Deadly fatwahs; Are they acceptable at USPOL ?

[moon]

Following a recent thread , an existing thread which openly calls for the killing of a foreign Head of State, I requested permission from USPOL admin. to enquire publicly if such deadly 'fatwahs', for that's what they are, have any place here and if they are supported or forbidden by existing forum rules. This was granted, of course.

Although members have been informed, on previous occasions, that USPOL policy does not reflect general laws in the US , such as libel or slander, should such 'offenses' be committed, rather operating instead an 'in house' set of rules, members have also been informed that the site cannot permit calls to physically harm the President of the United States ( no matter what the idiot might get up to. My addition. )

I wondered then, considering that the deadly 'fatwah' thread had been allowed, exactly who it was that was protected by USPOL policy and who was not. Just the POTUS ? Any Head of State ? Any American ? Or is the calling for somebody's violent death, anybody, something that USPOL should shun ?
Or should USPOL harbor initiators of deadly fatwahs if external US law permits them to operate against foreigners ?

[Si modo]

I have no doubt that whatever keeps the daily life of the owner of this forum easier is what will be part of the rules. As some of the rules prevent subpoenas for legal actions, you will see rules against those things. I have no doubt if folks think about this, they will be able to understand those rules.

If one doesn't consider that the forum is privately owned, then they will continue to complain.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

Although members have been informed, on previous occasions, that USPOL policy does not reflect general laws in the US , such as libel or slander, should such 'offenses' be committed, rather operating instead an 'in house' set of rules, members have also been informed that the site cannot permit calls to physically harm the President of the United States ( no matter what the idiot might get up to. My addition. )

Those are laws relating to civil issues, not criminal ones.

The site complies with all US federal law.

[MattLarson]

Already answered, several times now.

But I guess we need one more, for moon's benefit.

So here goes.

1. You cannot call for, wish for or threaten violence against another member of the forums, regardless of location.
2. You cannot call for violence against an elected or appointed US government official.

Item 1 is in the forum rules.

Item 2 is based on the fact that the laws in the US prohibit such calls, and this is a US based forum. Neither Marc nor any of the other staff has the time to talk to the Secret Service or the police about some idiot who posted something like that on the forum.

As for "fatwas", my understanding is they can only be issued by certain clerics (actual or self-styled) in a certain religion. Totally irrelevant to the conversation here, I suspect.

Personally, I think any calls for assassinations are a reflection on the author. However, I believe that the best way to deal with such comments is to allow them to be posted and allow the readership to draw the applicable conclusion about the author.

But when it comes to US political figures, we don't have that option, since this is a US based forum and we are bound to follow US law.

As to slander and libel, if one reads the rules and the agreement they acknowledged when they signed on here, one will find that their membership and participation here is part of an express covenant to waive such causes of action against the site and site staff.

Matt

[moon]

Si Modo;

If one doesn't consider that the forum is privately owned, then they will continue to complain.

Are you saying that the site owner supports fatwahs ? Or that he doesn't ? Or that US law would over-rule whatever the owner might prefer ? You haven't been any clearer than anybody else who's addressed the question elsewhere.

Larson's response, for example, only serves to protect US government officials and site members. Clearly there are many other people that might require such protection from calls for their death. If the rules here don't cover those persons then I suggest that they should.

Larson;

Already answered, several times now.

Not adequately, as pointed out now three times.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

Or that he doesn't ? Or that US law would over-rule whatever the owner might prefer ?

That one is not even something that is debatable, irrelevant of what any owner of any site based in the US or under the jurisdiction of the US may preffer, they must cede their own prefference to US law. Not up for debate, a requirement that cannot be tampered with or waivered under any circumstances. That is of course if there is any discrepancy between what the law allows and what the "prefferances" of the owner are to start with.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson's response, for example, only serves to protect US government officials and site members.

His response is simply stating the law of the land, of which this site is subject to.

Clearly there are many other people that might require such protection from calls for their death. If the rules here don't cover those persons then I suggest that they should.

Well what's the specific call of death you seem to have a problem with?

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by moon

Si Modo;


Are you saying that the site owner supports fatwahs ?...

No.

.... Or that he doesn't ?...

No.

.... Or that US law would over-rule whatever the owner might prefer ?...

No.

.... You haven't been any clearer than anybody else who's addressed the question elsewhere....

For those with little common sense or little empathy, I suppose you are correct.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson's response, for example, only serves to protect US government officials and site members. Clearly there are many other people that might require such protection from calls for their death. If the rules here don't cover those persons then I suggest that they should.

Not surprising to see you calling for censorship.

Originally Posted by moon

Not adequately, as pointed out now three times.

Perfectly adequately - you just don't like the answer.

Matt

[moon]

No, not adequately at all. Read your response and you'll see that it doesn't even begin to address the question.

Nothing new there, but you keep repeating you've answered when you haven't answered at all. In fact, this thread exists because the 'rule', if there is one', isn't clear. I mean, if there WAS a rule preventing deadly fatwahs then the deadly fatwah thread wouldn't exist, would it Larson.

Larson;

Not surprising to see you calling for censorship.

On the contrary, I'm known to oppose censorship so your slur doesn't fit. What would be censored in this instance, a call for murder ? Would a rule forbidding the promotion of deadly extremism be a form of 'censorship' ?

you just don't like the answer.

Matt

You didn't give an answer, for the fourth time.

[Steve]

There was no "fatwah".

I know you realize that, but would simply prefer to whine about my thread as opposed to acknowledging what a fatwah actually is, and who can issue it...

[moon]

No, I don't give a monkey's about your thread. I haven't complained about it as its validity isn't known, not even by Larson it seems. I'm simply using your indiscretion to clarify USPOL policy, member's opinion and the likely fate of future threads calling for assassination.

And yes, it's a deadly fatwah. That's the term for publicly calling for the death of an individual, such as you've openly done.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

No, not adequately at all. Read your response and you'll see that it doesn't even begin to address the question.

Perfectly clear and adequate responses have been given.

Your inability to comprehend is not my problem.

Matt

[Si modo]

Slow day, huh moon?

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

No, I don't give a monkey's about your thread. I haven't complained about it as its validity isn't known, not even by Larson it seems. I'm simply using your indiscretion to clarify USPOL policy, member's opinion and the likely fate of future threads calling for assassination.

And yes, it's a deadly fatwah. That's the term for publicly calling for the death of an individual, such as you've openly done.

Much like Matt, i don't care about his thread nor am i familiar with it but there is a difference between advocating the assisination and lobbying/advocating that our government orchestrate it, which under US law is legal. We may petition or lobby our government if we so chose. If someone calls for us to invade some country they are not themselves saying that want to do it or encouraging others on the forums to form a militia but rather to have our military go in, which they have the right to advocate.