Not respectful or censored?

jbone · Feb 18, 2011

I got this after leaving a comment to a commenter:

“Your post to Heraldnet, copied below, has been removed for violating our standards for participation in the forum. We ask that you not use rape as a metaphor in trying to make your point. Also, while you label it as speculation, we ask that you not make allegations of criminal conduct that you have no proof of (drunk driving).
We want people to participate in these forums and appreciate all viewpoints, but ask you to respect our guidelines.
Thank you,
Jon Bauer, assistant news editor”

Article: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110218/BLOG41/110219811
My comment was this:
Not long, I’m sure there are plenty thinking; Lets kneejerk the spending of more taxpayer dollars but just don’t touch that allocated for supporting criminal illegal aliens. They could get the money from firing more emergency responders, cut more from the prisons; we see how well that turned out. I know, kick some more kids off the school bus to raise the money. Wait! How about we stop paying state ferry workers to drive to work, re-coupe that money, unless they like paying state employees to drive to work? Or, they could just borrow from this fund and stick it here, and never pay back the other fund, that’ll work for sure, always has! They could start by asking the Governor to pay back the $10,000 spent on refurbishing a desk? They could tell the unions that are raping the taxpayer, and holding the state for ransom, enough! Maybe they could fund it? If they don’t like that idea they could ask for some of that “Obama money” you know the stash he has and replenishes from the printing presses.
Speculation, but I bet the driver was drunk, and if so, about the only thing that would have prevented this driver from driving the wrong-way would have been an A-10.
So, before they seek the pennies of others, they need to pull their heads out and simply blame the driver, you know hold PEOPLE accountable for their actions, just like we should be holding those accountable for wasting our tax dollars.

So, was I a bad person, or did the ideology of the newspaper censor me?

bom1911 · Feb 18, 2011

rodbender · Feb 18, 2011

Your comment was probably just too long, I'm sure.

eye95 · Feb 18, 2011

Rewrite your post so that you don't accuse unions of rape and don't speculate about drunk driving for which you have no proof. Or not.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 18, 2011

In JBones context rape isn't a sexual reference but more akin to the original meaning of rape. "seize prey, take by force"

jbone · Feb 19, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
In JBones context rape isn't a sexual reference but more akin to the original meaning of rape. "seize prey, take by force"

That's right, a simple word substitution to strenghten a point. Looking at other posters response to the article I thought I read simular speculation's, and expressions not so PC. And the reason I think I was censored was the polictical referance's I made that touched a nerve of the paper, or editor.

I have thought of replying to the censorship with this:

Mr. Bauer,

I can respect your concerns, but as I review other commenter's comments s I find metaphor and additional speculation. Forgive me for speculating again, but does PC now control speculation? As you know a metaphor is only a figure of speech, my comparative word substitute posed no threat, or suggested physical action against anyone, it was disappointing to see it required censorship. Just speculating again, but was it really the political condemnations' that frightened some into censoring truth?

I agree my post was long though.

eye95 · Feb 19, 2011

However you chose to define the word, your choice remains the same:

Repost your article removing the reference to rape and not speculating about an offense you cannot prove.

Or, not.

Adults don't just complain about dilemmas. They make the choice between the rock and the hard place, and then get on with their lives.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 19, 2011

Jbone, I might not agree with every opinion you wrote but it is yours. If the paper was interested in free speach, they'd leave it as it is. What the politicians and our government are doing is rape by the strict definition.

I feel others have the right to hear your political viewpoints and the metaphors you used are not inappropriate in my mind, but looks like they are grasping at that word to twist your meaning into a reason to censor your post.

McX · Feb 19, 2011

Truth is often subject to censorship, or sanction, lies are allowed to flow freely.

jbone · Feb 19, 2011

eye95 said:
However you chose to define the word, your choice remains the same:

I agree, my choice remains to freely express my thoughts.

eye95 said:
Repost your article removing the reference to rape and not speculating about an offense you cannot prove.

I'm assumming speculation has never been a part of your thinking or posting?

eye95 · Feb 19, 2011

jbone said:
I agree, my choice remains to freely express my thoughts.

I'm assumming speculation has never been a part of your thinking or posting?

If the owner of a site told me not to speculate, I would either stop posting or stop speculating. I wouldn't complain about censorship. If you want to say whatever you will, get your own soapbox.

protect our rights · Feb 19, 2011

Actually I do believe we have a thing here in America called "freedom of Speech" That says you can say w/e the heck you want when and where you want. As long as it puts no one in danger of course! Simply put, it's his gig and like you can remove anything or anybody you don't want from your house, this editor did the same thing with your post.

eye95 · Feb 19, 2011

protect our rights said:
Actually I do believe we have a thing here in America called "freedom of Speech" That says you can say w/e the heck you want when and where you want. As long as it puts no one in danger of course! Simply put, it's his gig and like you can remove anything or anybody you don't want from your house, this editor did the same thing with your post.

And I don't believe that freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want wherever you want. It means that you may do so as long as your exercise of your rights does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of another.

Your rights are not more important than anyone else's.

If you are going to use someone else's soapbox, he gets to set conditions. That is called "property rights." if you want to say whatever you want, get yer own box.

Those who truly believe in rights believe in the rights of others.

protect our rights · Feb 19, 2011

eye95 said:
And I don't believe that freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want wherever you want. It means that you may do so as long as your exercise of your rights does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of another.

Your rights are not more important than anyone else's.

If you are going to use someone else's soapbox, he gets to set conditions. That is called "property rights." if you want to say whatever you want, get yer own box.

Those who truly believe in rights believe in the rights of others.

You basically just stated my point. He has the right to put his point on that board, as the owner has the right to take it down. Now if he had that on a sign standing on a side walk there is nothing anyone can do about it, other than say he is blocking a pathway or some other foney citation.

eye95 · Feb 19, 2011

protect our rights said:
You basically just stated my point. He has the right to put his point on that board, as the owner has the right to take it down. Now if he had that on a sign standing on a side walk there is nothing anyone can do about it, other than say he is blocking a pathway or some other foney citation.

Actually, placing a sign on a public right-of-way could easily run afoul of a reasonable local ordinance and, if so, should be removed. Also, in many jurisdictions, property owners own the sidewalk in front of their businesses, giving the city an easement, allowing them to construct a right-of-way*. A sign in front of someone's establishment could be violating their property rights. You may exercise the right-of-way, but not use it for whatever purpose you choose.

May I suggest you changing your name to "protecting their rights"? It is in the protection of the rights of others that we do the most effective work in protecting ours.

* When I lived in San Antonio, my deed showed me owning half the street on which I lived. Of course the city had the right to construct the street and allow traffic to use it.

protect our rights · Feb 19, 2011

eye95 said:
Actually, placing a sign on a public right-of-way could easily run afoul of a reasonable local ordinance and, if so, should be removed. Also, in many jurisdictions, property owners own the sidewalk in front of their businesses, giving the city an easement, allowing them to construct a right-of-way*. A sign in front of someone's establishment could be violating their property rights. You may exercise the right-of-way, but not use it for whatever purpose you choose.

May I suggest you changing your name to "protecting their rights"? It is in the protection of the rights of others that we do the most effective work in protecting ours.

* When I lived in San Antonio, my deed showed me owning half the street on which I lived. Of course the city had the right to construct the street and allow traffic to use it.

/ If I have a sign in downtown indy and I am "walking" I can have perdy' much anything I want on this sign. Keyword is walking and not loitering.

Well let me remind you that the beauty of America is we ALL have them SAME rights (technically speaking), So by me fighting for MY rights does that not in the end mean I'm fighting for yours and everyone else's in this wonderful country?

eye95 · Feb 19, 2011

protect our rights said:
/ If I have a sign in downtown indy and I am "walking" I can have perdy' much anything I want on this sign. Keyword is walking and not loitering.

Well let me remind you that the beauty of America is we ALL have them SAME rights (technically speaking), So by me fighting for MY rights does that not in the end mean I'm fighting for yours and everyone else's in this wonderful country?

Actually, many who fight for their own rights extend them to the point where they infringe on others. I submit that the best way to protect your own rights is to focus on protecting the rights of others, not vice versa.

Anyway, I have made my point. Thanks for the discussion. I think I'll be moseying now.

jbone · Feb 20, 2011

eye95, you've aided in subverting the topic with you own speculation's.

I wasn't asking for endless dialogue on rights, ownership, or soap box ramblings.

I posted for opinion on the question asked: So, was I a bad person, or did the ideology of the newspaper censor me?

eye95 · Feb 20, 2011

jbone said:
eye95, you've aided in subverting the topic with you own speculation's.

I wasn't asking for endless dialogue on rights, ownership, or soap box ramblings.

I posted for opinion on the question asked: So, was I a bad person, or did the ideology of the newspaper censor me?

Am I a bad person, or are you trying to censor me?

It seems to me that you think you have some level of control over what is said in this thread, but you don't think the newspaper has that same level.

Before moving on from discussing this with you, I will simply repeat what I submitted in my previous post: The best way to protect your own rights is to focus on protecting the rights of others, not vice versa.

jbone · Feb 20, 2011

eye95 said:
Am I a bad person, or are you trying to censor me?

It seems to me that you think you have some level of control over what is said in this thread, but you don't think the newspaper has that same level.

Before moving on from discussing this with you, I will simply repeat what I submitted in my previous post: The best way to protect your own rights is to focus on protecting the rights of others, not vice versa.

I think you are still missing the point, here are their rules:

"Welcome to the HeraldNet.com forums. The forums and comments on articles and blogs are intended to let you interact with other readers and the staff of The Herald newspaper.

As a forum participant, you acknowledge that all posts express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators or moderators (except posts by these people), and Heraldnet.com will not be held liable for them.

You agree not to post anything abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any material that may violate applicable laws.

You also agree not to:
- misrepresent your identity
- pose as another person
- post under multiple aliases
- promote commercial interests
- present information from another source as your own
- or violate anyone's privacy.

Doing so may lead to your being immediately and permanently banned. The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these guidelines.

Posts will not be reviewed prior to publication, but to keep this experience positive, the administrators of HeraldNet.com forums will attempt to remove objectionable material as quickly as possible.

Administrators or moderators of the forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time. If you believe a post violates the conditions above, you can click the request removal link to notify an administrator.

Your registration information is stored in a database. This information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent; however, the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

This forum system uses cookies to store information on your local computer. These cookies do not contain any of your registration information; they serve only to improve your browsing experience. The e-mail address you provided is used only for confirming your registration details and password (and for sending a new password should you forget your current one).

HeraldNet.com reserves the right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt or publish in any format the content you post."

Of course they have the right to edit or remove as you seem so focused on. You seem fixed on some vision that I somehow have an issue with rights. But since you are content on speculating, understand rights is and never was the issue, censorship was. If you read you see I violated none of their rules. I was never questioning their right to do anything, just wondering who's politics I struck a nerve with that would led to censorship, and yes I understand they can censor my if they so choose.

And before you say it, yes I know they can, and again their right or remove, or my right to not be removed was not the darn question.

Good Grief! I don't know how much more clear I can get.

Not respectful or censored?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member