Lets clairify free speach once and for all.

[Anonymous]

OK OK OK, I'm begining to be sorry i started this thread. Though it has been fun and we have all learned a lot about the first admendment.
I think we all agree that if a forum is censoring threads about one particular manafacturer, then that is bad. Knowage is power, and with trains being so darn complicated these days, and expensive, i need as much info as possible to help guide my purschases.
I have had great luck using these forums to ask questions and have gained way to much to lose it.
SO i thank all who have contributed to this thread. This has been great fun, and i feel that we should do it time to time. Trains are great fun, but from time to time its good to try something different.
SO till the next thread like this have a good one. I'll be bouncing around asking questions and reading posts.
Happy Bill

[Anonymous]

First, I really really have to hand it to the CTT moderator for allowing this thread to continue and explore this topic. Thank you.

Second, why does this bother me well because we are all about free speech and civil liberty. Now we are trying to export the concepts to various countries in the middle east. It means more to me than just something we sing about in patriotic songs at baseball games. No one is going to deprive me of my basic civil liberties. If that idea isn’t fine with you OK, there are a whole lot of people who agree with you. There is even an entire political party dedicated to choosing and thinking for you. And even a forum or two. Join up. It’s not for me.

I'm not sure which sort of blank-house lawyer I am, but I feel that Free Speech is important enough to defend everywhere even in a stupid train forum. Whenever your viewing of my writings or ramblings on a topic in a public forum are subject to the whim of someone else no matter how benevolent, I feel that’s wrong.

And I don't think that censorship should be done unless there is an articulateable reason to do so that has some genuine semblance of thought behind it. And not just to please the sponsers.

Finally, let’s stick our collective heads in the ballast and talk about trains forgetting if you will the limited controlling environment of most forums.


Alan

[Anonymous]

Alan:

I have to defer to your arguments concerning free speech rights. I haven't the background or legal knowledge to argue the point.

However, aren't statements like

QUOTE: Can a moderator of that forum with delusions of godliness decide for the forum what will or what wont be allowed on the forum to the point of protecting its advertisers from negative comments that might affect their businesses and do so in the guise of keeping discussions "in line"

considered slanderous or libelous (not sure which applies on an online forum) if the allegations are made without proof?

Your whole argument seems to be based upon the belief that Rich Melvin is deleting topics because he doesn't want anything negative about his advertisers posted on his forum. I'm not a lawyer, but I do have training as a scientist, and statements like "he deleted this thread and he deleted that thread, don't you see the pattern" don't cut it in science, and I hope they don't cut it in law.

Tony

[nblum]

On most forums, the moderation and nature of the forum are part of the discussion so I don't see this discussion as unrelated to the purposes of the forum. One might point out that Rich Melvin has been quite clear that one other topic that is verboten is any discussion of the forum and its moderation. That is his privilege and choice, and given his moderation style, probably aborts plenty of flame wars and negative comments. But it creates an atmosphere of tentativeness and indirection, and personally I think it is both undesirable and unnecessary, but I'm not paying the bills.

And finally, it seems Alan is the only one here who has gone to law school. I'm no constitutional expert, but my father had significant experience up to and including pleading a case before the Supreme Court. Everything I ever heard him say or have read myself suggests Alan is indeed correct. Maintaining a public forum, even though privately owned, requires that one respect freedom of speech as legally defined. The only thing permitting the sort of "selective deletions" of non-libelous, legal speech is the absence of a legal action to enjoin such unconstitutional activities. Basically, no one cares enough to spend the time and money to enforce the law of the land.

Television stations, newspapers and other privately owned vehicles for "speech" are somewhat different from public forums like this one. Nonetheless, repeated efforts by such private entitities to censor legally protected speech within their practices have also been found in some instances to violate the constitution, although I cannot cite you specific case law.

The bottom line to me---arbitrary censorship of specific topics or points of view, not otherwise sanctioned by law, would likely be found illegal if tested in federal court. Such censorship also conflicts with widely accepted social values in our society. These are fundamental legal principles, not the standard operating practices of many businesses. Many people jaywalk, speed, cheat on their taxes, park in handicapped spots, take office supplies from their employer, etc. It's socially acceptable to do all of these in some quarters, but nonetheless illegal.

[Anonymous]

Here's my two cents, and please don't be offended: I just read three pages of gobbledygook, very little, if any, was on the subject of toy/model trains. Seems to me some of you guys are acting more like ****-house lawyers than O-gauge train enthusiasts. Let's get back to talking about trains here and less about OGR and their thread deletions.
Bill
www.modeltrainjournal.com

[Anonymous]

paul

Speach speech... What's the difference they're pronounced the same., and I knew what you meant.

I have B.S. in Engr. too.


Allan M.

Paul's opening question was about Free Speech on Forums;

If some private enterprise decides to have an online public forum can they decide to be restrictive in the sense of arbitrarily censoring threads with impunity? Can a moderator of that forum with delusions of godliness decide for the forum what will or what wont be allowed on the forum to the point of protecting its advertisers from negative comments that might affect their businesses and do so in the guise of keeping discussions "in line" with a supposed purpose as for example:

Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.

...You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Brand X On-Line Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

Paul’s concern is that without the free exchange of ideas, no matter how repugnant to others, could and would adversely affect his and many others buying decisions. And of course the pockets of the advertisers.

Your point amounts to change the channel if you don’t like the show. Or there is no such thing as universal free speech so why harp on forums and I agree that you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. But are you saying you approve of restricting free speech... the anti-choice argument.

My point is that as privately owned though public forum that invites comments that our basic civil rights of which free speech is one cannot be arbitrarily trampled. Yes they CAN do it and they are doing it, but that doesn’t make it legal and doesn't make it right in our free society.

I am not filing a lawsuit against any forums arguing that they have deprived me of my civil liberties. However, I believe if I did, I would win.

Alan

[FJ and G]

Hey Allan Miller,

Stop by and visit us here more often! And welcome to CTT.

Dave Vergun

[Kooljock1]

Allan Miller,

In answer to your wholly rhetorical question Allan, yes there are, and yes they do.

And frankly, to expect un-edited free-speech rights on a privately owned and operated site, whether magazine, newspaper, T-V, or radio show is....well, nutty.

As much as some of the voices here would like it to be so, the constitution is quite clear that "Congress" shall make no law.... To be sure, all kinds of wacky activist judges have tried to extend constitutional provisions into other areas, but they are merely creating law where there is none, and THAT is not within their jurisdiction. They can not legally create law where there is none. That is a violation of the separation of powers, by usurping the powers of the legislative branch.

As long as there are trial lawyers willing to sue the pants off of any company out there over content contained on their financed web-sites, there will be web-masters and web hosts with a finger on the "delete" button. And having read many, many posts over the last three or four years(including some of my own), I can't blame them.

Jon [8D]

[Anonymous]

How about this as a solution for those of you who feel you are being "censored" somewhere in cyberspace (you are not, of course, because there are other channels available for your message):

If you don't like the way Rich Melvin runs HIS enterprise--the OGR forum--then don't post there. You will never have need to fret about being "censored."

If you feel more comfortable and "free" here on CTT's forum, which is also a very good venue for hobby-related dialog, then by all means continue to contribute here. You'll be reaching much the same audience with your message, and will be helping this site to grow, as well. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Do some of you honestly feel that you have some sort of "right" to post/write/say anything you want, wherever and whenever you want? I have been actively involved in journalism all of my life--every facet of it at one time or another. I can tell you, wthout reservation, that such an unrestricted "right" simply does not exist. It's aways advisable to temper idealism with a good dose of reality.

[FJ and G]

The Hood's Milk Car thread, minus the chatter that I and others contributed to; has been a valuable thread for several reasons.

---It pointed out that apparent flaws are not necessarily flaws, but are copies of the prototype, which themselves were often flawed; in this case, the missing "A" in Grade A Milk.

---There were, I understand, some flaws with the underside detailing and a grab iron being in the wrong locale. Lionel and other mfgrs have expressed appreciation for bringing flaws to their attention; thusly, the negative is often more valuable than the positive.

----finally, what was originally started as a negative thread by Les Line actually turned into very positive advertising for Lionel's milk cars; and anecdotal evidence suggests that sales have gone up in this area

--One more thing; negative posts are almost always quickly corrected by more well-informed and well-intentioned members of the forum, dispelling urban legends and myths. At the conclusion of the post we are all better informed.

--Thusly, "negatives" become "positives." To prove my point, pick any critical post and you will see what I mean.

dav

[Anonymous]

Dave:

As far as I can tell, it's never the reasonable discussion of differing opinions that get deleted on OGR, it's the threads that start out well intentioned but end up being personal attacks that do. And that's where the fires are that need to be put out.

I have read a number of threads on OGR where the tone has been civil that discuss flaws of this or that product. Heck, even though I never read it, the whole Hood's Milk Car thread (all 30+ pages of it) falls into that category, doesn't it?

Tony

[FJ and G]

Thanks, Will. I sort of dumped it out without crafting the argument too well.

Would like to add that differences of opinions are NOT flaming, as long as the arguments don't turn into personal attacks.

Whether it's arguing wheel flange size or which brand you prefer or even the leadership styles of public figures like Maddox or Wolf, as long as you are respectful of others' opinions, it makes for a lively discussion and good forum fodder.

[Anonymous]

David,

Excellent posts. I wholeheartedly concur.

I have been on the OGR forum for 3 years now, and personally have no questions about Rich's integrity. In fact its his abundance of integrity that I believe causes him to be a little quick with the delete button.

I think he heads off topics before they can become flame wars, and the fallout is that potentially good discussions are nipped in the bud. And no I don't agree with his policy of making lawsuit topics verbotten.

As for advertisers- I haven't seen him delete posts that point out a specific flaw in a product, such as " The sand dome on my MTH engine is wrong, or I had to send this engine back three times". What's not allowed is general bashing of a company such as "So and So sucks!"- this seems reasonable to me.

Other than that, Rich is a very active moderator and his deletions can be somewhat subjective and inconsistent from our point of view- even personal- because Rich certainly has his strong opinions.

I have just had to accept that as the "flaw" over at OGR. It still remains, with all due respect to this forum, by far the best place to discuss three rail trains, not because of its moderation, but because of the depth and quality of the membership.

As for the legal implications of free speech on a discussion board, I don't think the law has been written, or will be until there are some major court cases. As Alan pointed out, the judges write the law, and the general constitutional guidelines are being constantly reinterpreted, generation by generation.

[goodness]

AlanHN, I am sorry I misspelled "speech" as "speach". I am constantly useing my dictionary to check my spelling to hide my lack of writing and reading skills. Although I managed to get through a B.S. in Engineering and an MBA in management, I still lack many of the skills of an educated man. It is an embarrrassment I have had to learn to live with. (Darn, ended a sentence with a preposition!!) One of the advantages to my lack of spelling skills is that I try (sometimes unsuccesfuly) to be more tolerant of other's mistakes because I can empathise with them. I still expect to get my letters and e-mails sent back to me with great big red SP SP SP SP's all over them. (It is a recurring nightmare, doctor...I think caused by Ms Shay in 7th grade....)

While we are at it, I should also admit to a lack of social skills too. I am for ever saying some thing that someone else takes offence at, even though I never intended to "**** them off". What I think as being honest and direct is often seen as a personal attack. Does anyone else find they put their foot in their mouth? I am for ever doing it. Sometimes I like to think I add positive and useful information .... but what the heck.... probably not. Hay, what's on TV tonight?

Paul Goodness

[Anonymous]

Ok
Folks I tried to stop this but here goes:

Danny

So you think if you work for a company and decide to start a union and your company says to you "Shmuck ! Shut up with this union talk or you're fired"
(and the Boss is not D. Trump.)

So you say I refuse to stop talking with my fellow employees about the Union (say Pacific so this thread sounds like we're talking about trains) Then at lunch, there you are talking and drumming up support for your union (Pacific).

The Boss walks in during lunch and says "You're Fired for talking about a union (pacific)" Clearly a violation of your free Speech.

SO, Danny you think you don't have a cause of action. WRONG!

The Federal Taft-Hartley Act by the way, covers this free speech. Your Boss is in big trouble for depriving you of your rights to free speech in the workplace.

Or what if your Boss says no more tajk about how bad Bush is. You think he can restrict your freedom to talk about that too??? Man I'm glad I don't work for you.

THERE are limits. Of course Free speech in the workplace has other issue such as you can't disturb your fellow employees while working and also sexual oriented language that the listener finds offensive is off limits also. So free speech is not without limits.

Taking this further, and shouting loudly;

THE LAW IS WHAT A JUDGE SAYS IT IS, NOT WHAT A FORUM SAYS IT IS!

Alan

Ok no more legal stuff!

[Anonymous]

Dear AlanHN,
In one of your earlier postings to this topic, you gave several examples of things which are completely forbidden in the United States, among them slavery. However, I must respectfully take the position that, due to the wording of their respective pertinent Constitutional ammendments, freedom of speech and abolition of slavery differ in their applications.

The First Ammendment, regarding freedoms including speech, begins with the words "Congress shall make no law respecting...." While congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of speech (with the exceptions discussed earlier), other things and people can, including private companies and corporations. Of course, how far this extends is debatable.

Slavery is prohibited by the Thirteenth Ammendment. Unlike the First Ammendment, the Thirteenth Ammenement states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction." As such, slavery is banned anywhere within the United States and areas subject to American jurisdiction.

Most respectfully yours,
Daniel

[Big_Boy_4005]

Well done Gentlemen, I'm glad to see that we are all on the same page here now. I'm also very pleased that we have been ALLOWED, by our host, to have this discussion. It is truly a credit to their patience and wisdom surrounding this All-American issue.

Trains anyone???

[swg]

[Anonymous]

Alan:

OK, you're certainly more knowledgable about the law than I am. Forgive me if I've offended you at all, I wasn't aware of your credentials.

I'm no fan of Bush either, by the way.

Tony

[Anonymous]

Alan Nelson, P.E., Esq.

Please forward all lawyer and engineer jokes to me by email

[Anonymous]

David:

Again, I agree with you. Those types of things should be allowed, in theory at least. The problem is that those types of threads often devolve into flame wars. The fans of the criticized personage "rise to their defense" and after a while, you've got more mud flinging going on than goes on in a brick factory.

Tony

[FJ and G]

Tony,

Yes, I should have clarified. I was using the analogy of leaders of government to show the types of criticisms that are given. My point is that leaders of business can get the same treatment. I would not expect to see criticisms of gov't officials on this forum, as this forum is about toy trains.

However, if there's a lawsuit out there, like between Lionel & MTH or any other company, then much of that lawsuit is in the public domain and is open to critique. So what if Lionel or MTH are your favorite toy train companies and you are loyally wed to one of them and refuse to buy anything else. Just because it is your favorite doesn't mean that criticism should be off-limits.

What about speculations? I feel that is not off-limits either. Again, turning to my analogy of politicians, go to the OpEd page and you will see speculation; well crafted, usually with some logic and based on some fact. BUT, it is, nonetheless, speculation and not reporting; that's why it is called an opinion or editorial.

These types of arguments should be allowed. They are part of the American way. I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps prepared to fight for these freedoms.

(Of course it is entirely up to CTT or OGR how far they will allow these freedoms because it is their forums we're using).

Dav

[Anonymous]

David:

I agree whole heartedly with your post. However, one can argue whether or not a train forum is the proper venue for criticism of the government. And it's exactly the type of post that should get pulled, since it doesn't have to do with trains. Unless the candidate is a collector & has included trains in his platform.

There's a lot of emotion in this thread. Some obviously feel very strongly about the topic, and that's OK. I think we need to cool off & talk rationally.

People are making accusations about Rich's motives and behavior that aren't flattering. While I don't personally know the man, the accusers have to provide proof of their accusations. I don't believe saying "he deleted this thread that said this" is enough to prove anything in a court of law. You have to show that the thread was deleted because an advertiser brought pressure to bear, or your case gets thrown out of court.

I'm no lawyer, but I did serve on a jury once. I'm in no way an expert, but the laws are designed to protect a person's rights. Whether or not they work is another issue.

Tony

PS. I edited this post to correct an accidental double negative I had in the sentence that starts "I don't beleive saying..." The statement as it was written meant exactly the opposite of what I meant.

[FJ and G]

"I'm with Alan on the thought that i don't want a topic pulled because it may be bad for an advertiser. I want to know it something is wrong with a particular product. I feel it is bad business for Rich to possibly be pulling threads because they contain bad reviews of MTH equipment. I feel that this also dimishes his reviews in OGR about a particular item."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree. Rich once said that advertisers never pressured him to pull posts, but that doesn't mean he doesn't pull them to stave bad publicity. No one can answer that question except him. The bottom line is that too many posts--some good; some not so good--do get killed, and speech is limited.

My own opinion is that too many 3-railers criticize each other but yet do not want to be critical of the toy train companies. Toy train companies are, IMO, fair game to criticize. They and their CEOs/Presidents are what are termed "public figures" in journalism parlance and these folks can and should be the topic of commentary.

I encourage you to pick up any newspaper and turn to the OpEd page. Now read what they are saying about your favorite candidate, be he Bush, Nader or Kerry. On the forum, we would call that flaming, but in journalism, it is fair game. (My favorites, however, are the political cartoons).

If you don't read the papers, tune in to Jay Leno and watch his opening monologue.

If we are not allowed to criticize our leaders of government--or business--we will become a totalitarian state. Is that something you want?

dave v.

[Anonymous]

Alan:

Are you a lawyer?

Tony

[Anonymous]

Ok

I'm done... er well done! and worn down.

I will keep my legal advice off the forum for now.

I really don't care any more about OGRR and Melvin since I not spending a dime of my time putting up any OGRR threads... like I said I'm done!

Please excuse my liberal anti-Bush, free speech rantings that were brought on by listening to too much of AIR AMERICA.

I have so many more parts of my layout I wi***o add to the forum that I have no more time to devote to unimportant forums or their respective moderator-dictators.

So let me blow them all a KISS while I keep shinning my track!
and remember that Speech is not spelled “Speach.”

Alan

[Anonymous]

If Rich is truly pulling posts because they might upset an advertiser, then that's clearly wrong. There's a thing called editorial integrity in the journalistic world, and advertisers have to respect it. If they don't like something and threaten to pull their advertising money, then they're just acting like a big thug & that's another reason to boycott their products.

It's worse if a magazine publisher actually succumbs to this pressure, because it means that we, the readers, can't believe anything that is published regarding that advertiser's products. And usually that's something that a journalist is more afraid of than losing advertising dollars.

It seems to me the issue here isn't about free speech, it's about whether or not Rich Melvin & company have any editorial integrity. Having a thread pulled from a forum, to me, is like posting a manifesto on a wall & finding that the wall's owner has ripped the document off the wall & thrown it out. You may have gotten your message out, but it's still his wall.

Now, I personally haven't seen any behavior on Rich's part that I would attribute to a lack of integrity. I'm still willing to beleive that Rich Melvin has editorial integrity. Prove to me he doesn't. So far, no one has.

Tony

[FJ and G]

Paul,

The Supreme Court has grappled with the free speech issue for as far back as 1919, when the famous "clear and present danger" criteria was invoked, meaning that speech is free as long as it doesn't create a problem for national security or might result in injuries and death domestically.

In 1996, the Supreme Court overruled Congress's attempt to ban pornography from the Internet, with the logic that pornography is available in stores where children are allowed to go (Penthouse, Playboy) and most porn sites contain warnings, meaning that it would be somewhat difficult to "acccidentally" find your way into an XXX site.

Forums too, have been grappling with the free speech issue. For forums like this, it is totally up to the sponsor, who in effect, is the highest court. CTT has chosen a rather liberal course of action, with the risk of an occasional off-topic being outweighed by freer flowing conversations on toy trains, which on another forum, sometimes gets deleted.

For this to continue, IMO, we should encourage CTT forum users to keep up their good postings so that we can continue to have this free privilege.

Dave V.

[goodness]

I think I read some where an interesting thought: "Freedom of speach does not allow someone to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded room." There are also interesting laws about "slander" for the spoken word and "libel" for the written word. There are criminal & civil laws, morals, ethics, customs, manners, and many other ways us humans try to define how we should interact with one another. I kind of liked that "common sence" post. But then again people kill each other on a regular basis, so I guess the veneer of civilization is pritty thin. Then there are the metaphysical aspects of the solar eclipse of the moon....makes you think doesn't it.
Paul Goodness

[Anonymous]

I'm with Alan on the thought that i don't want a topic pulled because it may be bad for an advertiser. I want to know it something is wrong with a particular product. I feel it is bad business for Rich to possibly be pulling threads because they contain bad reviews of MTH equipment. I feel that this also dimishes his reviews in OGR about a particular item. I think it was a MTH M-1 not to long ago that had the sand dome installed backward. They just brushed it off. Well that is a major cosmetic flaw with a locomotive. Also it was either OGR or CTT that had a issue in the last year where three of four trains being reviewed did not work out of the box. That is a 75% faliure rate and i want to know who to look for. FOr any review i have ever done i have published both the bad and the good. Example would be a Weaver I-5. Mine had a problem or two out of the box. I identified these but also included how Weaver fixed all the problems in less than a week and it has been error free since.
The only reason i started this thread was simply to inform. Often times too many people think they know something due to a little information or missinformation. Do i need to bring up presidential politics as a prime example. All i want is the truth. Alans experience may be different from Big boys, and totally different from mine. But any average reader, presented with the facts, will see trends and have a better sense of direction on where to go.
Some people have bemoaned the fact that we have discussed the first admendent today. But it was a nice change of pace, and i really enjoyed the conversation. After all how many times can we talk about which F-3 set is better. LOL
I will be starting another train related thread tongiht. Hope you all enjoy it.
Bill