Recently I posted two threads on Boycotting The NPGMC. The discussion was very lively and some great comments were posted on each. The second was better than the first. However, some overzealous posters began attacking eachother and the entire second thread was removed.

Sadly all the good posts were lost as well. I asked for an explanation but received none.

My question is whether the org should set up a better system for handling bad posts. Why should good posts have to be removed? Their is a lot of value to them and now I don't feel as keen on sharing my views because they may be taken down if other people post irresponsibly...

Any comments or ideas on this?

I agree. I think it's completely 100% reasonable for moderators to moderate the posts, and they should be free to do as they wish, but reasons for the actions would be good, just for our own interest. Just so long as those reasons don't turn into stupid threads as well.

To address your points:

• If a thread is removed, the owner of the thread (that is, the person who started it receives a message saying why. Generally we only remove an entire thread when we have to, it's preferable to lock it. Generally if a thread has a large number of replies (thus many people have invested time in it) we will endeavour not to remove the thread. But sometimes it is necessary.
  
• This site is a free service, run by a small number of individuals in our spare time. There may be cases where the work required to edit a thread, clean it up and make it acceptable for public consumption again is more than we have the time for - so the thread gets locked or removed. Usually though, if I have the time, I'll try to clean up the thread unless it is totally beyond repair.
  
• If you read the site rules, you'll see that the "moderator's decision is final". There is no right to an explanation or an appeal. This isn't just a power-trip - it's because there is a lot of work involved in running a site of this size and we don't have the time to give everyone a detailed explanation of moderator decisions. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I do my best to keep people informed, but it isn't always feasible to do that.
  

regards

Ian

I posted a response and my opinion 2 this post and today I seen that my post was removed!

This only shows that some don't have the Freedom 2 write their response and opinions in resopnse 2 a post!

All I gave was my opinion that some don't have the Freedom 2 respond and give their opinions and some do.

It would seem some people have not read the Internet Laws about Everyone has Freedom of Speech on Internet websites forums, as long as it's not obscene.

REALLY? care to elaborate?





[This message was edited Tue Dec 17 18:33:14 PST 2002 by MrBliss]

Spirit said:

With all due respect, you don't have "freedom of speech" on someone else's private web server. Trust me on this--I'm a lawyer.

(Disclaimer: I am only licensed to practice law in the State of Indiana. This post neither creates nor evidences any attorney-client relationship, and it should not be relied upon as "legal advice.")

matt said:

Don't U just love lawyers. First they tell U what they think the law says and then add a Disclaimer, so they can't B sued 4 the legal opinion given. When a lawyer tells me 2 trust them I run away as fast as I can.

Check out what I found at...

http://www.infoplease.com

Everyone should look it up and read what it says about INTERNET FREEDOM OF THE PRESS/FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

It was decided that users of Internet communication would be afforded FREEDOM OF THE PRESS/FREEDOM OF SPEECH, without subsequent punishment 4 what is said, as long as what was said was not obscenity or violations of copyright, as obsecenity or violations of copyright are concidered outside the amendments purview.
The protections 2 be afforded users of on-line computer services, the internet, and other new means of publication are the focus of a develpoing debate; in 1996 a federal district court panel stuck down the new Communications Decency Act, holding that Internet communications were entitled 2 the same degree of protection as printed communications.

Therefore, I asked and paid an attorney that knows Internet Laws and was told that no one has the right 2 tell the users of any Internet forum what their opinions must be and what opinion a person can or cannot write and that no internet fourm can censor what is written, as long as what is written is not deemed obscenity or violations of copyright or violations of a person race and so on, only then can a internet website censor what is written.
I paid 4 this information. There4, I trust this information that was given 2 me by this attorney.

Spirit said:

That might be vaguely true, if it was your website.
It isn't. It's our website, and we decide what appears on it and what doesn't. You don't have freedom of speech on this site. Tough shit, I'm afraid!

Well actually, you DO have freedom of speech (in that you probably won't go to jail for anything you write on the Org, unless it's libellous etc) but we (the Org) are not obliged to publish your words. If you want true internet freedom of speech, go set up your own website.

As regards printed matter, sure you personally can (kinda) write down anything you like, but newspapers aren't obliged to print it.

Also, note that (a) obcenity laws differ in different countries, so you're talking rubbish and (b) American laws don't govern the internet, sorry. There's no such thing as "Internet Laws" - different countries will have different legislature about what they define as obscene, or banned materials.

Get a better attorney. Your current guy must have big windows in his office, because he saw you coming.

ian said:

As 4 the U.S.A. and Prince.org internet website WHOIS Domain Information clearly states that Pricne.org is owned by the Company named Tog Dog Enterprises, 1500 Sherman Ave., 2E, Burlingame, California, United States of America.

There4, are U claiming that Prince.org clealy an America owned internet website can legal encroach upon a person legal right 2 Freedom of Speech? Even if the person lives in the U.S.A.?
It sure sounds like that is what U are claiming as an Prince.org representative.

Spirit said:

As I said - you do have freedom of speech on the internet, of sorts - but we are not obliged to publish what you have to say.

Nothing on the Org can take away your wonderful constitutional rights in your country, but your constitutional rights don't give you the right to see your opinions getting the front page of the Financial Times - nor do they obligate us to permit you to post anything you like on our website Prince.org.

Deal with it.