Be careful what you wish for.

[Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, these issues are complicated because we’re looking at how two private individuals act, but the important legal issue is what is the government permitted to do? When we talk about speech, the significant issue is the first amendment. The government has very little ability to control the content of speech — especially political speech. For example, if you put a political sign in your yard supporting one political candidate, the government can’t force you to also put up signs in favor of other candidates. The government can’t force the Republican presidential nominating convention to include Democratic candidates of the speaking schedule.

Facebook is a private entity. Nobody has a constitutional right against Facebook. The government has very little power to regulate speech on Facebook. Like any other company, Facebook can set its terms service and then can enforce them. And, unlike the government, it can completely control the substance of the speech on its platform.

So, if you want to change that, you have to figure out how much control you want to give the government over the content of private parties’ speech? How much power do you want to give to give the government to control what gets posted right here in this forum?

But that’s not the sole issue at play. We’ve also given the government the power to prevent folks from depriving other folks of being shut out of certain aspects of American life based on the way they fall into certain demographic groups. The reasons we gave it that power are pretty obvious. One of those areas is commerce. We’ve given government the ability to make sure that black folks aren’t forced to drive 100 miles to buy groceries because that’s the nearest store owned by a black person.

Whether you think the government should have the ability to make sure that women, Hispanics, Muslims, etc. have access to commerce or not, that’s the current state of affairs. And amending the constitution is intentionally tough.

But let’s go back to Facebook. Facebook is subject to the same civil rights laws as the Baker. If Facebook announces “No gay people can post,” then it’s in the same position as the baker. But that’s not what it’s doing — it’s apply content rules that apply no matter your race, or religion or even political party. Folks on the right or left are free to post, as long as the follow the content rules. And that’s what Facebook is permitted to do that the government is not: make rules that control the content of speech.

That’s why wedding cakes are such a point of contention. The protection of free speech runs head on into the power of the government to prevent people to be shut out of or significantly disadvantaged in commerce. There’s a good argument that a bakers role in wedding cakes involves expression. And although it is easy to envision scenarios in which the discrimination places a minimal burden on a gay couple, one can also easily envision the opposite result.

[ajax18]

But that’s not the sole issue at play. We’ve also given the government the power to prevent folks from depriving other folks of being shut out of certain aspects of American life based on the way they fall into certain demographic groups. The reasons we gave it that power are pretty obvious. One of those areas is commerce. We’ve given government the ability to make sure that black folks aren’t forced to drive 100 miles to buy groceries because that’s the nearest store owned by a black person.

And that same right should be granted to Sarah Huckabee Sanders when she was denied service at the Red Hen restaurant. Private companies shouldn't be able to discriminate based on political party.

[Dr. Shades]

Honestly, how long does it take one man to get ready. Come on, Shades.

Let's do it.

I’m outside of my home state at a convention and haven’t been able to read this whole thread yet. Have Icarus, Some Schmo, and DoctorCamNCforMe responded yet? If so, what did they say regarding my questions?

[Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, these issues are complicated because we’re looking at how two private individuals act, but the important legal issue is what is the government permitted to do? When we talk about speech, the significant issue is the first amendment. The government has very little ability to control the content of speech — especially political speech. For example, if you put a political sign in your yard supporting one political candidate, the government can’t force you to also put up signs in favor of other candidates. The government can’t force the Republican presidential nominating convention to include Democratic candidates of the speaking schedule.

Facebook is a private entity. Nobody has a constitutional right against Facebook. The government has very little power to regulate speech on Facebook. Like any other company, Facebook can set its terms service and then can enforce them. And, unlike the government, it can completely control the substance of the speech on its platform.

So, if you want to change that, you have to figure out how much control you want to give the government over the content of private parties’ speech? How much power do you want to give to give the government to control what gets posted right here in this forum?

But that’s not the sole issue at play. We’ve also given the government the power to prevent folks from depriving other folks of being shut out of certain aspects of American life based on the way they fall into certain demographic groups. The reasons we gave it that power are pretty obvious. One of those areas is commerce. We’ve given government the ability to make sure that black folks aren’t forced to drive 100 miles to buy groceries because that’s the nearest store owned by a black person.

Whether you think the government should have the ability to make sure that women, Hispanics, Muslims, etc. have access to commerce or not, that’s the current state of affairs. And amending the constitution is intentionally tough.

But let’s go back to Facebook. Facebook is subject to the same civil rights laws as the Baker. If Facebook announces “No gay people can post,” then it’s in the same position as the baker. But that’s not what it’s doing — it’s apply content rules that apply no matter your race, or religion or even political party. Folks on the right or left are free to post, as long as the follow the content rules. And that’s what Facebook is permitted to do that the government is not: make rules that control the content of speech.

That’s why wedding cakes are such a point of contention. The protection of free speech runs head on into the power of the government to prevent people to be shut out of or significantly disadvantaged in commerce. There’s a good argument that a bakers role in wedding cakes involves expression. And although it is easy to envision scenarios in which the discrimination places a minimal burden on a gay couple, one can also easily envision the opposite result.

I don't think I commented on the sub topic.

[Lem]

Honestly, how long does it take one man to get ready. Come on, Shades.

Let's do it.

I’m outside of my home state at a convention and haven’t been able to read this whole thread yet. Have Icarus, Some Schmo, and DoctorCamNCforMe responded yet? If so, what did they say regarding my questions?

You're in charge of this entire board. And you are asking three people if they are okay with the (already written and posted) rules applying to them? Why is this even a question? And why are you making this implicit threat that if they don't agree, you will not have moderation, and thereby continue to allow the rules to be egregiously broken? What on earth is the point of this approach?

Did you arrange for the two to troll our board, just so you could make this point? Are you upset that your rules aren't voluntarily followed? I ask these absurd questions because I find this whole situation absurd.

For god's sake, just appoint a moderator. If you need to pay them, have a fundraiser. You know many people here will help.

[Jersey Girl]

Honestly, how long does it take one man to get ready. Come on, Shades.

Let's do it.

I’m outside of my home state at a convention and haven’t been able to read this whole thread yet. Have Icarus, Some Schmo, and DoctorCamNCforMe responded yet? If so, what did they say regarding my questions?

Come on. I'm trying to have a relationship over here and you're not even here?

Icarus is gone. He's left.
Some Schmo made three posts. He questions how mods determine what constitutes insults.
DoctorCamNCforMe agreed to the proposal.

Cultellus posted upwards of 800 posts, then modified every one of them and left them behind for someone else to clean up. Looks like he is gone.

Everyone else is interested in a call for mods. I think it's safe to proceed.

Come on, we're burning daylight. Let's do it. You know you want to.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think I commented on the sub topic.

My apologies. It was canpakes. I mean, your avatars are almost identical.

[Res Ipsa]

Honestly, how long does it take one man to get ready. Come on, Shades.

Let's do it.

I’m outside of my home state at a convention and haven’t been able to read this whole thread yet. Have Icarus, Some Schmo, and DoctorCamNCforMe responded yet? If so, what did they say regarding my questions?

Please tell me its not a furry convention....

[Atlanticmike]

I’m outside of my home state at a convention and haven’t been able to read this whole thread yet. Have Icarus, Some Schmo, and DoctorCamNCforMe responded yet? If so, what did they say regarding my questions?

Come on. I'm trying to have a relationship over here and you're not even here?

Icarus is gone. He's left.
Some Schmo made three posts. He questions how mods determine what constitutes insults.
DoctorCamNCforMe agreed to the proposal.

Cultellus posted upwards of 800 posts, then modified every one of them and left them behind for someone else to clean up. Looks like he is gone.

Everyone else is interested in a call for mods. I think it's safe to proceed.

Come on, we're burning daylight. Let's do it. You know you want to.

Even though I'm extremely turned on right by that great kiss Jersey, Uuhhhh, not everyone is interested in a call for mods. Personally, I think Dr shades is doing a fine job. After he started this thread, things have calmed down tremendously. Basically, we've talked it out on our own and he's the one who let us do that. He turned this place around without even having to post more than two times! That's the sign of a professional moderator!! Awesome job Dr Shades. You have shown once again why you're the gold standard when it comes to moderating boards. Screw Nemisis and MD&D!! That guy is a dicktator. I hope you read this Nemisis.

[Res Ipsa]

Mike, I suspect you see an improvement for a couple reasons: the board conflicts were mostly drawn to this thread, so the rest of the threads are calmer. Also, having Shades mention a call for mods means we all have to think a bit about the rules, and its natural that thinking about the rules will edge us toward better compliance. Finally, big flare ups come and go. It takes work to be in each others faces all the time.

Just to emphasize, being without a moderator or moderators is an aberration for this board. People are simply asking for a return to normalcy. If it doesn't happen, the next meltdown is just around the corner.

Human nature.