This forum is going private, let me know if you want to access it

[Stan]

Politics will not be in townhall but only here.

And only given access to those who want it.

I will not be a member, as too much of this is trash.

( I will be make all who have posted in the last month or so members) please let me know if you want to be excluded.

[Bravus]

Leave me out please mate, it's unhealthy for me.

[Dr. Shane]

I guess we will see how it works out but I think more people will be posting political threads in Townhall because this is a private forum and they don't have access to it.

[Tom Wetmore]

And I would say that any political threads in Townhall should immediately be moved here by a moderator/administrator with a note to the participants that they can continue by joining this private forum.

[Dr. Shane]

I wouldn't even be opposed to only paying members being allowed to have access to the political forum. There are a few people here that can't handle others challenging their political opinions but there is a lot of good, positive, thought-provoking stuff that goes on here that no other Adventist source is providing out there.

[Planey]

Not sure if I have posted here in the last month, but just in case, count me out. Thanks Stan.

Graeme

[Joe_in_RP]

Is this censorship?

----

The Supreme Court has found censorship to be an especially intolerable restriction on freedom of expression. The term censorship might encompass almost any restriction on the dissemination or content of expression, but most fundamentally it means prior restraint—any government scheme for screening either who may speak or the content of what people wish to say before the utterance. Although the Court has never held prior restraint to be inherently unconstitutional, it has emphasized that “any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” (Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan 1963, p. 70).

The Court first directly addressed the constitutionality of prior restraint in Near v. Minnesota (1931). In question was a Minnesota law that allowed judges to eliminate as a public nuisance any “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” newspaper or periodical (see Libel). A state court had declared a newspaper, the Saturday Press, to be a public nuisance after it had attacked public officials with allegations of corruption, laziness, and illicit contact with gangsters. Much of the material seemed anti‐Semitic. The state court issued an order forever prohibiting the editors “from producing, editing, publishing, circulating, having in their possession, selling or giving away any publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or defamatory newspaper” either under the title of the Saturday Press or any other title (p. 706). Violation of the order would constitute contempt of court.

By a margin of 5 to 4, the U.S. Supreme Court found the statute to be an unconstitutional form of censorship, because before a banned newspaper could publish again, the editors would have to satisfy a judge as to the new publication's good character. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes for the majority concluded that prior restraint would be constitutional only in extreme circumstances, for example, if a newspaper were about to publish the location of troops in wartime. Speaking for dissenters, Justice Pierce Butler protested that the Minnesota law did not constitute a classic form of censorship because the newspaper had published nine issues before being suppressed. He noted that the law “does not authorize administrative control in advance such as was formerly exercised by the licensers and censors” (p. 735).

[Joe_in_RP]

Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically belonging to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. They are guaranteed but can also be limited by the section 1 of the Charter, and they can be temporarily invalidated by the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.

As a part of the Charter and of the larger Constitution Act, 1982, section 2 took legal effect on April 17, 1982. Many of its rights, however, have roots in Canada in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, although this bill was of limited effectiveness, and in traditions under a theorized Implied Bill of Rights. Many of the freedoms, such as freedom of expression, have also been at the centre of federalism disputes.....

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression (s. 2() is perhaps one of the most significant Charter rights in influencing Canadian society. Justice Peter Cory once wrote that it "is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society."[5] The section has been at the centre of a great amount of case law.

[edit]

Background

Freedom of speech had a limited background in Canada. It has been an issue in federalism disputes, as provincial legislation infringing upon free speech has been taken as criminal legislation, which only the Parliament of Canada can validly create under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Switzman v. Elbling (1957) is an example of a case in which this was discussed. An Implied Bill of Rights theory further stated governments were limited in their abilities to infringe upon free speech by virtue of the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867. This preamble states Canada's constitution would be based upon Britain's, and Britain had limited free speech in 1867. Furthermore, free speech is considered to be necessary for a parliamentary government to function.[6]

Free speech was later included in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

[Joe_in_RP]

Canadian Bill of Rights.

Freedom of speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country.

For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation).Freedom

Concepts

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

[Dr. Shane]

The church censors all the time. Private organizations have the right to censor what is spoken in their buildings or on their Internet forms. I suspect Stan is trying to preserve Club Adventist as at least somewhat of a friendly place. Recently there have been two members here that have been going at each other with very unkind spirits. In the past there have been others that have done the same. That projects a negative image for Club Adventist and I suspect Stan has received several comments about it which is what has brought this on.

I support the political forum because it is the only Adventist form of media where Adventists can discuss or read others discussing politics. SafeTV has the America Talks program which is good too but this forum here really allows Adventists to get into the details of policy and politics.

Of course some people can't handle it. Some people think so much of their own opinions that they feel insulted, intimidated or even abused when others challenge them. That is unfortunate but there are also people that cannot play sports without having to win. Those that can't handle this forum shouldn't even come in here but... for some reason they do.

[Joe_in_RP]

Quote:

The church censors all the time.

That's because the church leaders feel they have to control everything. That is not the way Jesus taught us.

I understand the problem. I am not minimizing the problem. But the ends do not justify the means.

This drastic solution is extremely harmful to free speech.

Already people have voiced great concern in town hall over what is permissible. Many are already afraid to post. That's what censorship does. We should all study the history of censorship.

I am shocked that a Canadian administration with the heritage of civil liberties that Canada has proudly promoted would consider this.

Its the type of behavior I have observed in right wing American's.

The kind my Canadian friends dislike.

[Woody]

We do have rules in this forum. Obviously .... there are times that people are allowed to break those rules. This diminishes the value of the rules. It makes a mockery of them actually.

We have a few choices here.

We can enforce the rules. Give reminders. Warnings. Apply discipline to those who blatantly disobey them and ignore the warnings.

We can insisit that when people are breaking the rules ... that they do so in a more private location.

Or .... we can just look the other way ... and let the children fight.

[carolaa]

I don't think Stan is trying to censor us at all. Anyone can join and speak their mind. I think he might be a little embarrassed at some of the posts of late and wants to keep that type of thing out of the eye of the public, as far as possible. But we can still speak freely amongst ourselves.

[Bravus]

I agree with whoever said, early in this thread, that if Politics posts do start popping up elsewhere around the Forum when the Politics forum goes private, they should all immediately be flipped into the Politics forum. If people want to follow them, they can join up. I have no problem with that: why should Stan let people who don't even care enough about this place to join up bring it into disrepute? If you want political rough and tumble you can have it, but you need to fulfil the preconditions.

Joe, all your discussion about censorship is just moot, my friend: no-one is stopping anyone from posting anything. You have the complete right to unmoderated free speech in the Politics forum. Stan is just making sure that the toxic waste dump doesn't pollute the water table...

[Outta Here]

Please exclude me. Thank you.

[Planey]

It is said that if you wish to avoid acrimonious controversy in ordinary conversation, avoid the topics of religion and/or politics.

It is no wonder, then, that a politics forum on a relgious website could end the way it has, n'est ce pas?

Graeme

[Joe_in_RP]

The problem is politics is changing into religion just like the GC predicted. It's to important to censor.

[Woody]

Yes. Exactly dgrimm. You have hit the nail on the head.

The problem is that someone somewhere decided that those who participate in the politics forum could have free range and not obey the rules of this forum.

When and where that was decided ... I have no idea.

But if only we had a good strict moderator who required those in the politics forum to actually be good and obey the rules ...

HEY ... it could be a nice place to visit.

[Dr. Shane]

Currently, when I am logged out I can see this forum but if I click on it I am denied access. Is that because it is a private forum already?

The subtitle is "Pro/Con? Right/Left? Liberal/Conservative? Bring it on and argue here." If those not allowed access can see the forum (which is alright) I would switch the subtitle to something like "Private Forum. Access Available Upon Request"

[Key Guy]

(I will be make all who have posted in the last month or so members) please let me know if you want to be excluded.

Is it just me or does that not even make sense? What exactly does wanting to be excluded do? If I choose to not participate in reading or posting in this section of the forum why would I need to ask to be excluded? Wouldn't I simply be excluding myself already?

Does requesting exclusion mean my eyes will be protected from reading the first few lines of a toxic post? Will exclusion somehow prevent my keyboard from operating should I accidentally fall into this section of the Forum?

Perhaps this is to be like me calling my satellite provider and asking to have MTV de-activated from my channel line-up.

I don't want to be excluded because, although some threads may get rough, I think others are fun and informative, stimulating and challenging, even downright funny at times.

I suppose I should request to be excluded from the 'Singles' section. I may need to be protected from reading those posts.

[Woody]

Quote:

I suppose I should request to be excluded from the 'Singles' section. I may need to be protected from reading those posts.

Yes, that would be considered a severe temptation and possible test that one would not want to submit themselves to.

[Stan]

Going to make two folks moderators here, will do that in the next 24 hours.

[Dr. Shane]

That will take the wisdom of Solomon. Both to moderate the forum and to choose such moderators. That is something to pray about. I hope we don't get into a situation where the wolf is watching the hen house.

[phkrause]

I think you make a good point Joe. Because it does seem that everything is becoming political.

pk