Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19741)	8/23/2002 4:47:38 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

"If the exercise of free speech does not create clear and present danger of violence, it's legal." "If I call TP a lying SOB, is that verbal assault?" If you believe he is lying you have every right to call him on it. You should be prepared to defend your accusation on some solid ground. If you are calling him a liar as a tactic to caste doubt around some position he has taken (and thus advance your own agenda), then you have clearly misused the term liar and created a victim in not only TP but those of us who may have believed you knew his position to be founded on a lie. This is by design a deceitful and destructive use of speech and should not be tolerated. This would fall under the term "libel" and so is actionable. As for the SOB part. It is not only an unnecessary abuse of language but is designed to insite or provoke another to hostility. Language that is used only to provoke another to hostility should be categorized as harrassment and should be actionable. "How about if I say that about Bush? Clinton?" ...as for one, so for all. "If I say Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, is that verbal assault?" I consider that a statement of fact. The purpose of making such a statement should be to set the record straight and to call bill to an accounting for his behavior. It may also lead to some action that results in limiting his ability to influence others or behave similarly in the future. I consider that constructive as it is in the cause of justice. Clearly it could also destroy his ability to accomplish some of his personal aims as well. I would consider it abusive if you simply followed him around making this statement hoping to provoke some hostile reaction from him. "How about one of Vidrine's harangues against Jews? I only know about this as legend. I do not read his posts. "Or one the equivalent harangues against Muslims that have been posted? " 1) When I read one that is clearly based on myth or ignorance, I try to post accurate competing information. 2)When I read one that is clearly posted to provoke hatred and hostility based on bigotry I say so. I consider this a hate crime that should be actionable. The second case is actually quite rare. "That slope you're standing on is mighty slippery. I like that Supreme Court's stance (at least until now); If the exercise of free speech does not create clear and present danger of violence, it's legal." Not slippery. It is a two way street. I know when I have verbally assaulted someone and I know when it is being done to me. I am prepared to defend my statements/allegations regarding other persons. Anyone who can not should be subject to action. If the statement is designed to damage the dignity of another person the speaker should be ready to justify his comment or keep his mouth shut. I have plenty of doubts/concerns about Bush. I have no evidence that he is corrupt. I will not voice any criticism of him that I can not defend as fact. For example, I don't like the hit and run posters who show up with one post making personal comments about the some or all of us and then don't stick around to defend their statement when challenged. Bottom line is, we all know when a conversation becomes destructive vs constructive. Once it makes that turn we should put a stop to it unless the thing to be destroyed is worthy of destruction (In which case it should be clearly stated as our intent). Some times speech can be devastatingly destructive (gossip, rumors, lies, etc). Why should I tolerate this simply because no one's nose is bleeding? JLA has clearly stated that he intends to destroy TPs posting priveleges and why he believes that is a just cause. I respect that.