say anything you want. No one is required to print it.

No one is required to subsidize your freedom of speech.

I'm not sure anyone was arguing that they were...

 

[WaltD4Me]

I do want to correct your Natalie Maines example as you are missing one fact that puts the whole thing into context... she complained about the free speech violations, NOT because of people not attending their concerts but due to various threats of violence and legal actions made against her and the Dixie Chicks. People weren't just peacefully boycotting their shows and CDs... they were making death threats, throwing beer bottles, even some politicians blowing hot smoke about taking legal action. THAT is why she said she had the right to make those comments... and she is 100% right... she did. Just as the people who boycotted the concerts and CDs had the right too as well. BUT NO ONE has the right to make death threats or promote violence or perpetrate violence (which I am sure you would agree).

I followed the whole Dixie Chicks thing very closely at the time and yes, I absolutely agree that no one has a right to make death threats or promote violence, I thought all of that was ridiculous and awful, but during the immediate time when all that was going on, she complained about both, the threats and the radio stations not playing her music, fans burning their CD's, ect...by the time the movie about the whole thing came out she only referred to the threats, but before that it was about everything.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I followed the whole Dixie Chicks thing very closely at the time and yes, I absolutely agree that no one has a right to make death threats or promote violence, I thought all of that was ridiculous and awful, but during the immediate time when all that was going on, she complained about both, the threats and the radio stations not playing her music, fans burning their CD's, ect...by the time the movie about the whole thing came out she only referred to the threats, but before that it was about everything.

I also followed it extremely closely (for the sake of this discussion we will assume we followed it with an equal fascination between the two of us) as well and have an entirely different take on it than you do. We will just have to agree to disagree on the specifics of that particular event... as is often the case in these types of discussions.

As a generic meta comment, I do agree that complaining your rights are violated by boycotting fans shows great ignorance of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights, just as you agreed that no one has the right to violently quiet someone elses speech, no matter how reprehensible we find it.

Either way, good chatting with you and an enjoyable conversation... and my apologies for any confusion on the direction of my earlier comment.