Hi, Tiong Ho Po

A good question.

Here is the answer:-

"I and several of my friends were in your neighbourhood last night and saw you committing a crime. We were so upset by what you did that we are now making sworn statements to ensure that you get your just desserts."

That is not freedom of speech - that is licence. Freedom without responsibility is worse than no freedom at all.

The Old Coot

Here is an interesting account of how freedom of speech, whether in agreement or protesting, is squelched. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/free_speech_denied_protest_pens.html From this I gather that to keep a neutral zone avoids having to defend oneself and the view held. In other words, present a neutral, all in agreement setting. So I would say, freedom of speech is denied so as not to cause debate. The article I mentioned closes by stating that if a person were going to do harm they wouldn't be protesting a political event, they would blend in or wear a shirt that says "I love XXXXXXX" If we were to put it in the context of Adlandpro. If a person were attempting to tell a truth, or create an honest debate, they would use their own profile. If they were doing it to cause harm, they would hide behind an unidefineable profile. Yet certain attributes will cause a person to be labeled a trouble maker when all they are doing is presenting an open forum for discussion. Why would anyone not want a discussion?? Jealousy fear something to hide insecurity manners If you post something I disagree with, it will be necessary to silence you because you just might be right and I don't want my beliefs threatened. Most wise people know with whom they can debate. If your opinion is deleted you know the person is not interested in a discussion. If someone answers with agression you also know that this is not a person willing to dicuss as you just became a threat. The answer will indicate that you are picking on them altho no mention of them was made.

Hello, all.

Somebody mentioned some people begging for money. Whether it is done directly or indirectly, I think it is not honourable enough. However, it does not mean that members cannot ask for a favour of their friends, especially if they are in a helpless situation.

 For instance, I was excited about a programme introduced to me by a friend on one of the forums in this community. It required joining with only $10. All my attempts to pay for the programme with my credit card failed since PayPal does not recognize cards issued in my country. I then suggested to that friend to pay on my behalf while we worked out a way of reimbursing her. She has not given me a reply up to now.

 I don't blame her at all since we only met here at Adland Community not long ago. She is being careful not to be taken for a ride by a so-called internet friend. It is saddening that we cannot trust one another in view of how some people are perverting the good cause of the internet.

Thanks.

Lateef

Gem Business Ventures

If a person were attempting to tell a truth, or create an honest debate, they would use their own profile

Hi, Mary,

This statement is correct but my experience tells me that the blaggers among us are quite happy to lie using their own profiles.

It is also true that some debates preclude the possibility of using ones own profile when the majority is being manipulated against you - and believe me, with a large friends list of sheeple, it is very easy to sway opinion!

I get invited to 'discussion forums' that are nothing but ads and, as you can imagine, if what is being advertised is pure unadulterated garbage or simply unsupportable, I say so or ask questions to get some justification for the claims.

These forums are not about discussion, they are about selling a bill of goods and if anybody has the temerity to question the ad, they are accused of being negative, ignorant, stupid or disrespectful. Some of the language I have received in PMs after asking simple questions does rather question the eloquence and linguistic ability of some people.

Such a forum is not to create social intercourse, it is to blind the gullible to the true facts that would be exposed if the contrary or interrogative posts were not systematically deleted and to foster the current trend of 'Ooh Lovely' and sparkly pictures from friends of the forum initiator.

Unfortunately, these lying forums are 'free speech' in action coupled with the suppression of the 'free speech' of those who would disagree.

In the article you have quoted, although the response does appear to have been 'over the top', it is true to say that sometimes protesters have to be isolated for their own protection - especially in a scenario that involves senior politicians and their, often, over zealous acolytes..

The Old Coot.

 

Hi Arthur, Thank you for the legal information. It may not be the law, but I think some sites function with the theory that they could be held accountable. To protect themselves they want to keep it clean. One might say "Freedom of Speech" denied but if it keeps everyone out of court, I guess it would be advisable.