Benjamin Cole Posted March 19, 2023 Share Posted March 19, 2023 40 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said: Ben, I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know if you took the same position when 16 of the 17 intel agencies concurred that the Putin regime had infiltrated social network platforms and strengthened Trump's base exponentially, winning him the 2016 election. Ready for my "view" on Musk? He doesn't have a clue what constitutes a democracy. He is a profit driven egomaniacal toxic capitalist, in my view, so I was all in favor of any precautions the appropriate agencies took to monitor Twitter — as they should have all platforms in the lead up to the 2016 election as well. By 2020 they may have overcompensated, and you may argue goose and gander, but I say it's all one gander that threatens our fragile democracy. Notice Meta allowed Trump back on just as he's about to be indicted? Surely you see the move in play? LS-- I wonder when, through the entire Cold War, the Global War on Terrorism era and to the present day, when the intel agencies did not find mounting threats from everywhere against America. Later independent reviews found the Moscow effort to pollute social media largely important. We are worlds apart. That is fine. A forum should embrace opposing points of view, and encourage dissent---indeed that is what this thread is about. I look forward to your contributions to EF-JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) On 3/18/2023 at 11:40 PM, Leslie Sharp said: We played a loop of Keen at my mother's gathering ... The Road Goes on Forever, Gringo Honeymoon .. her faves. Not many know Turkey!! My father irrigated and and then farmed dryland between Tulia and Silverton for years before he bought the Magnolia Oil distribution county. They attended the first national Mobil Oil jobber convention held at the newly opened Cabana Motel, Dallas '61 or '62, I forget. My mother came home telling stories about 'the mafia'. Did you know Keen is related to Lovett and they're related to Robert A. Lovett - guy who essentially chose Kennedy's cabinet, and McCloy's college roommate? Wow. Am I confused or what. Is this the same Lovett that chaired a committee for Eisenhower investigating the CIA in the 50's. The committee included Joe Kennedy and recommended the CIA be severely restrained, but was ignored? Right, something like that? No, I never connected Lyle to him or REK. Nor did I know about Robert being McCloy's college roommate. I went through Turkey to see the Bob Wills Museum. Since, I've been through 2-3 times coming and going to Colorado through the lower reaches of Palo Duro canyon. Starkly beautiful, and uninhabited. I imagine Comanche's roaming free in their last safe haven. Edited March 20, 2023 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said: Wow. Am I confused or what. Is this the same Lovett that chaired a committee for Eisenhower investigating the CIA in the 50's. The committee included Joe Kennedy and recommended the CIA be severely restrained, but was ignored? Right, something like that? No, I never connected Lyle to him or REK. Nor did I know about Robert being McCloy's college roommate. I went through Turkey to see the Bob Wills Museum. Since, I've been through 2-3 times coming and going to Colorado through the lower reaches of Palo Duro canyon. Starkly beautiful, and uninhabited. I imagine Comanche's roaming free in their last safe haven. Bob Wills, Tulia VFW, April 27, 1963 https://books.google.com/books?id=YgsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=bob+wills+and+the+texas+playboys+in+tulia+vfw&source=bl&ots=nizAHtkTNN&sig=ACfU3U3fFSG9gcf_BcC2QjNsHmSXraE0XQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiakN6Z_On9AhXMlYkEHUnzDGQQ6AF6BAhAEAM#v=onepage&q=bob wills and the texas playboys in tulia vfw&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 On 3/18/2023 at 1:13 PM, Lance Payette said: This is ironic because my political sympathies, such as they are, are far more in line with Matthew's than those of most other participants' here. Lance, Do you mean that, like Matthew Koch, you’re a Trump supporter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) On 3/18/2023 at 6:59 PM, Mark Knight said: From Terms Of Forum Use, posted in 2014: "Suspension of members, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum." This is not some newly-concocted rule. Nor is it hidden from Forum members, as it's pinned to the opening page of the JFK Assassination Forum. I'm simply pointing that out. Hi @Mark Knight, thank you for responding. Though IMO there has been a real lack of candour in this process. You have quoted a general blanket rule that really says "we do what we want, we're the mods." However, the reason you gave for banning @Matthew Koch was for "stalking". Something which one of the most prominent members of this forum had done, which you were aware of, and you chose not to apply any penalty or warning to that person. That is not fair, equal, nor did it exist in the rules. It discriminates against one member and allows another to continue to do the same. If you're saying "we don't care, we make the rules." Then I guess that's your prerogative. What I would point out are a few things on the 2014 pinned rules post: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Posting Behaviour:- No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions. Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable. Solicitation of goods and/or services is not permitted. This is a Forum for discussion. No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying Members are responsible for what they post on this board. A member will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Action:- If such behaviour is detected the member will be reminded through a PM. If behaviour repeated there will be an instant withdrawal of a weeks posting privileges. If after returning there is a further insurance then there will be an immediate indefinite withdrawal of posting privileges. Membership Behaviour:- Limited Posts per Week. Members of the admin team who notice members disregarding the accepted modes of behaviour:- i. insulting and taunting fellow members ii. using language that members know to be prohibited iii. bumping posts in order to alert the attention of fellow members not being repeated during a 24 hour period iv. and similar aspects of behaviour these members may find that they have had their posting allowance limited to two – or in extreme exceptions limited to one post per week. Warning may well not be issued – members are aware of the rules of the forum and are expected to abide by these rules. Initially the penalty will last for a week. Only in extreme cases will it last longer. Membership repeated offences, may result in either a longer period of limited posts or a punishment of a different kind. Voicing For Banned Members:- It is deemed to be a breach of the rules where a current member posts on behalf of a banned member. It is relatively easy to identify when such a breach may be taking place if requested by a member to post on their behalf. Safest to post for yourself and not on behalf of others. The penalty will be that the offending member will be placed on "Two Posts a Day" for a a period of time. Racism:- Racism will not be tolerated on this forum. Action will be taken whenever and wherever it is seen on the forum. If the racism is particularly offensive the member will be expelled immediately and without warning. Chaotic Threads:- Threads which descend into chaos may be completely deleted. Accusations of Member Credibility:- Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum. Action:- Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum. Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members:- Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned. General Comment:- Having posted these Terms of Forum Use, no further warnings will be given. If members need to consider if a link, a word or a sequence of words will be acceptable - to post or not post before posting, - then we would advise not to post such words or terms. Membership in The Education Forum is voluntary, subject to approval by the owners of the Forum. Suspension of members, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum. Copyright Ownership:- Forum members retain ownership rights to any content he or she posts on the forum. Members grant the Education Forum irrevocable, royalty-free rights to use that content. Any person who wishes to copy the content to another website must obtain the author's permission. Limitation of Liability Members are SOLELY responsible for the content of their posts. The Education Forum, as an entity, is in no way responsible for the content of these posts. THEREFORE IN NO EVENT WILL THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES RELATING TO LOST REVENUES OR PROFITS, LOST DATA, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION) RESULTING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON OR MADE AVAILABLE IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS OR ANY OTHER WEB SITE TO WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED OR ON WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED TO THESE DISCUSSION FORUMS, EVEN IF THE ADMINISTRATING TEAM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY ON WHICH SUCH DAMAGES ARE BASED. Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're stating very clearly that members violating rules will be reminded via a PM. @Matthew Koch has not received such a reminder, no warning, or any communication from moderators explaining the circumstances of being banned. What is this, the Guantanamo Bay school of justice? You are failing to meet your own pledges and rules. You have another statement that nobody shall cast aspersions about another member. That's going on every day. You have one member using the Pinnochio emoji to antagonise Conservatives. Do you think calling people Facsists or Third Reichers is acceptable, or it's defamation? Those of us occupying positions that are not neo-liberal, have been called those things with increasing regularity. How can that possibly be acceptable? How can you possibly accept existing forum members posting threads from another forum, casting aspersions about existing forum members and existing moderators? Tom Gram and Jeremy Bojckok have been doing that. Mark you and other forum moderators have cast aspersions at @Matthew Koch and that directly breaks forum rules. They haven't been moderated, and you have had no ban. Doesn't the example of what is acceptable start with you? See here: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Knight Posted October 1, 2022 On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said: On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said: On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said: Just pondering my new surroundings... The difference between Matthew and Ben is that Matthew is all-in Trump, whereas Ben is all-in what he wants Trump to be. Matthew believes all MAGAverse alternative facts, whereas Ben believes only the ones he can fit with his True Trump. I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie. Whether he's related to them or not. ----------------------------------------------------------------- What is clear to me is things are a shambles at present; at the moment, moderators are picking and choosing when to apply rules when things should be universal. I have a humble resolution in the sense of fairness and equality so that one member isn't being discriminated against. That is; 1) Either all parties involved in the fracas which has caused this latest debacle to receive an equal ban (probably includes me). 2) @Matthew Koch is reinstated, and we have a fresh slate, with everyone knowing that rules will be applied evenly and fairly, including warnings being issued via PM. We have the opportunity to make this a great place to post and share ideas, research, theories, etc, or we can continue on the present trajectory to oblivion. That's really up to the moderators as much as anybody. PS. Looking at the 2014 disclaimer in regard to liability, moderators leave the site owner wide open for legal recourse if moderators neglect to remove libel or defamatory remarks which destroy people's reputations, capacity to earn etc. Moderators have been informed of such cases and have chosen to leave the remarks published. By continuing on this present course, you leave the whole platform vulnerable. You'll have to take my word for this as I have seen this route taken via another forum which follows this exact format. I am not asking for people to apologise or even for mods or members to accept responsibility. Just, the hard done by members to be reinstated and a clean slate going forward. Is that too much to ask? Edited March 20, 2023 by Chris Barnard Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 @Lance Payette Thanks for your input; diverse opinions should be welcome. I am pleased to see you posting again. Why did you feel the need to delete all of your posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 1.) In general, no public announcement is made when a forum member has had their posting privileges suspended. And that includes the mods/administrators. So you actually have no clue whether any mods, administrators, or any other members have had their posting privileges suspended or not -- be it for a day, a week, or whatever length -- without checking on that member's profile while the suspension is in force. 2.) "Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website." Brushing up on what is stated in USC Section 230 might enlighten you as to what liabilities a forum such as this does and DOES NOT have for USER-posted comments. While the US Congress is discussing whether or not to change Section 230, until or unless they do, those who post here are legally liable for the content of their comments to a MUCH greater degree than the forum itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 17 minutes ago, Mark Knight said: 1.) In general, no public announcement is made when a forum member has had their posting privileges suspended. And that includes the mods/administrators. So you actually have no clue whether any mods, administrators, or any other members have had their posting privileges suspended or not -- be it for a day, a week, or whatever length -- without checking on that member's profile while the suspension is in force. 2.) "Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website." Brushing up on what is stated in USC Section 230 might enlighten you as to what liabilities a forum such as this does and DOES NOT have for USER-posted comments. While the US Congress is discussing whether or not to change Section 230, until or unless they do, those who post here are legally liable for the content of their comments to a MUCH greater degree than the forum itself. Is that all that you'd care to add regarding my above post? I did open up, stating I found there was a lack of candour IMO. And that you are applying rules selectively, without care for equality, fairness or even handed-ness. I really thought that these were the core values of the Democrat party/voters. Or, is that selective too? 1) It would be fair to conclude that your own discrimination against @Matthew Koch cited in my previous post, has been seen fit for the world to see and continue to see. I feel increasingly like I am talking to The Wizard of Oz here. 2) You agree with me in your philibustering retort. There are examples when the site owner is responsible. Of course, I knew this, as I have seen it happen. I don't want this to detract from the questions which you have neglected to answer, Mark. All I have asked is that the right thing is done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 23 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said: Bob Wills, Tulia VFW, April 27, 1963 https://books.google.com/books?id=YgsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=bob+wills+and+the+texas+playboys+in+tulia+vfw&source=bl&ots=nizAHtkTNN&sig=ACfU3U3fFSG9gcf_BcC2QjNsHmSXraE0XQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiakN6Z_On9AhXMlYkEHUnzDGQQ6AF6BAhAEAM#v=onepage&q=bob wills and the texas playboys in tulia vfw&f=false The point about Lovett is important. He tried to do the right thing in the 50's with the CIA report, then chose JFK's cabinet. My favorite Turkey barber song, one of those always two step ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 (edited) 20 hours ago, Mark Knight said: 1.) In general, no public announcement is made when a forum member has had their posting privileges suspended. And that includes the mods/administrators. So you actually have no clue whether any mods, administrators, or any other members have had their posting privileges suspended or not -- be it for a day, a week, or whatever length -- without checking on that member's profile while the suspension is in force. 2.) "Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website." Brushing up on what is stated in USC Section 230 might enlighten you as to what liabilities a forum such as this does and DOES NOT have for USER-posted comments. While the US Congress is discussing whether or not to change Section 230, until or unless they do, those who post here are legally liable for the content of their comments to a MUCH greater degree than the forum itself. Mark, Notwithstanding the apparent forum sliding, I think you need to reply to the several issues @Chris Barnard has raised. The fact that you haven’t seems to suggest some things are not as they should be. What exactly is the position with @Matthew Koch? You say information in that regard is provided in his profile. I’ve looked there and I can’t see it. Have I missed something? Edited March 21, 2023 by John Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 No doubt JFK would have approved of freedom of speech. But that isn't what l'affaire Koch is about. The freedom of speech principle would only apply if Matthew Koch had been booted because one or more of the moderators disagreed with his opinions. That doesn't appear to be the reason he was booted. It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. Whether the decision-makers approved or disapproved of Koch's opinions is of no relevance. If the forum's rules allow the moderators to discipline a member for unreasonable behaviour that harms the functioning or the reputation of the forum, and if they can demonstrate that Koch's behaviour fell into that category, then Koch and his handful of supporters have nothing to complain about. Surely there's no disagreement that Koch was indeed an incorrigible, obnoxious [fill in the blank]. He was so obnoxious, for so long, that there's little chance he would have been able to change his spots if allowed to remain. If this attempt to reinstate him succeeds, we all know what's likely to happen, don't we? He would push the boundaries, knowing that because the moderators caved in once, they would find it difficult to avoid caving in again. And then he'd push the boundaries a bit further, or someone else would. If that happens, the moderators who reinstated him will be partly responsible. *** I didn't read all of Koch's posts, but I got the impression that he had little interest in the JFK assassination. He appeared to use this forum largely to spread political talking points that had nothing to do with the assassination. That by itself is something that should be discouraged. Of course, conversations will often drift off-topic, but that isn't the same thing as repeatedly derailing threads in order to spout opinions about things that have no relevance to the subject of the forum, to wit: the JFK assassination. Again, the question of freedom of speech does not apply. If you want to promote political ideas in online forums, you have the freedom to do so on forums dedicated to that subject. There must be plenty of such forums around. If you're prevented from doing so on forums dedicated to model railways, or gardening, or Chinese cooking, or the JFK assassination, that isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. The title of this thread makes reference to JFK's own principles. As it happens, we have a JFK-related illustration to hand. General Edwin Walker was reprimanded by the Kennedy administration for abusing his position with the US Army in West Germany by spreading political ideas to his troops. The principle of freedom of speech allowed Walker to express his own opinions, but did not allow him to express those opinions wherever or whenever he wanted. Doing so wasn't part of his job, and it wasn't the troops' job to have propaganda forced onto them. Likewise, readers of this forum shouldn't be fed propaganda that has nothing to do with the subject of this forum, whether they agree with that propaganda or not. As it happens, the reactionary political opinions that Koch spread on this forum are closer to the opinions of Walker than of Kennedy. I don't think JFK would have approved of Matthew Koch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 54 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: No doubt JFK would have approved of freedom of speech. But that isn't what l'affaire Koch is about. The freedom of speech principle would only apply if Matthew Koch had been booted because one or more of the moderators disagreed with his opinions. That doesn't appear to be the reason he was booted. It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. Whether the decision-makers approved or disapproved of Koch's opinions is of no relevance. If the forum's rules allow the moderators to discipline a member for unreasonable behaviour that harms the functioning or the reputation of the forum, and if they can demonstrate that Koch's behaviour fell into that category, then Koch and his handful of supporters have nothing to complain about. Surely there's no disagreement that Koch was indeed an incorrigible, obnoxious [fill in the blank]. He was so obnoxious, for so long, that there's little chance he would have been able to change his spots if allowed to remain. If this attempt to reinstate him succeeds, we all know what's likely to happen, don't we? He would push the boundaries, knowing that because the moderators caved in once, they would find it difficult to avoid caving in again. And then he'd push the boundaries a bit further, or someone else would. If that happens, the moderators who reinstated him will be partly responsible. *** I didn't read all of Koch's posts, but I got the impression that he had little interest in the JFK assassination. He appeared to use this forum largely to spread political talking points that had nothing to do with the assassination. That by itself is something that should be discouraged. Of course, conversations will often drift off-topic, but that isn't the same thing as repeatedly derailing threads in order to spout opinions about things that have no relevance to the subject of the forum, to wit: the JFK assassination. Again, the question of freedom of speech does not apply. If you want to promote political ideas in online forums, you have the freedom to do so on forums dedicated to that subject. There must be plenty of such forums around. If you're prevented from doing so on forums dedicated to model railways, or gardening, or Chinese cooking, or the JFK assassination, that isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. The title of this thread makes reference to JFK's own principles. As it happens, we have a JFK-related illustration to hand. General Edwin Walker was reprimanded by the Kennedy administration for abusing his position with the US Army in West Germany by spreading political ideas to his troops. The principle of freedom of speech allowed Walker to express his own opinions, but did not allow him to express those opinions wherever or whenever he wanted. Doing so wasn't part of his job, and it wasn't the troops' job to have propaganda forced onto them. Likewise, readers of this forum shouldn't be fed propaganda that has nothing to do with the subject of this forum, whether they agree with that propaganda or not. As it happens, the reactionary political opinions that Koch spread on this forum are closer to the opinions of Walker than of Kennedy. I don't think JFK would have approved of Matthew Koch. Much of what you say is true...but on the other hand, Koch was posting mostly in the 56 years thread, which had become something of an anti-Trump sewer, not a JFKA debate thread. I think the moderators have made the correct choice move Trump, Biden and the 56 years threads off page, so to speak. If some current threads devolve anti-Trump or anti-Biden rants, probably they should be moved too. Can we leverage the Koch banning by banning a verbose anti-Trumper also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. And there we have it. Jeremy Bojczuk torpedoes whatever sense his screed was supposed to make by saying that @Matthew Koch was banned on an ad hominem basis. For reasons already explained, I submit that Mr Bojczuk and others like him should be banned for repeatedly cluttering the forum with prolix and/or often obnoxious (as in this instance) nonsense. I also note that Mr Bojczuk’s bio contains no information about himself, despite my previously commenting on it and despite my having received a message from forum administrator @Mark Knight requesting that I fill in my bio, to which I duly acceded. Can we please have a level playing pitch in the forum, which should include Matthew Koch being reinstated, and can Mark Knight please address the important points raised by @Chris Barnard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: No doubt JFK would have approved of freedom of speech. But that isn't what l'affaire Koch is about. The freedom of speech principle would only apply if Matthew Koch had been booted because one or more of the moderators disagreed with his opinions. That doesn't appear to be the reason he was booted. It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. Whether the decision-makers approved or disapproved of Koch's opinions is of no relevance. If the forum's rules allow the moderators to discipline a member for unreasonable behaviour that harms the functioning or the reputation of the forum, and if they can demonstrate that Koch's behaviour fell into that category, then Koch and his handful of supporters have nothing to complain about. Surely there's no disagreement that Koch was indeed an incorrigible, obnoxious [fill in the blank]. He was so obnoxious, for so long, that there's little chance he would have been able to change his spots if allowed to remain. If this attempt to reinstate him succeeds, we all know what's likely to happen, don't we? He would push the boundaries, knowing that because the moderators caved in once, they would find it difficult to avoid caving in again. And then he'd push the boundaries a bit further, or someone else would. If that happens, the moderators who reinstated him will be partly responsible. *** I didn't read all of Koch's posts, but I got the impression that he had little interest in the JFK assassination. He appeared to use this forum largely to spread political talking points that had nothing to do with the assassination. That by itself is something that should be discouraged. Of course, conversations will often drift off-topic, but that isn't the same thing as repeatedly derailing threads in order to spout opinions about things that have no relevance to the subject of the forum, to wit: the JFK assassination. Again, the question of freedom of speech does not apply. If you want to promote political ideas in online forums, you have the freedom to do so on forums dedicated to that subject. There must be plenty of such forums around. If you're prevented from doing so on forums dedicated to model railways, or gardening, or Chinese cooking, or the JFK assassination, that isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. The title of this thread makes reference to JFK's own principles. As it happens, we have a JFK-related illustration to hand. General Edwin Walker was reprimanded by the Kennedy administration for abusing his position with the US Army in West Germany by spreading political ideas to his troops. The principle of freedom of speech allowed Walker to express his own opinions, but did not allow him to express those opinions wherever or whenever he wanted. Doing so wasn't part of his job, and it wasn't the troops' job to have propaganda forced onto them. Likewise, readers of this forum shouldn't be fed propaganda that has nothing to do with the subject of this forum, whether they agree with that propaganda or not. As it happens, the reactionary political opinions that Koch spread on this forum are closer to the opinions of Walker than of Kennedy. I don't think JFK would have approved of Matthew Koch. A quite splendidly ludicrous analogy: Matthew Koch as General Walker? The Mods as JFK? Education Forum contributors as serving members of the US military? Who knew? Hilarious, and as cynically irrelevant as just about everything else you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: No doubt JFK would have approved of freedom of speech. But that isn't what l'affaire Koch is about. The freedom of speech principle would only apply if Matthew Koch had been booted because one or more of the moderators disagreed with his opinions. That doesn't appear to be the reason he was booted. It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. Whether the decision-makers approved or disapproved of Koch's opinions is of no relevance. If the forum's rules allow the moderators to discipline a member for unreasonable behaviour that harms the functioning or the reputation of the forum, and if they can demonstrate that Koch's behaviour fell into that category, then Koch and his handful of supporters have nothing to complain about. Surely there's no disagreement that Koch was indeed an incorrigible, obnoxious [fill in the blank]. He was so obnoxious, for so long, that there's little chance he would have been able to change his spots if allowed to remain. If this attempt to reinstate him succeeds, we all know what's likely to happen, don't we? He would push the boundaries, knowing that because the moderators caved in once, they would find it difficult to avoid caving in again. And then he'd push the boundaries a bit further, or someone else would. If that happens, the moderators who reinstated him will be partly responsible. *** I didn't read all of Koch's posts, but I got the impression that he had little interest in the JFK assassination. He appeared to use this forum largely to spread political talking points that had nothing to do with the assassination. That by itself is something that should be discouraged. Of course, conversations will often drift off-topic, but that isn't the same thing as repeatedly derailing threads in order to spout opinions about things that have no relevance to the subject of the forum, to wit: the JFK assassination. Again, the question of freedom of speech does not apply. If you want to promote political ideas in online forums, you have the freedom to do so on forums dedicated to that subject. There must be plenty of such forums around. If you're prevented from doing so on forums dedicated to model railways, or gardening, or Chinese cooking, or the JFK assassination, that isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. The title of this thread makes reference to JFK's own principles. As it happens, we have a JFK-related illustration to hand. General Edwin Walker was reprimanded by the Kennedy administration for abusing his position with the US Army in West Germany by spreading political ideas to his troops. The principle of freedom of speech allowed Walker to express his own opinions, but did not allow him to express those opinions wherever or whenever he wanted. Doing so wasn't part of his job, and it wasn't the troops' job to have propaganda forced onto them. Likewise, readers of this forum shouldn't be fed propaganda that has nothing to do with the subject of this forum, whether they agree with that propaganda or not. As it happens, the reactionary political opinions that Koch spread on this forum are closer to the opinions of Walker than of Kennedy. I don't think JFK would have approved of Matthew Koch. Hear, hear! It can't be said any better. As for Ben Cole's utterly ludicrous claim that the 56 Years thread was an "anti-Trump sewer," I would encourage interested parties to peruse that excellent, erudite thread from the beginning. The 56 Years thread only became a "sewer" after Ben Cole joined the forum and started spamming the thread with his redundant, fact-free denials of Trump's unprecedented misconduct. And the thread was completely ruined after Mathew Koch started spamming it with multiple Fox News videos every day. Edited March 21, 2023 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now