3RU7AL

Because it's rather long and has yet to be made policy. I can provide you with a different format if you'd like, but you'll have to give me some means by which you can view it. If you have an email, I can copy-paste it into a document and send it to you.

Censorship has far more evil attached to it than freedom of speech. For example, the offense created by freedom of speech ought to be addressed by more reasoned, convincing argument, not by censorship. Censorship is the snap-judgment of taking offense, and is seldom a reasoned response. Censorship is too easy when there should be honest dialog. Much harder, but much better applied than censorship to keep the dialog going. Censorship shuts down dialog. Who learns from that?

It was posted in the OP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14I1uPxdhrhvN-y5ZYz6rWlOSGv8-hyCSKUPlYEru2zQ/edit

Have fun burning down your own straw-man.

Huh? Irrational, illogical lack of common sense 3Ru. 

You avoid the tough questions. Why?

What happened to our great philosopher that so many thought you were?

In general, I'm having trouble understanding the complaints with #1.

Moderation has standards by which it enforces the various rules of the site already. The SPES is both a refinement of that enforcement and a means for regular users on the site to understand how they're enforced and in what instances. Moderation can and will still enforce these things, but the major difference is that the means of enforcement are more transparent than they've ever been. For all those people who are saying that enforcement should be changed, this is where you start, since this is the way you can most easily engage with existing enforcement mechanisms.

significant financial barriers to entry before you'll ever get a chance to try and "prove" to a judge or jury

Cost of filing and service? Nobody knows my identity here and there isn't anything in the moderation log about me. Even if there were defamation there, what'd be the point? It's a Russian site. The site's domain registrar is based in Russia. Can't levy the domain with an American judgment.

I called it evil- that is a moral judgement.  

Do you have access to raw ballot data ?

I wouldn't need that, all I would need is the Electoral College vote count.

Yes, my neighbor says Trump won the last election, so I could sue him for $10,000 plus lawyers fees.

I think that a national law should be passed just like the one in Texas. It would say that any civilian can sue somebody for lying for $10,000.

I see.  So, do US citizens have a First Amendment right to make up lies about  well established historical facts?  Yes.  The government may not restrict speech just because  that speech is evil or motivated by irrational prejudices against unpopular groups of people.

I can't figure out what thesis is under discussion here.

Should we throw out all mod sanctions for harassment?

Suit yourself. But when you are able to state a reason for atheist morality other than how they feel, let me know.

It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.

Then neither can anyone harass another anonymous member.

Your application of logic must be sound AND consistent.

I did not need to give any reasons because I was NOT stating MY positions, I was stating the liberal's position.

Sigh. I was NOT stating MY position in post #177 Brutus, and I was denying your charges in post #189.

Sovereignty does not confer morality.

What principle do you suppose confers morality ?

Something objective, other than how we feel.

How is self-sovereignity different from "I feel that way"? Not much to me. Can you tell us how they are different?

I did not need to give any reasons because I was NOT stating MY positions, I was stating the liberal's position.

We are discussing morality, not self-sovereignity. Two different things.

Sovereignty does not confer morality.

I have the self-sovereignty to shoot someone, but that sovereignty does NOT make it moral.

In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, he or she must be able to show that the defamatory statement damaged him or her in some way. This may be expressed as demonstrating that the damage was significant, quantifiable and documented. If the person who was insulted online was running a business, damages may be shown by the loss of business or profit.

Key words

If I asked you why you think any of the subjects above are moral, as a [NOT] liberal, you would be able only to cite your personal feelings about it. You are projecting.

Having to listen to you harp about how logical and intelligent you are,

Then neither can anyone harass another anonymous member.

So a man can'T act like and dress like a woman because it makes You feels uncomfortable.

A girl can'T choose whether or not to maintain her own pregnancy because it makes You feels bad.

A person can'T flee persecution and poverty because You feels afraid of scary dirty foreigners.

Some people are the evil and or privileged if You feels they are.

Homosexuality is immoral because the very thought of dicks in assholes makes You feels icky

You are aware that these are YOUR arguments? Or at least those you assume are mine? I made none of them. You are liberal, so you illogically assume that if I say, "Your feelings don't make Homosexualism moral", that must ONLY mean I think homosexuality is immoral, and not that it COULD be moral but not BECAUSE someone FEELS it is.

Having to listen to you harp about how logical and intelligent you are, and then having to explain these basic fallacies to you is boring.

It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.

Not necessarily. If there are people in the world who already know your true identity then the requirement can be satisfied that way. This is not uncommon.

half of the banned user list is just is just libel anyway

Surprised the site owner puts up with it considering that's the sort of thing that can get the site in trouble. Section 230 doesn't protect sites from defamatory content that's made from people who are acting as agents of the site itself.

i guess this thread's devolved into 98% AD HOMINEM ATTACKS

This is what happens when the Christians cannot answer valid and genuine questions. I don't expect anything different from these bible dunces .

Why is this slaughter somehow special or sacrosanct or more deserving of denial censorship when examined from a historical context veritably jam-packed with slaughter ?

geee i realllly wonderrrrrrrrrr whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

It was the only example in the discussion we had.

Did the Holocaust happen or not? Answer the question.

you decided to quote me, not even accredit

I didn't use it even remotely to argue a point. Ad hominem is when the insult seemingly bolsters the case.

What is the discussion? Did the Holocaust happen or not? Don't cherrypick and sidetrack. Stick to the discussion and pick your side.

Censorship of Holocaust denial is good, yeah, there's no reason to even remotely believe it and quite a few, severe reasons to prevent it.

On the other hand, you as a right-winger may argue that denying the horrors of Soviet Russia and Cambodia should be outlawed,

Please DM your email to me. I will send you the PDF of each.

What's the point of having any written policy if the whole thing is ultimately subordinate to the ever changing interests of the site and users?