Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Killing a whole long term thread is a no.

Many have poured their views out on this thread, over many years, one way or another.

Shutting it off, not viewable, is asinine.

It's not the first time it happens, is it?

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

According to this everyone on here can sue one another. Laughing

But do any of these situations apply to the internet?

There aren't any laws or governing bodies for the internet is there?

2 Replies

@argome321,

Yes, defamation applies to the internet because it is a publishing area, and it is why I say libel and slander are merging, but the cross jurisdiction of it is a nightmare and in our case we dont know who each other is...

0 Replies

@layman,

To briefly summarize what I said (or was at least attempting to say). In the USA:
1.nobody has a complaint for defamation simply because statements were made "with malice." The most "malicious" statements can be endlessly repeated, if true.
2. If a defamatory statement is made, a plaintiff does NOT have to show malicious intent. The most "innocent intentions" will not protect a defendant, if false, UNLESS they are made against public figures.
3. Public figures cannot prevail by simply showing the statement is false (as can private plaintiffs). They must show that the statement was NOT ONLY false, BUT ALSO made with "actual malice."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

but public figures are not "protected by" the actual malice aspect.

was what you said but the ref below says otherwise ?

Quote:

held that prominent public persons had to prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false)

Therefore they are protected ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Therefore they are protected ?

Read my last post too, Ionus. My point was that the "actual malice" requirement in public figure cases was not some additional "protection." On the contrary it imposes an additional (and substantial) burden.

In the USA, nobody, can prevail simply because the statements were malicious (although that is not true in many countries). So, in that sense, nobody is "protected" from malice, just because it's malicious.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

3. Public figures cannot prevail by simply showing the statement is false (as can private plaintiffs). They must show that the statement was NOT ONLY false, BUT ALSO made with "actual malice."

That's odd. Equality of all before the law?

1 Reply

@layman,

Put another way, the "actual malice" requirement in public figure cases is an "additional protection" only for the alleged slanderer, but not for the person being "slandered." For him, it reduces his "protection" from slanderous allegations.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

That's odd. Equality of all before the law?

The quotations Ionus posted show the rationale for this. People who voluntarily put themselves into the "public eye" thereby forfeit some of their otherwise private rights, because the first amendment is especially applicable to venues where political issues are debated, etc.

Quote:

Supreme Court: The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

You're still not protected from knowingly making false statements about a public official, though.

0 Replies

Has anyone contacted the Hamster to find out if he ate the Atheist forum ? Gets boring in the cage ya know .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Has anyone contacted the Hamster to find out if he ate the Atheist forum

I haven't. Farmer gave the impression he had, but he has not responded to requests to eliminate ambiguity.

1 Reply

@layman,

Ok. I'll give it a go .

edit: Done . Awaiting reply .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I thought seeing me and Hammy were fellow rodentials he might give me privy info, but he didnt so I feel free to post it here :

Quote:

Anyone can start a new topic on that subject or anything else that abides by the TOS.

So that is all that is being said about the matter . Unless we go on strike...personally I dont think I will be missed.... Sad

0 Replies

@argome321,

I think its been answered. "AS LONG AS WE ABIDE BY THE TOS". Thats an agreement that we enter into with A2K. A2K, as a non-public organization has set up its rules and if we read the TOS, most of the speech they consider as unwarranted, they can dump.
Which apparently they did.

Also, There is no "Free Speech" There is speech which is protected and there is speech whch is not protected.
The First Amendment Center website of Vanderbilt U has a nice listing of the 9 areas of NON protected speech. Maybe A2K, has adopted these categories in its own TOS .

The Atheism Thread, you must agree , was getting to be a running smirchery among a few members.
They were stupid exchanges to start with and they went on long enough.
It would be nice to have it in archives available to us, so that we could conduct scholarly reseaarch into identifying just WHEN the smirching began and who was to blame Twisted Evil

1 Reply

Well, I'm not gone. Ms. All Noise and No Action. I love this place, y'know.

Anyway, I can imagine mods' concern about the messing up in the thread re Terms of Service. I rue that the whole thing isn't readable now, but I think I can understand them stopping it after I've done some more thinking about it. Not that I agree it should have been stopped, but that I can understand them pulling it. I didn't read whatever triggered the pull, or I don't think I did. That might have been the last straw on the camel's back re the number of offending posts.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Well, I'm not gone.

Good thinkin, Jo!

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

If I'm reading you right, you're saying you can understand "closing" the thread, but still object to it being deleted in it's entirety. I agree, and think many others do too. A lot of history there, no doubt, much of it completely unobjectionable, and yet very personal to some. Why not let it remain in the "archives," at least?

1 Reply

@layman,

0 Replies

@layman,

Well, yesterday I was irate. Today I'm not.

I probably would't have closed it, though I don't know what the precise trigger was, but I've never wanted to be a moderator; I'd be horrible at it, and they'd be extremely unlikely to ask me in any case. I could turn this place into a playground free for all in a few minutes of poor judgement happening over and over.

Yes, I still think the thread is interesting a2k history playing out, and I'd like to see it in archives, with, I suppose, the non TOS stuff cut. But that is work and whatever mods there are have lives to tend to.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The First Amendment Center website of Vanderbilt U has a nice listing of the 9 areas of NON protected speech.

Farmer, I've been to that website and have not had an easy time locating the "9 areas" you're talking about. Would you happen to have a direct link to that?

0 Replies

Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know