why is there suddenly a plethora of racist threads?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by daisym

This is exactly what prompted me to start this thread. At the time I posted the OP, the top 4 threads on culture and media were racist threads. It is possibly that the first whole page could be dominated by these threads, in which case anyone browsing may conclude that the forum is primarily a single purpose forum.

Only a racial-McCarthyist with paranoid delusions of Nazi's hiding behind every bush would see 4 or 5 'racist' threads mixed in with legions of threads on other issues and conclude that this is a 'racist' forum.

In addition - the promotion of hatred against people based on ethnic/racial origins is really vile.

Your attempt at trying to convince the moderators to censor views you do not like is even more vile. Your oppressive attitude is truly a product of Soviet Australian thinking.

social psychologists have known since the 30's what this stuff does - and so should we all by now. It is a form of hysteria that can be rapidly spread.

Can you name any of these psychologists?

I do not want to be party to a group that encourages it to this extent.

Great! Go back to your Communist Party of Australia friends and report your failure to have the 'fash' censored; I am sure they will be pleased with you.

If it is contained then its OK - it gives people the opportunity to express their opinion, but the more it begins to dominate a site, the greater influence it has.

Why should anyone's lawful political views be contained because you object to them? This is not Stalinist Russia...er...Stalinist Australia Daisym. USPOL is not Australia where speech is restricted because the government fears the truth.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Malvolio

I think a thread limit would be a good idea. Scarcity makes things more valuable and people take better care of them. In my ideal forum such a limit would be linked to a kind of reputation-system. Posters with a good reputation would have the right to post a lot, posters with a bad reputation less.

This is open to poster abuse though. What is to stop Hillary-supporters from flooding a Romney-supporter with negative rep should the Romney-supporter start winning a debate for nothing more than winning a debate?

[Agentorange]

One other thing does spring to mind. A while back Moon advocated that people shouldn't pay taxes in the USA as a form of protest against the US being in Iraq. Matt removed the thread and told Moon off on the basis that this was advocating breaking US law, thus leaving the site open to legal action. Since several of the threads under discussion here have advocated violence, harrassment etc etc of various ethnic groups all of which are also ( I imagine ) illegal under US law it strikes me they are also should be treated the same way, ie thread removed and poster warned.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Frank

This is open to poster abuse though. What is to stop Hillary-supporters from flooding a Romney-supporter with negative rep should the Romney-supporter start winning a debate for nothing more than winning a debate?

No i think he means reputation based on conduct (staying within rules, threads formatted and meeting good standards etc etc); not the opinion of other posters but based on their behavior in general. At least i think that's what he meant.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Agentorange

One other thing does spring to mind. A while back Moon advocated that people shouldn't pay taxes in the USA as a form of protest against the US being in Iraq. Matt removed the thread and told Moon off on the basis that this was advocating breaking US law, thus leaving the site open to legal action. Since several of the threads under discussion here have advocated violence, harrassment etc etc of various ethnic groups all of which are also ( I imagine ) illegal under US law it strikes me they are also should be treated the same way, ie thread removed and poster warned.

Since none of these threads have been removed even after moderators have examined/participated in them I must presume that they contain no criminal incitement of the sort.

Second, unlike your putrid filthy no-good communist cesspool of a nation; America has a strong attachment to free speech; it is not illegal to offer an opinion of what you would like to see happen to people. In America I could say that I would not object to people being killed and as long as I do not openly make a statement that leads to imminent lawlessness or constitutes a criminal conspiracy to commit an actual crime this is protected free speech.

Third, I am not convinced that U.S. law allows for the punishment of a site owner for the comments of people made on his site. I heard the Supreme Court recently made such a determination? Maybe O'Sullivan can address this issue?

[Si modo]

Moon says to Trav:

Originally Posted by moon

.... Take advantage of it and get out of my pants.

I didn't know you had kinks, Moon.

That's a visual I really don't want.

[O'Sullivan Bere]

Originally Posted by Frank

Since none of these threads have been removed even after moderators have examined/participated in them I must presume that they contain no criminal incitement of the sort.

Second, unlike your putrid filthy no-good communist cesspool of a nation; America has a strong attachment to free speech; it is not illegal to offer an opinion of what you would like to see happen to people. In America I could say that I would not object to people being killed and as long as I do not openly make a statement that leads to imminent lawlessness or constitutes a criminal conspiracy to commit an actual crime this is protected free speech.

Third, I am not convinced that U.S. law allows for the punishment of a site owner for the comments of people made on his site. I heard the Supreme Court recently made such a determination? Maybe O'Sullivan can address this issue?

I can't specifically comment on any of the threads being alleged because I don't know which ones they are.

This is a US hosted website so we follow its laws. It's simply impractical to know and enforce all the global laws that may exist in other nations, many of which may even be paradoxical to American law when compared to each other.

I would advise anyone to use the report button on any post anyone thinks may be a violation of US law. We have over a million posts on the forum, not counting deletions and a one time pruning of posts that deleted tonnes more of them. Thus, we just can't see everything. Without a reported post, the odds are that it will get missed unless one of the team happens to spot something by chance as they post themselves on a thread.

As for the owner not bearing liability for what others post, that is a murky and still developing area of the law.

For example, there is the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That contains many white, black and grey areas.

There is also the Communications Decency Act:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are other statutes, of course, as well as developing case law in courts. Certain kinds of protections and non-protections exist. I'd also point out that case law concerning upholding and interpreting such statutory laws and common law causes of action in civil matters are still developing.

Certain ares concern us more than others given the whole picture of the developing laws and case decisions in this area. For example, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act expressly excludes federal criminal liability and intellectual property law issues from the scope of immunity granted therein. Thus, we don't allow plagiarism and copyright infringement here and we also do not allow anything that would potentially constitute a criminal offence under US law.

Many of these concerns are not just out of fear of Marc getting exposed to any sorts of criminal and/or civil liability, although that is the top concern. He also doesn't need the hassles relating to anyone looking to go after the posters themselves. For example, Marc or others may get a subpoena and/or the host may get one, to get background information on someone who has committed an alleged criminal offence or a civil tort. Nobody needs that BS in their lives. Thus, if some poster wants that kind of trouble, then they can do it on their own time and dime on their own sites and though their own means.

[MeadHallPirate]

*salutes the mighty mods*

ahoy!

i don't think thar should be any kind 'o cap on the amount 'o threads started, not that it would have any impact on meself.

i sorta see the community here on the good ship USPOL as self-governin'.

in a way, i find it heartwarmin' to see all the regular folks, no matter what political stripe they be, to be rallyin' together against any 'o the hatemongerin' threads that be started.

the best course 'o action, i agrees, is to just ignore'm.

nothin' is as depressin' as bein' ignored.

takes the wind right outta anyone's sails.

aye.

-MeadHallPirate

[Tethys]

Commonly, one can make positive and negative arguments for every idea under the sun.

Usually, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons, and trying to figure out on which side the scale tips. And that’s a difficult call.

I have been deliberating in my own mind the question at issue on this thread.

I think the idea of a cap on the number of threads people can post has merit

However, prior to instituting a new rule, perhaps we first should review the efficacy of the 30 days/30 posts rule that was enacted at the beginning of the year.

Brett Golden started posting threads after less than 48 hours on the board and with only 7 posts to his name. I realise there is a glitch of some kind on the Breaking News forum that allows people to bypass this rule, but Brett’s first threads were posted in other parts of the board. This means that either the automated software is malfunctioning, or he was given a pass by one of the mods. Reading over the points made by Crystal re this rule, it’s possible Brett passed muster. I’m not singling him out, but using his case as a reference for reviewing the rule. I think we need to get the facts here.

As far as the general discussion goes, I believe free speech is an ideal that we should cherish. As affronting as I find white supremacist beliefs, advocating that anyone should be denied the right to express their opinion, would take me one step towards the possibility of losing my own freedom to same.

It’s true that if an arbitrary exclusion or limitation is proposed on views of one kind, then the question will arise as to how we determine the degree of offensiveness of different viewpoints. For instance, I found the views expressed by Cyberella and the Infidel, who came over from the Jewish Task Force site to promote their Islamo-phobic campaign, , just as abhorrent as the anti-Semitic and racist views of the likes of Brett golden.

And as how to minimise their impact on this site, I lean towards the approach of simply not engaging them. Sure, each person should be extended the benefit of the doubt. But one only needs to exchange a few posts, or observe for a while how the poster debates his/her points with others, to determine if it’s worth spending time and effort debating.

Tethys

[Tethys]

Originally Posted by Crystal

I'm really hoping Marc can install a captcha program and it would be nice if we could ban a certain email address from registering (mail.ru) to help limit the amount of spam. BTW, Marc should be back around over his Christmas break. He has been very busy working on his Ph.D. He will be upgrading the forum software at that time and any changes to board policy will also be made at that time…

Hi Crystal, please ask MARC to include an audio option if he installs a CAPTCHA program.

The CAPTCHA test is a big problem for blind people using screen reader software, as the screen reader, of course, cannot decipher an image code. This causes problems for me whenever I need to use a site which has not provided an audio alternative.

Earlier this year, I lodged a complaint against the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA), a federal government agency (which, among other things, oddly regulates Internet activities), for failing to provide an audio option for a CAPTCHA test on a site they launched for a Do-not-call register. Not only was the registration form protected by a CAPTCHA test, but so was the feedback form, which meant I could not even contact the agency online to alert them to the problem. This violated federal laws related to accessible information and services. The problem was eventually rectified. In fact, the audio option on the site (“linked is labelled Play Security code”) is one of the best I have used. Here’s a link to the site if Marc wants to check it out.

https://www.donotcall.gov.au/regNumber.cfm

Thanks.

Tethys

[moon]

Agentorange;

A while back Moon advocated that people shouldn't pay taxes in the USA as a form of protest against the US being in Iraq. Matt removed the thread and told Moon off on the basis that this was advocating breaking US law, thus leaving the site open to legal action.

Not quite. I advocated that people should attempt to starve the war of funds by not paying taxes, clarified as unnecessary taxes , i.e. they should tighten their tax regimes. A great many people pay unnecessary taxes and this loot is used to fund the military in actions with which the taxpayer may not agree.

I repeat, given this opportunity, look into your tax affairs and tighten up. It is perfectly legal for me to suggest this and the original post should never have been allowed to become a 'beat moon' stick in the first place.
However, I accept that I should not have advocated throwing Bush off the White House balcony. Lol.


Closer to the topic, I object strongly to oppressive legislations which curb our civil liberties under the guise of fighting 'the war on terror'. These laws play straight into the hands of those who object to our liberal way of life. Inventing restrictions at USPOL is the self-same route.
Governments, administrators, moderators beware. Sites like this are modern society's safety valves. Choke the valve at your peril.

[Agentorange]

Originally Posted by Frank

Since none of these threads have been removed even after moderators have examined/participated in them I must presume that they contain no criminal incitement of the sort.

Seems reasonable enough

Second, unlike your putrid filthy no-good communist cesspool of a nation; America has a strong attachment to free speech; it is not illegal to offer an opinion of what you would like to see happen to people. In America I could say that I would not object to people being killed and as long as I do not openly make a statement that leads to imminent lawlessness or constitutes a criminal conspiracy to commit an actual crime this is protected free speech.

I was thinking about the various UN laws and treaties that came about as a result of the Nuremburg trials I think there was one concerning genocide that the USA signed up to and ratified. Now the US constitution states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." So if the US has entered such a treaty and genocide is now illegal under US law then advocating killing masses of people because of their race etc is advocating breaking US law, seems simple enough to me. Maybe O' Sullivan Bere can offer a more legally knowledgeble opinion.

Third, I am not convinced that U.S. law allows for the punishment of a site owner for the comments of people made on his site. I heard the Supreme Court recently made such a determination? Maybe O'Sullivan can address this issue?

As indeed he seems to have done

[Agentorange]

Originally Posted by moon

Agentorange;

I repeat, given this opportunity, look into your tax affairs and tighten up. It is perfectly legal for me to suggest this and the original post should never have been allowed to become a 'beat moon' stick in the first place.
However, I accept that I should not have advocated throwing Bush off the White House balcony. Lol.
.

It did kind of come across as a beat Moon stick, but I figured the underlying reason might well be true ( that is: possible legal problems for the site ) and thus should be applied elsewhere.

[moon]

Agentorange;

It did kind of come across as a beat Moon stick, but I figured the underlying reason might well be true ( that is: possible legal problems for the site ) and thus should be applied elsewhere.

I take your point and indeed it might well be true, but there must be consistency. For example, many of the posts here, those made by slavering extremists I might add, condone mass murder and genocide. Some are removed, others aren't, depending upon who reads the complaints, I guess. Under European law, I believe, it is illegal to advocate genocide.

So, one assumes that the site complies with American law and that advocating mass murder and genocide is acceptable, and it is OK to call for the nuking of Iran and the death of all Palestinians. However, inconsistencies then arise. For example, during the period when I was personally pursued by anti-Palestinian members, and at least one moderator, for my 'crimes' of taking the Palestinian position, I was repeatedly slandered by being called an 'anti-Semite'. Complaints about this led to the pronouncement, at Administrator level, that the site operated according to its own rules, not subject to external law, and was , in effect, a 'closed environment' and slander was acceptable. Such slander could be posted if it was simply the posters belief. No proof was necessary. This is a matter of record. I accepted that and I learned how to deal with slandering trash in my own way.

Thus being pursued for , alleged , tax law violations did smack of a certain inconsistency. Dare I say 'hypocrisy' ? I'd be very disappointed to learn that I'd been misled.

So, my take is that if a post offends a member's sense of decency then that member should complain. If the complaint is not upheld then that member should derail and discredit that poster if he/she is able. That's politics. This is a political site. Censorship stinks.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

you know, this thread will problably only make them post more.

The funny part is people are still responding to Brett's posts even after he has been banned; like it or not folks these threads are popular around here.

Lets face it folks; It gives the sanctimonious phonies who would likely sell their black neighbours (assuming they have any) to a slave owner for the right price a platform to show the forum how tolerant they are with smears, attacks and self-righteous indignant hate.

Even this thread is a laughable attempt by a self-righteous poster who seems to view herself as a living saint fit for pre-demise canonisation to show the forum how tolerant she is by complaining about the moderators permitting evil 'racists' to promote 'hate.'

The simple fact is if the membership of this forum truly wanted to get rid of the evil 'racists' they would merely ignore the posts in question which they are clearly not doing. Take a hint folks; people like Brett are obviously wanted around here if nothing more then for the self-righteous to use as a punching bag to prove their own sainthood.