Do the Forum Rules here have to be in Harmony with US Constitution?

[Srecko Sostar]

54 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

@Witness last warning.

learn to start new threads and follow topic titles or find a new forum.

What does your post have to do with alcohol AT ALL???

I too could make ANY post about my love for tacos makes me talk about tacos on everybody else's topics.

Have you tried marinated pork tacos at bethel? they are SO good.

Oh and did you know that JW's are anti-tacos because they follow 8 men called the GB?

Just friendly observation on terminology you used - last warning !

I think how, with this warning, you can easily find yourself on the path of the violation of the First Amendment.

 The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ....

Well, your Forum Rules have to be in Harmony with US Constitution. :))

If participants of this topic find no interest to make any response to "out of topic" comments, than the Group alone will make Natural Selection of things they will or will not speak. "Market Law" will bring own "Rule" or "Warning" and perhaps some of comments will not go further, and by that will stay alone and lonely as they never been said.

[admin]

Let me be the first to answer this for @The Librarian since he seems to be getting heat as a moderator for a club on this platform.

This site has its own Terms and Conditions and does NOT have to follow the US Constitution regarding "Free Speech". Each club owner/moderators also set subset rules for their own clubs as well. They can be "anti-this" or "pro-that" and I don't really care. 

Think of this as "my house" where I can do anything that would be legal in the USA inside of my own home.

That being said... I like the idea of allowing speech to be as free as it is on the streets of the USA.

I cannot however break the laws of the US.

The law however does allow me to control the speech allowed in my own home.

Until such a time as some US Federal court tells me that I am somehow now a utility and must not censor anyone. I doubt that happens anytime soon. If anything a popular opinion right now is that the US needs to get into the business of censorship not out of it.

I hope that clears things up.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 4/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ....

THIS IS NOT TRUE!

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the GOVERNMENT, from top to bottom, Federal, State, and Local GOVERNMENTS from prohibiting free speech.

Not individual people. 

Or companies.

If I run a company, as an example, or a blog site or whatever this is ... I can restrict, forbid, edit, censor, or punish (if possible) people for any ... for any reason .... or no reason at all ..... even if I am just having a "bad hair day", and FEEL like a little uppityness.

I could even punish you here, if I did not like something you said on facebook, twitter, or on a street corner, and Brunhilda Clinton didn't like it.

If I could manage it.

However, people do not like tyranny, petty or otherwise, and will vote with heir wallets, or their feet, and if you REALLY tick them off, with firearms.

By the way, just as an aside ... did you know that the average Citizen in the United States has more powers to arrest and detain someone than a police officer?

That is because the police officer has limited "sovereign immunity" to making an honest mistake a reasonable person might make ... and a private citizen has none whatsoever, and can be sued, or charged with abduction or kidnapping.   (If you as a "civillian" force someone to even stay in one spot against their will, it's abduction or kidnapping.)

A LOT of wannabe Private Investigators who did not understand how that works ended up in prison, and/or lost everything they owned in lawsuits.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

First of all, I thank Librarian for he/she making a new topic (not by my will) from my simple, small, almost insignificant comment which purpose was for different thing and different problematic.

Mentioning US Constitution and 1 Amendment was generally made for some other purpose, connected with context about comment made by @Witness  and @The Librarian response on that.  

But all this (Asked by....)  lead me, motivated to ask further, just for fun of course (and please do not make new Topic from this question :)) ; Do the Forum rules here have to be in Harmony with Bible as Constitution? 

[admin]

@Srecko Sostar I made the new topic. Not @The Librarian

I thought it needed to be answered for the entire site and all the clubs inside.

Thanks for making the comment. It will clear it up for many thousands in the future years.