adoucette:
Of course you are censoring when you are deleting the links and more importantly, you now effectively pre-censor by making people wonder what they can post, since posting a link to a site that isn't illegal can get one a warning.
Ok. Call it what you like. I don't mind. Your links to illegal software will be censored. Are we clear now?
That when asked you can't point to any law that would in any way shape or form cause any potential legal liability for posting those links and in fact you admitted that isn't the reason:
I DON'T CARE whether posting links to sites is legal or illegal.
So that's a problem James since there is nothing illegal with posting those links but you give out a warning anyway.
Right! Now you're getting it.
Take a look at the sciforums site rules. In particular, look at the list of things that can get you a warning or a ban. Now ask yourself: how many of those are illegal?
Is insulting people illegal? Is cross-posting to multiple forums illegal? Is creating a sock puppet illegal? Is preaching illegal?
Answers, in case you're still confused: NONE of these things is illegal. But (surprise!) you can STILL be BANNED from sciforums if you do these things here.
Ooh err! Censorship! Run away, run away! :runaway:
Get this, adoucette: sciforums is a
private website. If you post here you agree to abide by OUR rules. We will NOT be bullied by you. We are NOT obliged to allow you the "free speech" you are used to in the outside world. You came to us. We didn't come to you. You are here at our invitation, and if we decide you are no longer required we can ban you.
Are you starting to understand?
Indeed the immediate efect is for Bells to suggest that one can't post a link to sites that discuss making explosives, because the information COULD be used for making Bombs.
Correct.
When pushed, that the information can also be used for making Fireworks, I'm reminded that Fireworks are illegal in some countries.
Yes.
So that is indeed CENSORSHIP because the climate you and Bells area creating is that one can't be sure if a post crosses your invisible lines.
If you think you can't cope, maybe you should stop posting here all together. Strangely enough, many people get by here without ever receiving a warning or a ban. I wonder why. Maybe they're just smarter than you or something.
I'd ask Gustav if he agrees with this assessment, but you banned him for 2 weeks for posting something that was widely published in the free press and that another poster linked to with impunity.
He was banned TWICE previously for posting the same material. If he hasn't got the message yet, that's his problem.
As for the other poster you refer to, he posted links to news stories about the offensive material, and not to the material itself.
But too bad for Gustav because, though totally legal, it didn't meet JAMES R's personal test of impropriety.
Right. It's too bad for poor Gustav that he couldn't learn the site rules after two previous instances of being banned for the same breach. Poor Gustav.
Now you are threatening me with a ban for simply going on with posting on this issue because I may step across one of your invisible lines?
I have clearly explained the lines to you. They are not invisible.
I have not threatened you. If you are banned, it will be entirely as a result of your own actions. Pointing out a potential outcome is not a threat. Also, if I wanted to ban you, I would simply ban you and be done with it. There's no reason for me to make threats.
And you don't think that's censorship?
sciforums is not a democracy. Nor are you entitled to absolute "free speech" here. Get used to it. If you want to toss around terms such as "censorship" in a hissy fit, then be my guest. But you won't get a policy change that way.
For those of you who were maybe waiting on responses to your posts, sorry. James has now upped the anti to a ban and since I can't be sure where James' lines are, I have no alternative but to exit this thread.
Bye!