Buz Groshong wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

CClaude wrote:If you are going through a decision making process and its a risk that sits in the grey zone (or not) but if the little voice in your head tells you that if you mess up, the wrath that will come down will be quick and humiliating, maybe it will keep a friend alive.

I think we can all learn from the decision-making of others -- analyzing those decisions and the outcome can be instructive. I read accident reports for that very reason, and try to pick up pointers on SP. Hopefully, this has helped me avoid bad situations in the mountains as a result.

My point is that there is a time and place for everything. The time to analyze decision-making is after the fact, when all the facts are known. The place is not in a thread about a climber who is missing. SP can be a good place for such analysis, but those who are offering opinion and/or criticism should balance the instructive aspects of their remarks against respect for the climber/family/friends involved.

My other point is that the freedom to make such remarks is not one protected by the First Amendment, and those who confuse their desire to say whatever they want with the right to say it, do not understand what a "right" is.

Don't know what First Amendment you're looking at but it obviously isn't the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'll ignore the sarcasm and then explain, one last time (and then I'll quit banging my head against this wall): No one has a constitutional right to speak on SP, and any moderation, banning, etc. by the elves is totally "constitutional." I'll say it again -- the elves are not Congress. Yes, in this country we all have the right to speak our minds, but we have no protected right to access any and all forums. You can be banned from SP for life with or without an explanation -- and you would have absolutely no recourse under the 1st amendment against the elves or SP. You might desire to speak on SP after being banned, but you have no right to. That's the point I have been trying to make since the original post.

It's very simple -- but maybe someone else can put it into words that are more easily understood. That's the best I can do.

If you think your 1st amendment rights are limitless, next time you are at the movies yell "fire" and watch everyone scramble for the doors (careful not to spill your popcorn). When you are arrested, let the cops know that you were just exercising your freedom of speech. I am sure that will carry the day, and they will let you go. When you are freed, head down to the local church and demand equal pulpit time with the priest/minister/holy person. If they refuse, let them know they are violating your 1st amendment rights. Make sure you have your sermon ready when they let you in.

Let me know how it turns out.

kozman18 wrote:If you think your 1st amendment rights are limitless, next time you are at the movies yell "fire" and watch everyone scramble for the doors (careful not to spill your popcorn). When you are arrested, let the cops know that you were just exercising your freedom of speech. I am sure that will carry the day, and they will let you go. When you are freed, head down to the local church and demand equal pulpit time with the priest/minister/holy person. If they refuse, let them know they are violating your 1st amendment rights. Make sure you have your sermon ready when they let you in.

Again with the fire story... that is not what any of this is about. Surely in the case law you have studied you can provide an example a little more relevant- or even relevant at all. No one here is yelling fire. The example you state results in the person yelling getting arrested- a criminal offense. No one has gotten arrested here- no one will- because no one is breaking the law. The example makes no sense at all.

People have a first amendment right to say what they will on SP, and others have a right to take access away. No one on SP is going to be able to successfully prosecute you for exercising your first amendment rights here. All they can and will do is revoke access.

I´m going to complain to the elves and get this deleted...

charles wrote:I´m going to complain to the elves and get this deleted...

I think I might invite myself to a drinking session with the elves. I'd buy.

mrchad9 wrote:

kozman18 wrote:If you think your 1st amendment rights are limitless, next time you are at the movies yell "fire" and watch everyone scramble for the doors (careful not to spill your popcorn). When you are arrested, let the cops know that you were just exercising your freedom of speech. I am sure that will carry the day, and they will let you go. When you are freed, head down to the local church and demand equal pulpit time with the priest/minister/holy person. If they refuse, let them know they are violating your 1st amendment rights. Make sure you have your sermon ready when they let you in.

Again with the fire story... that is not what any of this is about. Surely in the case law you have studied you can provide an example a little more relevant- or even relevant at all. No one here is yelling fire. The example you state results in the person yelling getting arrested- a criminal offense. No one has gotten arrested here- no one will- because no one is breaking the law. The example makes no sense at all.

People have a first amendment right to say what they will on SP, and others have a right to take access away. No one on SP is going to be able to successfully prosecute you for exercising your first amendment rights here. All they can and will do is revoke access.

Explain to me how you can have a constitutional right (under the 1st amendment) which is lost at the whim of the elves? Do the elves really posses the power to override your 1st amendment rights? Maybe they are all powerful after all . . . .

You didn't like my fire analogy, so here's another: When my daughter misbehaves, she complains about losing her "right" to use her cell phone. I explain to her that the phone is a privilege, not a right. Doesn't stop her from bitching. The "right" you think you have to speak on SP isn't a right, it's a privilege which can be taken away at anytime, for any reason. Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

I agree completely with the first post. A site of this magnitude simply needs moderation and censorship. There are plenty of places on the internet that demonstrate that otherwise things rapidly become unpleasant, with name-calling, yelling, penises, spam, etc.. A more or less related and amusing read (even though not 100% what we are talking about here):

Idiots per thousand:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1572

I found the alternative PnP a good example of what happens when you take moderation away. I think many people here consider it an unpleasant 'place' (I haven't looked at it lately admittedly). It probably is not large enough to truly escalate down the drain, it probably would if it would draw in new members from 'outside'. I often wonder at what makes people behave like they do on the internet and e.g. as soon as they get behind the wheel of a car. Anonimity must be a big factor, also in traffic as I find that pedestrians are much less aggressive than bicycles (shorter interaction time, quick getaway), which are in turn much less aggressive than people in cars (same as bikes, but also surrounded by a soundproof bubble of personal space).

PS. All this talk about first amendments etc. mean nothing to approximately 50% of the SP membership, who is of non-Unitedstatesian nationality (although most of them are from countries which have a freedom of speech by law).

charles wrote:I´m going to complain to the elves and get this deleted...

I'll support that effort, even though I have been fanning the flames. I am wasting my time (and everyone else's).

The original points were made.

Delete away.

Rick B wrote:PS. All this talk about first amendments etc. mean nothing to approximately 50% of the SP membership, who is of non-Unitedstatesian nationality (although most of them are from countries which have a freedom of speech by law).

Right on!
(But freedom of speech is constitutional in most of those countries where most SP:ers come from).

kozman18 wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

kozman18 wrote:If you think your 1st amendment rights are limitless, next time you are at the movies yell "fire" and watch everyone scramble for the doors (careful not to spill your popcorn). When you are arrested, let the cops know that you were just exercising your freedom of speech. I am sure that will carry the day, and they will let you go. When you are freed, head down to the local church and demand equal pulpit time with the priest/minister/holy person. If they refuse, let them know they are violating your 1st amendment rights. Make sure you have your sermon ready when they let you in.

Again with the fire story... that is not what any of this is about. Surely in the case law you have studied you can provide an example a little more relevant- or even relevant at all. No one here is yelling fire. The example you state results in the person yelling getting arrested- a criminal offense. No one has gotten arrested here- no one will- because no one is breaking the law. The example makes no sense at all.

People have a first amendment right to say what they will on SP, and others have a right to take access away. No one on SP is going to be able to successfully prosecute you for exercising your first amendment rights here. All they can and will do is revoke access.

Explain to me how you can have a constitutional right (under the 1st amendment) which is lost at the whim of the elves? Do the elves really posses the power to override your 1st amendment rights? Maybe they are all powerful after all . . . .

You didn't like my fire analogy, so here's another: When my daughter misbehaves, she complains about losing her "right" to use her cell phone. I explain to her that the phone is a privilege, not a right. Doesn't stop her from bitching. The "right" you think you have to speak on SP isn't a right, it's a privilege which can be taken away at anytime, for any reason. Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

It is your first amendment right that prevents congress from passing a law that allows SP to take legal action against you if you say something on this site that the elves disagree with. You have a right to free speech here and elsewhere.

I don't think your arguement with your daughter is going to set a legal precedent.

mrchad9 wrote:It is your first amendment right that prevents congress from passing a law that allows SP to take legal action against you if you say something on this site that the elves disagree with. You have a right to free speech here and elsewhere.

I don't think your arguement with your daughter is going to set a legal precedent.

Sorry, at the risk of sounding impolite, you don't understand the difference between a privilege and a right. You have no constitutional rights of free speech on SP.

I'll ask again: is your 1st amendment right to free speech subject to the whim of the elves?

Mine isn't.

butitsadryheat wrote:Good lord.

potayto-potahto

You have the right to free speech on this site as a member, until the elves feel you have broken the rules of the site with what you've said, then they take away the privilege to speak your mind freely. You also have the right to say what you want, as long as you are in good standing, without being sued for what you said, by SP or any of its members, unless it is libel or slander, which is disproven by the truth.

Does that about sum it up?

yes- done. Just parsing words at this point- not even what actions anyone can actually take.

butitsadryheat wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:It is your first amendment right that prevents congress from passing a law that allows SP to take legal action against you if you say something on this site that the elves disagree with. You have a right to free speech here and elsewhere.

I don't think your arguement with your daughter is going to set a legal precedent.

Sorry, at the risk of sounding impolite, you don't understand the difference between a privilege and a right. You have no constitutional rights of free speech on SP.

I'll ask again: is your 1st amendment right to free speech subject to the whim of the elves?

Mine isn't.

Good lord.

potayto-potahto

You have the right to free speech on this site as a member, until the elves feel you have broken the rules of the site with what you've said, then they take away the privilege to speak your mind freely. You also have the right to say what you want, as long as you are in good standing, without being sued for what you said, by SP or any of its members, unless it is libel or slander, which is disproven by the truth.

Does that about sum it up?

I'd say so! Thank you.
Let's hope this brings some much needed closure to this ever so interesting polemic.

butitsadryheat wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:It is your first amendment right that prevents congress from passing a law that allows SP to take legal action against you if you say something on this site that the elves disagree with. You have a right to free speech here and elsewhere.

I don't think your arguement with your daughter is going to set a legal precedent.

Sorry, at the risk of sounding impolite, you don't understand the difference between a privilege and a right. You have no constitutional rights of free speech on SP.

I'll ask again: is your 1st amendment right to free speech subject to the whim of the elves?

Mine isn't.

Good lord.

potayto-potahto

You have the right to free speech on this site as a member, until the elves feel you have broken the rules of the site with what you've said, then they take away the privilege to speak your mind freely. You also have the right to say what you want, as long as you are in good standing, without being sued for what you said, by SP or any of its members, unless it is libel or slander, which is disproven by the truth.

Does that about sum it up?

Nope, but it's the labels that are confusing the original point.

You can call your access to SP a "right" if you want. In the same vein, my daughter has the "right" to use her phone until I take it away. Access to SP is really a privilege, subject to termination by the elves. As long as you play by the rules, you keep the privilege.

My point was, and still is, that privilege you are given (access to SP) is bestowed by SP and monitored by the elves, it does not arise from the Constitution. If you want to call it a "right," go ahead, but that just confuses the issue. It is not a "constitutional right" by any stretch -- that was my original point.

True, and a point well-made.