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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (52487)	10/27/2006 4:27:39 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It happens far too often that only the "correct" POV is acceptable in certain quarters Brings back memories of a "very neutral" moderator on whose thread I once posted. ;-)

To: mph who wrote (52487)	10/28/2006 2:51:32 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

>>It's true that they're characterizing the posters as insincere, given the "trolls" reference. The posters making that charge, of course, have no way way of knowing who the so-called trolls were or what their agenda might be. The implication of their posts was that, if the persons were such trolls, it was perfectly fine to disclose their identities. Presumably the corollary was that, if they were not, their identities should be protected. Assuming that the posts threatened government officials, the status of the posters as "trolls" or otherwise shouldn't make a difference wrt the propriety of releasing the names. The suggestion that it does make a difference was my focus. It happens far too often that only the "correct" POV is acceptable in certain quarters.<< mph - Well, here's a thought. Let's say you're running a conservative discussion board, and I register, posing as a far-right-winger. In my posts, I say that Bush is not a real conservative. (There are plenty of good arguments to be made there, since under his administration the government has grown in size at a record pace, and deficit spending has been massive. Conservatives are supposed to believe in smaller government, and fiscal responsibility.) So let's say that I then suggest that Bush should be assassinated so that a "real" conservative, in the person of Cheney, could be President. And let's say I do all of this with the sole motive of making your conservative discussion board look bad and possibly to get you in trouble with the Feds. How could you possibly know what my motives were? Well, if you had made me register using a real name before allowing me to post, you could always do some checking and discover that I am a registered Democrat, have given money to Democratic candidates, and have posted liberal views often on other boards. Then you would know that I was a troll, and that my intentions in posting were not good. If everything I had just described were so, and the Feds came around asking for names, would you hesitate to give me up? Or would you still insist that my First Amendment rights be protected. Please understand that the question I am posing is purely hypothetical, that I don't know (or really care about) the specifics of the DU case, and that though I consider Bush to be a poor excuse for a conservative, I certainly would never advocate his assassination under any circumstances. Cheney is FAR scarier. Now, do you think it's possible to consider just my hypothetical question for a moment? Because I think it speaks directly to the issue of whether "trolls" should be protected if their actions are malicious, and possibly even criminal. - Allen