Alfa Romeo Forums banner

Politics and Religion on the BB

  • I prefer it to "BE ALLOWED"

    Votes: 46 48.9%
  • I prefer it to "NOT BE ALLOWED"

    Votes: 48 51.1%

  • Total voters
    94
61 - 80 of 109 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Oh really?!?!?!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Is that another of those "left-wing conspiracies", RC?

I have only one account here, and it is under my real name, with my real e-mail and phone number out there so all can see. I stand behind whatever I say, here or anywhere else.
Huh? I said I have one ID and could have many. What is your point Alex, or have you been drinking again? Are you misreading posts to try turning them political? This is getting old :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,087 Posts
What I am speaking about can be found in this post:

http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/anything-about-alfa-romeos-alfabb-com/154495-do-you-support-stu-schallers-dreceterini-banning-alfabb-5.html#post778624

specifically this quote: "spent $$$$ protecting ourselves from legal issues resulting from your personal battles"

It did not involve politics or religion specifically, but it did involve the AlfaBB and its main moderator in a way that was not good for either.

I love the BB and am a subscriber, but I don't want to contribute my cash to its legal defense fund.
That quote ("spent $$$$ protecting ourselves from legal issues resulting from your personal battles") is from Simon's post, but you couldn't have found a worst example... The lawsuit was a direct result of the discussions about an Alfa TZ book. (The author of the book filed a lawsuit against BB members who were discussing the content of his book.) Hence, the subject was 100% Alfa... So, in order for Simon to have prevented that, he would have had to disallow posts about Alfa Romeo books! How would Simon prevent two BBers from suing each other about their disagreements on an Alfa topic, and then they drag him in just because it is his BB, even though he did not participate in the discussion?

Even if someone's lawsuit is found to have no merit, the party named as a defendant has to respond, and it costs time and money to protect oneself...

Best regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,631 Posts
Religious and Political Postings on the bb

That quote ("spent $$$$ protecting ourselves from legal issues resulting from your personal battles") is from Simon's post, but you couldn't have found a worst example... The lawsuit was a direct result of the discussions about an Alfa TZ book. (The author of the book filed a lawsuit against BB members who were discussing the content of his book.) Hence, the subject was 100% Alfa... So, in order for Simon to have prevented that, he would have had to disallow posts about Alfa Romeo books! How would Simon prevent two BBers from suing each other about their disagreements on an Alfa topic, and then they drag him in just because it is his BB, even though he did not participate in the discussion?

Even if someone's lawsuit is found to have no merit, the party named as a defendant has to respond, and it costs time and money to protect oneself...

Best regards,
Enrique,

I'm not positive....your substance is certainly correct; but I thought Simon posted that specific post about legal entanglements after the Portland convention when the second party was banned from the bb for his behavior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,799 Posts
Huh? I said I have one ID and could have many. What is your point Alex, or have you been drinking again? Are you misreading posts to try turning them political? This is getting old :mad:
1. I don't drink or use drugs for recreation.
2. I won't argue with you here or anywhere else.
3. I apologize to all members for stirring RC up.
4. I won't post again here.
 

·
But Mad North-Northwest
Joined
·
9,859 Posts
Even if someone's lawsuit is found to have no merit, the party named as a defendant has to respond, and it costs time and money to protect oneself...
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but the law is pretty clear on defamation and libel with regards to public forums. I've usually found that quoting the relevant federal statute will shut up even the most persistent lawyer.

From Wikipedia on "frivolous lawsuits":

"In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt."

Yes, it would be a real pain in the butt if somebody truly decided to proceed with a lawsuit. But they would basically end up getting their a$$ handed to them and would most likely be liable for my legal fees, so I'd be willing to bet few lawyers would be willing to try it.

I haven't run into one who was so far. They also tend to get a lot more polite once they know that you know the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,087 Posts
Enrique,

I'm not positive....your substance is certainly correct; but I thought Simon posted that specific post about legal entanglements after the Portland convention when the second party was banned from the bb for his behavior.
Simon's reference is a direct response to Stu, reminding Stu that he and the BB got dragged into Stu's legal fight with Mr. O, where Mr. O was suing Stu because of the comments by Stu on the BB about Mr. O's Alfa TZ book. Hence, these are the legal entanglements between Stu and Mr. O related to Mr. O's Alfa TZ book. The reason for Simon's timing to post this after the Portland Convention, was because this is when Stu was involved in yet another fight where this time Stu threatened to suit the BB, and Simon decided to respond to Stu. One of the points in Simon's response recapping Stu's past behavior on the BB was the incident that had occurred between Stu and Mr. O.

Best regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,871 Posts
Well I already said I voted to allow. I still believe that is the correct way forward. But this thread is becoming its own best argument against.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,087 Posts
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but the law is pretty clear on defamation and libel with regards to public forums. I've usually found that quoting the relevant federal statute will shut up even the most persistent lawyer.

From Wikipedia on "frivolous lawsuits":

"In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt."

Yes, it would be a real pain in the butt if somebody truly decided to proceed with a lawsuit. But they would basically end up getting their a$$ handed to them and would most likely be liable for my legal fees, so I'd be willing to bet few lawyers would be willing to try it.

I haven't run into one who was so far. They also tend to get a lot more polite once they know that you know the law.
Tom,

I agree with you that a lawyer would know better, and if not, they would desist upon being referred to the relevant statures... However, lawsuits may be brought forth by people who are not lawyers, and the courts are much more lenient with them than they are with a lawyer. Plus, this varies between states.

Best regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
So how do you define "personal attack" or "insult"? Perhaps I'm thin-skinned but I view the accusation that many/all of those who voted on this issue cheated as an example of a personal attack aimed at many BBers.

I also view "left-wing conspiracies" and "...have you been drinking again?" as personal attacks on an individual BBer.

I voted in favor of freedom of speech in the off topic section (and only once, as readily shown by the automatic prompt I received right afterward saying I'd already voted). No matter how hard we try, there will be individual differences in where we draw the line. The examples I cited, if they are exchanges between close friends, might be viewed very differently than if those involved dislike each other.

The only way I see "policing" the BB for good manners actually working is to simply show some discipline and stop responding to offensive posts/threads. Nothing makes a stronger statement than a lonely short-lived thread, and I think it makes a lot more sense if we do this collectively rather than add additional work for Simon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
Basically, under federal law (the Digital Millennium Communications Act, specifically) forums like the AlfaBB are immune from prosecution as a result of posts made by third parties. In the case of libel claims, for example, the BB can take the posts down or leave them up at their discretion. The original poster can, of course, be sued directly.
This may be true but doesn't stop someone from creating nuisance suits that will cost the BB money.

Discussions on religion and politics are going to attract "hot heads" who are more likley to cause the moderators grief.

I say, why bother on an Alfa BB. Keep the discussions to Alfa related topics and you are less likely to attract internet trolls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,631 Posts
Religious and Political Postings on the bb

So how do you define "personal attack" or "insult"? Perhaps I'm thin-skinned but I view the accusation that many/all of those who voted on this issue cheated as an example of a personal attack aimed at many BBers.

I also view "left-wing conspiracies" and "...have you been drinking again?" as personal attacks on an individual BBer.

I voted in favor of freedom of speech in the off topic section (and only once, as readily shown by the automatic prompt I received right afterward saying I'd already voted). No matter how hard we try, there will be individual differences in where we draw the line. The examples I cited, if they are exchanges between close friends, might be viewed very differently than if those involved dislike each other.

The only way I see "policing" the BB for good manners actually working is to simply show some discipline and stop responding to offensive posts/threads. Nothing makes a stronger statement than a lonely short-lived thread, and I think it makes a lot more sense if we do this collectively rather than add additional work for Simon.
You are absolutely correct --- there is a broad range of diversity on the board as well as cultures that are different worldwide, where some teasing and joking is thought as offensive, where in other places it is generally accepted. There is no scale to allow for someone else's interpretation of a post.

It is also true, unless you know the parties involved, difficult to determine if the teasing is teasing or an outright attack. There is a lot of levity on the board, tongue in cheek remarks, and a lot of serious good information that should not be devalued as new-comers and long-timers to the bb wade through a thread that they've not seen before. There are several in particular, who are entertaining in their own way, but make their life's work posting remarks that can be read several ways, and you really have to know the person to determine the intent. So policing with all of this going on, is an almost impossible task with the exception of outright blatant over-the-line postings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Just curious was there a definitive answer as to the outcome of the poll and thus rules regarding politics and religious postings? I have my can of bug spray at the ready in case I have stirred the hornets nest :)
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
We did this last year.

Last spring we had a poll regarding this.
I only come to AlfaBB for Alfa info and events. I don't care what off topic stuff occurs, but I will not go to those postings. Put me down for preferring not to.
Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
I think the bb would be much diminished if we begin imposing limits like this. Simon has every right to remove/block individuals who violate his standards but, in the main, his standars have been oriented toward encouraging free expression of ideas. I haven't followed all of the threads but, generally speaking, I've found that the context of of even the most hotly contested threads have been pretty civil. There are discussions/thread I don't like so I don't read or visit them. So far my psychological well being has been undamaged by people sometimes saying things I don't like or disagree with.

Here's my take on this: freedom of expression is always preferable to censorship. The motivation to censor comes from a disquiet with the context of communication rather than it's specifics. Censors, are never satisfied that they have the freedom to ignore a discussion or not visit a particular thread. It's the fact that the thread or or discussion exists, that the thoughts and ideas exist that is offensive.

Ultimately, the argument devolves into a dispute over one person's values over another person's values. Freedom ain't for free.
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,010 Posts
I don't think it really has a place on a car forum, but I don't think it's something that should be policed either. As long as it's in the off topic forum, and people keep their beliefs to themselves while visiting other areas, I don't really have a problem with it.....I just don't read these threads. So I voted to allow
+99 Peter. Succinctly states my thoughts.

Long version: I don't go to the ABB for that and I don't pay much if any attention to that dingy area. More power to those who do. BUT it should exist within the normal protocol and any legal limits of the entire ABB and not be "policed" save heinous insults or legal breaches. How could any American want to ban any reasonable and legal free speech? Our founding was based, in part, on that principle. Many fought hard to attain and since to preserve it. For you busybodies out there who don't like it, just don't look. At least there is a back alley for it here so it doesn't parade (as often) in other posting areas. My 2 cents, before tax.

PS: I had assumed that Simon, et al, had decided what to do here via no action having been taken since April, 8 months ago. Perhaps he was waiting for the tie breaker ;).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,347 Posts
Didn't even know this thread existed, plenty of places to discuss that stuff and if people choose to do so here let them, that way I'll know who not to talk to, changing channel now.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
I was just paruesing old threads saw the poll was still up and was just questioning if there had been a decision. I vote no censorship. This is the "off topic" area and as long as there is a header so others see that it is a religious or political thread then those who wish not to look or comment do not have to. It would be completely inappropriate to have one in the technical section of course so if that is all you want from here then do not look anywhere else but there should be the ability to have CIVILIZED debate and have the moderator censor only those who may in his opinion go to far .
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,010 Posts
Interesting. This vote looks like that or our overall US political situation, about 50-50 depending on the day and issue, and this even with a bit of non-US vote included. I just wonder what a regression analysis of this topic would correlate with country, state and city (political leaning) would reveal?? Seems like most Texans are united for free speech anyway. And it seems like many posters from "blue" countries, states and cities want censorship. I'd bet a set of 6 old nasty sombreros that a formal study just might reveal that mostly "blue" people voted to censor. Again, just a though. Flame suit on.

Overall it reminds me of the old ax of the guy who called the police because the lady next door was running around indecently. They asked how, and he said you had to go to his second story window and stand on a chair and lean way over to see her though a window. So, just get off the chair. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,631 Posts
Religious and Political Postings on the BB

Interesting. This vote looks like that or our overall US political situation, about 50-50 depending on the day and issue, and this even with a bit of non-US vote included. I just wonder what a regression analysis of this topic would correlate with country, state and city (political leaning) would reveal?? Seems like most Texans are united for free speech anyway. And it seems like many posters from "blue" countries, states and cities want censorship. I'd bet a set of 6 old nasty sombreros that a formal study just might reveal that mostly "blue" people voted to censor. Again, just a though. Flame suit on.

Overall it reminds me of the old ax of the guy who called the police because the lady next door was running around indecently. They asked how, and he said you had to go to his second story window and stand on a chair and lean way over to see her though a window. So, just get off the chair. ;)
While I've always lived in "blue" states and still do, my censorship vote skews your results. I'm with the "red" state of Texas on this one. No flame suit necessary.

FTR, most people in my profession are against censorship and believe that people have the right to know, be informed, and make quality decisions based on findings. We fought the 911 search and seizure of historical patron library records and developed systems to defeat its use.
 
61 - 80 of 109 Posts
Top