Posted by lou pilder on July 3, 2002, at 22:08:24
In reply to for Dr. Bob too --- blocked for week - SD? » krazy kat , posted by IsoM on July 3, 2002, at 12:43:11
IsoM,
I believe that your question could be phrased as follows:
If a person is blocked for saying something to another person that causes their being blocked, can the blocked person be excused from the block if the person that the remark was directed to excuses the remark?
Now this would have to be a precident for all posters. So this really isn't a one-person issue. For instance, suppose Krazy Kat writes that Kid_A
should stop using poetry in his posts? Now let's go on and Dr. Bob issues a 7 day block to Krazy Kat with the admonishment that she can not read the poetry, but she should not tell Kid_A to not post poetry.
So I believe that the person that has had a post directed to them to stop talking about anything is really a wrong thing for a person to say to anyone.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this in many instances, all consistant with the person's freedom to speak. You see, the act of telling someone not to speak, is just as wrong as preventing someone from speaking. Sometimes it is referred to as "coercive censoring". The statement to "stop posting" can be construed by a reasonable man to be a threat to the one that is being told to stop speaking, for it is implied. And threats are not civil.
When I was a teacher, there was a student that posted signs next to signs in the main hallway that said, "Beat West High". His sign said, "Love West High". He was told that he could not post his signs for they were unpopular for evryone had to be against West High and our team had to win and his signs could cause the others to think that West High was just as good as our school.
I defended the student's right to post the unpopular signs on the grounds that the main hallway was a public forum, in a sesnse, and that speech could not be restricted just because it was unpopular and annoying to those that held the view that evryone in the school had to hold the same values.The Pricipal took down the signs of the student in spite of my defense of the student. I lost that one.
Well, at the game, a fight broke out between the 2 schools in the stands and 15 students were severly injured. Most of them were also expelled. The student with the "Love West High" signs came to school the next day and was greeted by the Principal that censored him and made him "Student of the Month" and spoke over the loud speaker to the school saying that he apologised for censoring him and that there would be no more "pep rallys".
So I believe that for one here to tell someone that they can not speak, in any fashion or way that is civil, is tremendously out of line. For if that is allowed to happen, then only those in clique with others would be allowed to post.
Now the defense of the poster not knowing about the subject line is to me no different than the defense that "I didn't know the gun was loaded" defense. You are supposed to know if the gun is loaded.
Now as far as her quoting beadedlady's remark, that, to me , is a worse offense for it is called "pileing on" in football and the penalty for unneccessary roughness is greater than the first roughness. I also consider it what is called a "cheap shot" in football. Because Dr. Bob did not admonish Beadedlady' remark, the other poster could claim that it was fair for her to also reinforce the same remark. but Dr. Bob spoke to that when he said thast the context of the 2 were different.And they were as Dr. Bob explianed.
I beleive in freedom of speech. But telling another to not speak, to me, is worse than censoring the speech.
Lou
poster:lou pilder
thread:5947
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/5958.html