ot: unpublished rules in a blog

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Deleted for fear of reprisals.[/quote]
Not cool.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The response below is left intentionally blank

. . .

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The response below is left intentionally blank

. . .

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The response below is left intentionally blank

. . .

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The response below is left intentionally blank

. . .

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The response below is left intentionally blank

. . .

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Deleted for fear of reprisals.[/quote]
Not cool.[/quote]
You misunderstand and jump to conclusions. I actually wrote something that I deleted.It was pretty funny but also a bit vulgar. Something you would not mind saying and I might not in some cases. Not up to it today. I can PM you the punch line.

I didn’t think “Deleted for fear of reprisals” would have been a bad joke necessarily.It depends on who you assume it includes as the potentially offended. I guess you are feeling protective of Rich or yourself?It wasn’t aimed any pigg.
I fawn over Piggs.

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Deleted for fear of reprisals.[/quote]
Not cool.[/quote]
You misunderstand and jump to conclusions. I actually wrote something that I deleted.It was pretty funny but also a bit vulgar. Something you would not mind saying and I might not in some cases. Not up to it today. I can PM you the punch line.

I didn’t think “Deleted for fear of reprisals” would have been a bad joke necessarily.It depends on who you assume it includes as the potentially offended. I guess you are feeling protective of Rich or yourself?It wasn’t aimed any pigg.
I fawn over Piggs.

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Deleted for fear of reprisals.[/quote]
Not cool.[/quote]
You misunderstand and jump to conclusions. I actually wrote something that I deleted.It was pretty funny but also a bit vulgar. Something you would not mind saying and I might not in some cases. Not up to it today. I can PM you the punch line.

I didn’t think “Deleted for fear of reprisals” would have been a bad joke necessarily.It depends on who you assume it includes as the potentially offended. I guess you are feeling protective of Rich or yourself?It wasn’t aimed any pigg.
I fawn over Piggs.

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Deleted for fear of reprisals.[/quote]
Not cool.[/quote]
You misunderstand and jump to conclusions. I actually wrote something that I deleted.It was pretty funny but also a bit vulgar. Something you would not mind saying and I might not in some cases. Not up to it today. I can PM you the punch line.

I didn’t think “Deleted for fear of reprisals” would have been a bad joke necessarily.It depends on who you assume it includes as the potentially offended. I guess you are feeling protective of Rich or yourself?It wasn’t aimed any pigg.
I fawn over Piggs.

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Deleted for fear of reprisals.[/quote]
Not cool.[/quote]
You misunderstand and jump to conclusions. I actually wrote something that I deleted.It was pretty funny but also a bit vulgar. Something you would not mind saying and I might not in some cases. Not up to it today. I can PM you the punch line.

I didn’t think “Deleted for fear of reprisals” would have been a bad joke necessarily.It depends on who you assume it includes as the potentially offended. I guess you are feeling protective of Rich or yourself?It wasn’t aimed any pigg.
I fawn over Piggs.

[ucodegen]

It is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.

Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)

Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.

From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.

I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).

[ucodegen]

It is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.

Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)

Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.

From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.

I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).

[ucodegen]

It is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.

Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)

Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.

From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.

I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).

[ucodegen]

It is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.

Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)

Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.

From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.

I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).

[Author]

Posts