[epeeist]

csdenmark, on Jul 29 2005, 12:25 PM, said:

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

Your analogy is fatally flawed.

When you or I post something on these forums, it gets "published" immediately.

Unlike the submission of a manuscript to a publisher, there is no opportunity for review prior to "publication". The only time it is possible to review a post is after it has already been "published".

Unless, of course, you want BBO to hire editors to review all posts before they are "published". We'll all have to pay for that service, of course. Are you seriously suggesting you would find that less intrusive and be willing to pay for it?! 

Most importantly, one agrees to the rules of this forum. Which explicitly note what may happen. Which according to you are more restrictive than what the Danish government permits you to publish in Denmark.

Good!

I note, after queries both by me and brandal, you still haven't answered our questions, should anyone be free to post anything, on any topic, on these boards without deletion? Anything, ranging from political speech, to insults to specific people, to advertisements? If yes, I think that is a terrible idea (and contrary to the rules). If no, what to do with a violative post after it has been "published"?

If you don't like the rules, either (1) comply anyway out of politeness, or (2) seek to persuade BBO otherwise, or (3) leave. Perhaps these posts are your attempt at (2). I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

If you think BBO's rules somehow infringe your rights under Danish law, consult a Danish lawyer. I am not a Danish lawyer. I would be very surprised, however, if that lawyer advised you that BBO had done ANYTHING wrong under Danish law.

And yes, I freely admit the irony of my replying multiple times in this thread, which has nothing to do with "General Bridge Discussion" and which it would, therefore, be appropriate to delete...

Whether anybody will be free to post anything here is completely up to BBO. They have decided they are not - and I think good so. But in fact not of my business. I prefer to avoid interfering with others businesses.

Once posted only the author has the legal rights to modify or delete.

------------------------------------
Danish legislation has nothing to do with this topic. I have made no comparions to danish legislation. I have explained that danish law normally complies to internationally conventions regarding human rights. That's what this is about.
-------------------------------------
The rest of your posting I cannot judge whether serious or not.

For this below

Quote

I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

please find the quote. Unless you do so or come with an apology I intend to report you for false accusations.

Here is the link for my postings: csdenmark's postings

To be sure you see this message I have mailed it for you.

First: NOT that my permission is needed, since I have agreed to the terms of service, but I have no problem with any of my posts being deleted if a moderator considers it appropriate to do so. I would appreciate, if such is the case, if the moderator could tell me in what way I behaved inappropriately That is merely a request for an explanation, not an expectation of same.

Second: I was going to excerpt your post to quote only to a portion, but after your warning that alteration would violate legal rights, I thought it safest to quote it in its entirety. Not that I agree with your warning.

Third: The statement with which you take most extreme issue, is directed at a statement which you appeared to quote approvingly (i.e. it appeared in your post), on page 2 of this thread.

Fourth: I must admit that I find it ironic that you are trying to call me to task for exercising free speech.

Fifth: As for your claim that deletion of a thread after posting violates legal rights, normally I would ask:

- what legal rights? Danish?

- are you a lawyer, or judge?

- have you consulted a lawyer?

- if not, what is your basis for such a claim?

However, given your response to my last post, I don't think that continuing this discussion would be appropriate.

[csdenmark]

Sorry I have needed to report you for this:

Spamming BBO-Forum:

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

And yes, I freely admit the irony of my replying multiple times in this thread, which has nothing to do with "General Bridge Discussion" and which it would, therefore, be appropriate to delete...

Directing false, groundless and undocumented accusations against me:

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

If you don't like the rules, either (1) comply anyway out of politeness, or (2) seek to persuade BBO otherwise, or (3) leave. Perhaps these posts are your attempt at (2). I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

[Brandal]

csdenmark, on Jul 29 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

Sorry I have needed to report you for this:

Spamming BBO-Forum:

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

And yes, I freely admit the irony of my replying multiple times in this thread, which has nothing to do with "General Bridge Discussion" and which it would, therefore, be appropriate to delete...

Directing false, groundless and undocumented accusations against me:

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

If you don't like the rules, either (1) comply anyway out of politeness, or (2) seek to persuade BBO otherwise, or (3) leave. Perhaps these posts are your attempt at (2). I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

Well,at least now we know it's not ok to freely
speak our minds,we get reported.

I think if you'd said so in the first place,you
wouldn't have to report epeeist

[luke warm]

i sorta like helene's suggestion of moderators just moving whole threads to a preselected forum topic if they think it's not flame-retardent... whatcha bet the "new" forum gets the most hits?

[scoob]

i got a nickels says this thread is only inches away from some censorship of it's own. lol

[inquiry]

This has gotten a little silly. But discussing board issues is fair game. The fact is we VERY SELDOM censor anything on this board. I removed an entire thread once at the request of the original poster and a poster who felt a private email was incorrectly posted as "public". Other than that, I generally just edit a post, usually leaving a something that says "edited by inquiry", If it was really bad, I also raise the "warning level" of the poster and send along a message explaining why. (In fact, we can not raise warning levels without sending a private message.

So as far as epeeist concern about posting non-bridge material, discussion of bbo policy is surely acceptable. As for csdenmark, i see no spaming by epeeist, as for the view that you compared censorship with world war two persecution, that might be a matter of opinion... based upon interepation of you links to the univeral decleration of human rights.

In my opinion, your reference to it was unwarrented and unrelated, but epeeist conclusion on this is over the top as well. But I wil say this, to post here you AGREE that we can edit/remove post. So under that agreement, I can't imagine any legal problems of the sort you believe exist.

[Erkson]

inquiry, on Jul 30 2005, 03:17 AM, said:

As for csdenmark, i see no spaming by epeeist, as for the view that you compared censorship with world war two persecution, that might be a matter of opinion... based upon interepation of you links to the univeral decleration of human rights.

That's unbelievable !

csdenmark never compared censorship with WWII invasion !
He quoted a Walldk post in which Walldk wrote (with some black humourism ?) that WWII invasion of his country made him particularly sensitive about censorship questions.

epeeist wrote wrongly that csdenmark did the comparision.

csdenmark replied to epeeist that this statement is wrong and caused by misreading of the thread.

epeeist replied more or less "you are not the original author but by quoting you agreed with it".
I imagine that epeeist would have written :"si ce n'est toi, c'est donc, ton frère!" if La Fontaine had not written it yet in Le loup et l'agneau.

And now inquiry's post is the cherry on the cake.

And neither epeeist nor inquiry (nor csdenmark) wrote the name of Walldk, the author of the daring allusion !

inquiry, you mentionned very rightly the Salem witchcraft trials, but unfortunately it was in another thread !

Erkson

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Jul 29 2005, 10:17 PM, said:

But I wil say this, to post here you AGREE that we can edit/remove post. So under that agreement, I can't imagine any legal problems of the sort you believe exist.

Indeed on the contrary. I am not a lawyer but I read some years ago, and I do not know the context or jurisdiction, but if you accept a responsibility to moderate and actively exercise that right, in some circumstances you may be held to be a party to a libel action if you do NOT exercise that right in a particular instance to censor libellous material. Still, no doubt you have checked this out.

[Echognome]

Yeesh. I can't imagine worry about a libel lawsuit for misquoting someone! Also, good luck proving there were any damages.

Anyway, I'd rather focus on bridge discussion than legal discussion, so that's the last I'll post on this topic.

[slothy]

LOL

i skimmed through this thread ducks-and-drakes style, jumping from one ludicrous analogy to another....

I cant believe that people are drawing tangible parallels between the democracy of a country, and the maintenance of it, and the administration of a bulletin board!!

Either they have little faith in the notion of democracy or have a rather bloated consideration of the importance of a series of posts.

I would rather have a forum that was moderated rather than one that was not - and if a moderator - whatever his or her fallibilities - took a subjective assessment of whether a particular post was deemed worthy of deletion - SO WHAT???? Does it really matter??

And to elevate it through rhetoric to give the issue the same concern as a political process governing the everyday lives (and deaths!) of people in Iraq, or wherever else in the world you wish to point at, is absurd and pointless!

[mikestar]

csdenmark, on Jul 29 2005, 02:43 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 29 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Freedom of expression is about absence of governement censorship.

If I send a manuscript to a publisher, the publisher has the right to censor it in the sense that they will not publish it. And then I have the right to seek another publisher, or publish it myself (thanks to the internet the latter is now a real posibility).

BBO has the right to censor this board according to it's own policy, whatever that is.

Completely correct.

But please let me repeat. Until publishing they can deny anything they want to deny and no reason need to be given. This board has facilities for doing so - but BBO hasn't taken advantage from those. Therefore we have this debate approx. once a year.

After publishing they have no rights to touch the published material.

Perhaps this strange sounding idea is correct under Danish law, though I doubt it. It is certainly incorrect under American law.

Someone writes a book and submits it to a publisher. They publish it, but large numbers of people are offended and the publisher withdraws the book, recalling unsold copies from the book stores and refusing to print any more.

This is indeed "censorship" in the larger sense which can encompass private action, but it is perfectly legal. [In abscense of specific contract provisons denying the publisher this right--this is unlikely as these contracts are drated by the publishers and they are noramlly quite careful to reserve their rights.] The author as copyright holder can of course seek another publisher or publish it himself, just as if the publisher had rejected it originally.

[Badmonster]

Personally, I am a huge Uday fan. He (she?) is polite, responsive and gets the job done. When I went to him (her) with an issue he (she?) fixed me up in moments. But even if I weren't a huge Uday fan, the man has said that he will restore the post sans the offensive posts at his earliest convenience.

Censorship is a terrible thing. And there are, in this world, many instances of human rights being violated. It's wonderful to see that people are passionate about human rights. But railing against the injustice of removal of a post on a brige sites discussion boards will not save the world. For those of you interested in saving the world may I suggest contacting one of the groups below. I'm sure they all are happy to have volunteers.

http://www.hrw.org/about/impact.html
http://www.eff.org/br/
http://www.amnesty.org/
http://www.igc.apc.org/

[csdenmark]

mikestar, on Aug 1 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jul 29 2005, 02:43 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 29 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Freedom of expression is about absence of governement censorship.

If I send a manuscript to a publisher, the publisher has the right to censor it in the sense that they will not publish it. And then I have the right to seek another publisher, or publish it myself (thanks to the internet the latter is now a real posibility).

BBO has the right to censor this board according to it's own policy, whatever that is.

Completely correct.

But please let me repeat. Until publishing they can deny anything they want to deny and no reason need to be given. This board has facilities for doing so - but BBO hasn't taken advantage from those. Therefore we have this debate approx. once a year.

After publishing they have no rights to touch the published material.

Perhaps this strange sounding idea is correct under Danish law, though I doubt it. It is certainly incorrect under American law.

Someone writes a book and submits it to a publisher. They publish it, but large numbers of people are offended and the publisher withdraws the book, recalling unsold copies from the book stores and refusing to print any more.

This is indeed "censorship" in the larger sense which can encompass private action, but it is perfectly legal. [In abscense of specific contract provisons denying the publisher this right--this is unlikely as these contracts are drated by the publishers and they are noramlly quite careful to reserve their rights.] The author as copyright holder can of course seek another publisher or publish it himself, just as if the publisher had rejected it originally.

Please stop referring to danish laws. Nothing here has anything to do with danish laws. What this thread is about is violating binding international conventions the content of which all memberstates of the United Nations have obliged themselves to convert into national law.

Withdrawing a book. Yes we have such a case in Denmark right now. A well known journalist who has written a book about the former Foreign Secretaire of the United States Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately he has not only quoted smaller sentences from other sources but whole and many chapters forgetting the sources completely.

This book has been withdrawn.

Censorship or not? Unless the journalist has asked the publishing company to do so - it is censorship.

The journalist has very good reasons for asking the publisher to withdraw the book - else he will find himself as subject in noumerous law-suits. I think his reputation has already been ruined and he looks no longer active as journalist.

[epeeist]

Content deleted by the AUTHOR.

[slothy]

shouldnt this be discussed

in the forum at www.whogivesash?taboutdanishlaw.co.dk ?



PS And BadMonster Uday a HE

[aisha759]

I tried to go on that site, but got a blank page

[slothy]

uummm suprised it didnt forward you to www.about(nothing).com

[epeeist]

slothy, on Aug 1 2005, 06:35 PM, said:

shouldnt this be discussed

in the forum at www.whogivesash?taboutdanishlaw.co.dk ?



PS And BadMonster Uday a HE

You know what? You're right. I shouldn't have let myself get drawn in again. I withdraw my question -- I suppose I already really know the answer...

[Fluffy]

slothy, on Jul 31 2005, 04:48 AM, said:

I cant believe that people are drawing tangible parallels between the democracy of a country, and the maintenance of it, and the administration of a bulletin board!!

You are just surprised that they could make it without your help

Quote

Either they have little faith in the notion of democracy or have a rather bloated consideration of the importance of a series of posts.

Who does have faith in democracy?, as far as I know all democracies are moved by capitalism, I dunno if you can call capitalism a kind of goverment, but I would say it is more apropiate. At least to all democracies I know about.

[inquiry]

Just so everyone knows.. .there was a political post attacking the intellegence of a population that elect certain leaders, then there was an attack on the poster who made that post. Both post have been removed.

I thought I would have to remove the first post, but left it for a while, but when the second came in, it was certain.