Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OWS bans 1st Amendment

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 4:47 p.m. EST by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I guess when someone actually tries to engage in a conversation they get eventually get removed. I thought there were a few people that wanted to have a real debate, not just demands and protests that everyone follow your way but I was wrong. I am sure this won't last long but for the intelligent people that think they can have an honest discussion on the issues might as well move-on since you won't find it here unless you agree with the tiny minority.

I am not sure what it was I said to piss someone off, that caused everything to be removed but it included followups and editing so there are a few here bent on only having one message heard. Sad to see because there is common ground, just different methods.

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Apparently you do not comprehend the 1st amendment, strange to see you appealing to something you don't understand. No website on the planet is even capable of breaching the 1st amendment.

The concept of freedom of speech does not mean that if I have a billboard, or a megaphone, or a website that I have to let you use to it to say whatever you want. If I have a billboard can you write whatever you want on it? No. The same applies with a website.

What the 1st amendment covers is the government making laws that restrain freedom of speech. For instance, if the government made a law saying you could not express support for Ron Lawl on any billboard, or using any megaphone, or on any website - that would violate the 1st amendment because they are preventing you from being able to speak. Nothing an individual website does can prevent you from being able to speak elsewhere - from starting your own website, for example. Moderation on a website isn't a breach of the 1st amendment, not even close. People who insist it is, are simply too lazy to understand the principles behind their rights. They are just spoiled children who are used to getting their own way all the time.

Constitutional rights are not simple, childish "I can do whatever I want! Nya-nya!" things. They are balanced against other people's rights - such as the right to provide a space for discussion of a particular topic and moderated by certain guidelines.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

I know the difference, it just made for a catchier title. Still, for a group that calls for open discussion and democracy I find it interesting that they will remove opposing opinions. I was enjoying the various discussions and was being respectful, although occasionally a bit sarcastic for several weeks until everything I posted vanished. It is also interesting to see many at OWS demanding free speech and crying at being kicked out for violating rules, but I have yet to hear of any city banning open discussion.

I feel the OWS pain and understand the frustration, but would prefer to see change through smaller government, not a communist/socialist takeover as many here seem to advocate.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I know the difference, it just made for a catchier title.

Typical.

Still, for a group that calls for open discussion and democracy I find it interesting that they will remove opposing opinions.

Welcome to the Internet. We have these things here called "trolls" and "moderators". You can find them on, say, a forum about fishing too. Sometimes, if there is excessive trolling, a few innocents get caught in efforts to preserve an open forum that rational, mature people can use. This problem is not unique to OWS. It is a problem common to most of the Internet.

I feel the OWS pain and understand the frustration, but would prefer to see change through smaller government, not a communist/socialist takeover as many here seem to advocate.

There are few here who support deregulating banks as a solution to banks having unfettered power. That doesn't mean everyone wants a "socialist takeover" (there are some, granted, but there are some pretty loopy types on the right as well, your David Icke supporters and Alex Jones fans and all that jazz, its just not that relevant in either case).

Although I guess that kind of depends what you define as a "communist takeover". If you think public libraries and roads are Stalinist, or that Eisenhower and Reagan were Marxist fanatics because of the Interstate system or the EPA, if you think the US was a Marxist dictatorship during the 30s-70s when it practiced Keynesian policies, well, call me a Marxist.

If this community isn't supportive of your ideological beliefs, why not find one that is, instead of trying to "convert" people who don't want to be "converted"? People are entitled to their opinions and they're entitled to organize politically without being disrupted and infiltrated, even if you disagree with their views and solutions. That's what democracy is all about and it seems like this basic respect for political plurality has been lost in a sea of chest-thumping egotism and fearmongering.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

False. I oppose much of what OWS advocates, yet I have been welcomed into the debate. See the discussion at http://occupywallst.org/forum/am-i-a-troll-or-am-i-one-of-you/#comment-429389