An Idea for Parameters for Free Speech on the Forum

[MrMan]

I have a suggestion.

This is kind of a 'free speech' forum. We can talk about things that might get censored by this ridiculous cancel culture that has sprung up in recent years.

On the other hand, posters accusing others of being pedophiles, etc. has been an issue.

How about this be the standard for free speech-- anything that could get the speaker sued for damages in a US court of law (since Winston was raised in the US, and a sizeable number of posters seem to be from the US) could be banned, unless you have solid evidence that could get you exonerated in a court of law.

If US law is too narrow, we could go for Anglo-law, since various academic studies rate that as the highest system for predictability and for strong rule of law.

So, for example, if you accuse someone of some kind of sexual perversion, stealing, etc. and you can't prevent evidence. The forum could set the standard to 1980's law, so accusing someone of something vile like sleeping with the same sex could fall into this category, too. (Nowadays, some people don't even think it's a slander to accuse another of gay sex.)

Normally for tort law, like if you accuse someone of doing something bad or having a terrible disease or anything that holds them up for public derision, they may have to show specifically what their financial damages is. If you accuse a woman of losing her virginity, you don't have to prove she was held up to public derision. It's automatically assumed under common law.

The rationale for this is court cases. I don't know if law evolved to exempt online forum providers from being responsible for hosting slanderous comments. But I do know that the owner of a forum probably would not like legal discovery-- where @Winston might have to respond to a court order to produce electronic content to give to the plaintiff and defense in a civil case or to prosecutor and defense in a criminal case. So anything posted where one poster might have strong grounds to sue another and win could be banned.

Posters would get treated like non-public figures for these purposes.

Also, if someone has been convicted of a crime, that would be exempt. If a poster admits that he has slept with ladyboys, and other people rightly comment how gay that is, that's normal. He just admitted to doing something homosexual. But accusing someone else of asking other dudes for genital pictures through PMs or of having sex with kids or rape or murder, etc. could be considered against the rules.

It's Winston's forum and he can have whatever rules he wants. I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

[Outcast9428]

I think banning people for false accusations of pedophilia and having sex with kids is okay. Accusations of homosexuality, however, is not a criminal offense in Anglo law. Or what I mean is, homosexuality is not a criminal offense so it doesn’t make sense to ban people for that. Accusing people lightly of homosexuality can even be a joke. Saying somebody is gay is part of boyish/masculine banter. This could fall under that rule potentially so I wouldn’t want to set that.

[MarcosZeitola]

I think banning people for false accusations of pedophilia and having sex with kids is okay. Accusations of homosexuality, however, is not a criminal offense in Anglo law. Or what I mean is, homosexuality is not a criminal offense so it doesn’t make sense to ban people for that. Accusing people lightly of homosexuality can even be a joke. Saying somebody is gay is part of boyish/masculine banter. This could fall under that rule potentially so I wouldn’t want to set that.

Yeah. Accusing another man playfully of being a poof, a midget, calling him weak or insinuate he has a small dong or that he must not be getting laid are all relatively normal locker room banter. Not very classy, but not exactly what I would call a bannable offense. Calling someone a pedophile, however, is stepping over a line. Like if PAG comes around and shows himself with various Eastern European or Thai whores, it's perfectly reasonable to insinuate some of those Thai 'ladies' might not be ladies at all, but ladyboys.

Or suggest the Slavic ladies he is with (who tend to look rather awkward when he poses with them, often visibly uncomfortable when his chubby baboon hands rest on them) are strippers he paid. Those are all reasonable insults. An example of an unnacceptable insult would be when I call PAG a pedophile, a rapist or a murderer, or something else heinous. Another would be to tell someone to kill himself; that also crosses the line. I did that last thing once with @Mercer when I grew wary of his endless self-pitying and his Blackpill whining; I apologized for that offense and have asked moderators to delete that thread as it went too far and I realized that. I also apologized for it.

So yeah, basically one should be able to say just about anything, aside from accusations of a truly heinous nature such as rape, murder, pedophilia, bestiality, things like that. You should be calling a man who misbehaves "an attention whoring faggot" for instance but to insinuate he fiddles little boys and digs up the graves of the dead to bone their bones would be a bridge too far. As in all things, balance is key.

[MrMan]

I think banning people for false accusations of pedophilia and having sex with kids is okay. Accusations of homosexuality, however, is not a criminal offense in Anglo law. Or what I mean is, homosexuality is not a criminal offense so it doesn’t make sense to ban people for that. Accusing people lightly of homosexuality can even be a joke. Saying somebody is gay is part of boyish/masculine banter. This could fall under that rule potentially so I wouldn’t want to set that.

Anglo law has some variety. I'm pretty sure accusing someone of being a homosexual... or rather performing the act... would have been a tort in some place under Anglo law during my own lifetime. There are still laws on the books banning such perverse acts, and in the mid-1986, the SCOTUS upheld such laws.

[MrMan]

I think banning people for false accusations of pedophilia and having sex with kids is okay. Accusations of homosexuality, however, is not a criminal offense in Anglo law. Or what I mean is, homosexuality is not a criminal offense so it doesn’t make sense to ban people for that. Accusing people lightly of homosexuality can even be a joke. Saying somebody is gay is part of boyish/masculine banter. This could fall under that rule potentially so I wouldn’t want to set that.

Yeah. Accusing another man playfully of being a poof, a midget, calling him weak or insinuate he has a small dong or that he must not be getting laid are all relatively normal locker room banter.

Being a midget, being small downstairs, and not getting lays aren't illegal and such accusations aren't an attack on someone's else's character.

Winston has also said not to insult other people's family members in the past. That's crossing a line also.

I'd like to point out that when a man confesses that he's had sex with a ladyboy's surgical hole, calling that a homosexual act is not slander. It's speaking the truth.

[Outcast9428]

I think banning people for false accusations of pedophilia and having sex with kids is okay. Accusations of homosexuality, however, is not a criminal offense in Anglo law. Or what I mean is, homosexuality is not a criminal offense so it doesn’t make sense to ban people for that. Accusing people lightly of homosexuality can even be a joke. Saying somebody is gay is part of boyish/masculine banter. This could fall under that rule potentially so I wouldn’t want to set that.

Anglo law has some variety. I'm pretty sure accusing someone of being a homosexual... or rather performing the act... would have been a tort in some place under Anglo law during my own lifetime. There are still laws on the books banning such perverse acts, and in the mid-1986, the SCOTUS upheld such laws.

I guess it’s like Marcos said, calling people gay is standard locker room banter. I’ve insinuated before that people here are gay even when I knew they weren’t just because it’s a funny insult. Pedophile accusations are very serious though and can destroy a person’s life.

[Outcast9428]

I think banning people for false accusations of pedophilia and having sex with kids is okay. Accusations of homosexuality, however, is not a criminal offense in Anglo law. Or what I mean is, homosexuality is not a criminal offense so it doesn’t make sense to ban people for that. Accusing people lightly of homosexuality can even be a joke. Saying somebody is gay is part of boyish/masculine banter. This could fall under that rule potentially so I wouldn’t want to set that.

Yeah. Accusing another man playfully of being a poof, a midget, calling him weak or insinuate he has a small dong or that he must not be getting laid are all relatively normal locker room banter.

Being a midget, being small downstairs, and not getting lays aren't illegal and such accusations aren't an attack on someone's else's character.

Winston has also said not to insult other people's family members in the past. That's crossing a line also.

I'd like to point out that when a man confesses that he's had sex with a ladyboy's surgical hole, calling that a homosexual act is not slander. It's speaking the truth.

I do think insulting people’s family members or loved ones can be argued as a step too far as well. If somebody says your wife is a whore I think that’s not acceptable conduct.

[Pixel--Dude]

I think calling another user a pedophile is totally unacceptable conduct. To be honest I'm sick of this serious accusation getting thrown around. It's a serious accusation that could potentially ruin someone's life. If I see this kind of behaviour I will give warnings and bans and remove the post containing the accusation.

I also agree that attacking people's family members is a step too far as well. This is a free speech forum, meaning people can talk about whatever they want, including topics that are taboo. Free speech doesn't mean you have free reign to be an asshole and say horrible things about people's family or accuse people of something as serious as being a pedophile. It's childish and totally uncalled for.

Other than that I'm pretty easy going. If people want to call me a cunt or an idiot or the like, I don't care. I also don't care if people want to accuse me of being a Jewish spy or whatever. All water off a duck's back. Couldn't give a f**k what people on this forum think of me.