Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[CMD-Ky]

speech may only be justifiably restricted when its intent is to cause harm

The devil is in the definition of "harm".
“I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” (Justice Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964).) Pelosi and Trump may define "harm" differently as may CMD and Dr Glanz of ANTZ may also define "harm" differently. And therein lies the problem, without an acceptable standard we are left to the personal policy preferences of those who seek to rule us.

This brings me around to the purported thread topic; we have the FDA seeing (defining) vape products as harmful and seeing vape vendors as purveyors of harm. It follows rather naturally that the FDA may now tell tell us [perhaps with a straight face] that a product which contains no tobacco is, in fact, a tobacco product. How utterly absurd but this is the world we have been given.

I am reminded of Alice in Wonderland,
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

In our case our master is the federal government through its creation - the FDA.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Can the phone company cut you off because they don't like what you say on your line?

Not currently but...

EDIT: Good to see you back.

 

[zoiDman]

I respectfully disagree, the urge and accordingly right to free expression is an innate right of every human being. No one, in my estimation, has the right to gag anyone. I frankly don't care what rule or law you may be willing or capable of writing, it's meaningless to me. Your speech may only be justifiably restricted when its intent is to cause harm or curtail the equivalent right of others and becomes that in fact and not merely in perception.

My rights end where your's begin. That to me would be the equitable framework of justice in reason and law.

Good luck to all.

I'm Not trying to turn This Thread into a Big 1st Amendment Debate. There are Better Places to do that. But I will give you a Scenario for Consideration.

Say my Wacked Out Brother-in-Law comes here to the ECF and starts making Belligerent and Unsubstantiated Claims about how e-Cigarettes cause everything from Cancer to Male ED.

And how We, as Members, are part of some Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy to Propagate the Lie that e-Cigarettes are Less Harmful than Smoking.

Does the Ownership of the ECF have the "Right" to delete my Brother-in-Law's Posts? And if so, when he comes back with Even Wilder Claims (after being warned that Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Proof), does the ECF have the "Right" to drop the Ban Hammer on him?

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

I'm Not trying to turn This Thread into a Big 1st Amendment Debate. There are Better Places to do that. But I will give you a Scenario for Consideration.

Say my Wacked Out Brother-in-Law comes here to the ECF and starts making Belligerent and Unsubstantiated Claims about how e-Cigarettes cause everything from Cancer to Male ED.

And how We, as Members, are part of some Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy to Propagate the Lie that e-Cigarettes are Less Harmful than Smoking.

Does the Ownership of the ECF have the "Right" to delete my Brother-in-Law's Posts? And if so, when he comes back with Even Wilder Claims (after being warned that Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Proof), does the ECF have the "Right" to drop the Ban Hammer on him?

Would that not depend on UK law?

 

[zoiDman]

Would that not depend on UK law?

Just to Keep Things Tidy, say the ECF is operated out of the USA with USA Owners.

 

[MacTechVpr]

You disagree, cool. Take it up with the management here and the private companies who make the rules.

And I don't disagree with you. My post was simply highlighting the way things are today in the context of the post I quoted. Whether we like it or not private companies and forums such as ECF can do exactly what they are doing. They get to decide.

Companies own the platforms that we use to communicate. As it stands today, it is perfectly within their legal right to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

No worries SMT. I'm not disputing what you're saying is true either. Rather I suggest that when we overwrite or undermine basic principle we undermine the law in its essence. One can't derive authority from a foundation and then assume to ignore or alter it; you render it conflictive and meaningless.That was my point, and the difference between lawful and legal. We can make anything law, even the worthless.

The only thing to me that makes law useful is consent and equitable application. But semper, its foundation.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

The devil is in the definition of "harm".
“I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” (Justice Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964).) Pelosi and Trump may define "harm" differently as may CMD and Dr Glanz of ANTZ may also define "harm" differently. And therein lies the problem, without an acceptable standard we are left to the personal policy preferences of those who seek to rule us.

This brings me around to the purported thread topic; we have the FDA seeing (defining) vape products as harmful and seeing vape vendors as purveyors of harm. It follows rather naturally that the FDA may now tell tell us [perhaps with a straight face] that a product which contains no tobacco is, in fact, a tobacco product. How utterly absurd but this is the world we have been given.

I am reminded of Alice in Wonderland,
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

In our case our master is the federal government through its creation - the FDA.

It helps when the law doesn't make the principle of property (and privacy!) as amorphous and ambiguous as it has. Better to have a lot less editorial discretion.

A diaper may be deemed tobacco if it's sold by a vape store…so let it be written, so let it be done.

Good luck.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

Just to Keep Thing Tidy, say the ECF is operated out of the USA with USA Owners.

The answer seems to be yes judging from what other sites have been doing. Whether it is actually legal seems to be a mystery.

 

[Bronze]

Rather I suggest that when we overwrite or undermine basic principle we undermine the law in its essence.

Natural Law

 

[zoiDman]

The answer seems to be yes judging from what other sites have been doing. Whether it is actually legal seems to be a mystery.

I Don't think there is much of a Mystery. But then again, I'm Not a Constitutional Lawyer making $20,000 per Day.

 

[Kent C]

Brother-in-Law

Luckily, you're not in Congress :- ) To your Questions - yea, and yea.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Does the Ownership of the ECF have the "Right" to delete my Brother-in-Law's Posts? And if so, when he comes back with Even Wilder Claims (after being warned that Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Proof), does the ECF have the "Right" to drop the Ban Hammer on him?

Why would Oliver the owner of ECF not have that right? Who and upon what authority would someone tell him 'No'? It's Oliver's creation not mine, he can do as he chooses. All that I can do is stay or I can go, I have chosen to stay.
Spoken as one who is so vile and repugnant that he is banned from "The Outside".

 

[Kent C]

One can't derive authority from a foundation and then assume to ignore or alter it; you render it conflictive and meaningless

The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Rand

One can't ask "What's North of the North Pole?" Stephen Hawking

I think you meant legal vs. moral

 

[zoiDman]

Luckily, you're not in Congress :- ) To your Questions - yea, and yea.

Why would Oliver the owner of ECF not have that right? Who and upon what authority would someone tell him 'No'? ...

I would Hope He Does. And it would be a Sad Day if we ever got to a Point where He didn't.

This is the Other Side of a "Free Speech" debate. When does an Individual Not have the Right to Free Speech?

 

[MLEJ]

As currently constructed, censorship by private corporations is legal.

'Legal' doesn't necessarily equal 'moral,' though.

There are wealthy people all over the place and there are intelligent IT people all over the place. Combine the two and put a hurtin' on the big tech elites. It wont happen overnight and it wont be easy but in time they WILL be marginalized (where they belong).

You mean there's a place where you can gab to your heart's content without being worried about censorship?

There are a few places where ME WE or anyone can GAB and speak their MINDS to their hearts' content but...

Not entirely, because even blab has been deleting accounts since they came back online after they went live with their own servers.

... even they have rules & Terms of Service that they can apply as they choose.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

... even they have rules & Terms of Service that they can apply as they choose.

That's true. And I don't know the specifics of these banned accounts. I read people saying it happened to them, but they don't say what they said. They may have been making posts advocating murder or robbing banks for all I know.

 

[mikepetro]

I'm Not trying to turn This Thread into a Big 1st Amendment Debate. There are Better Places to do that. But I will give you a Scenario for Consideration.

Say my Wacked Out Brother-in-Law comes here to the ECF and starts making Belligerent and Unsubstantiated Claims about how e-Cigarettes cause everything from Cancer to Male ED.

And how We, as Members, are part of some Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy to Propagate the Lie that e-Cigarettes are Less Harmful than Smoking.

Does the Ownership of the ECF have the "Right" to delete my Brother-in-Law's Posts? And if so, when he comes back with Even Wilder Claims (after being warned that Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Proof), does the ECF have the "Right" to drop the Ban Hammer on him?

I have been in many a restaurant that had a sign posted saying "We reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to anybody", and many of them meant it.

I think its the same way with private forums. ECF has the right to choose whether or not someone can post or even view the site. They dont "have" to have a good reason.

Facebook and Twitter and the like have the same right, unless the government deems them to be something other than a private venture.


ETA: That being said, I remember a case of a bakery who refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple, I think they were hounded for Civil Rights violations. Not sure I understand how the government has any say in it. There is also the case of Hobby Lobby refusing to cover abortion expenses due to religious beliefs.

My company, my rules, is my belief, though the government may not agree.

 

[Kent C]

When does an Individual Not have the Right to Free Speech?

When they're on a college campus.

also...
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

 

[Javichu]

I have been in many a restaurant that had a sign posted saying "We reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to anybody", and many of them meant it.

I think its the same way with private forums. ECF has the right to choose whether or not someone can post or even view the site. They dont "have" to have a good reason.

Facebook and Twitter and the like have the same right, unless the government deems them to be something other than a private venture.


ETA: That being said, I remember a case of a bakery who refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple, I think they were hounded for Civil Rights violations. Not sure I understand how the government has any say in it. There is also the case of Hobby Lobby refusing to cover abortion expenses due to religious beliefs.

My company, my rules, is my belief, though the government may not agree.

Coincidence i was thinking the same thing,about restaurants i mean.

Back in the 90's when i lived in Canada my parents opened a Spanish restaurant,i worked as a waiter there you know family business and all.

At first we didn't but after a while we did have to put that sign you mention,now keep in mind i think this was like a year before the Olympics of Barcelona which were in 92'.

Few people actually knew where Spain was,they read tapas on the signs and menu,they recognized some Spanish words and about 75% of the clientele (at first) thought it was a Mexican restaurant.

After taking an order it was common for them to order some extra guacamole on the side or a nice plate of Nachos...after a while it just got tiresome having to explain the difference.
Got me a me big map of the world with 2 pins,one in Mexico and one in Spain,showed it to the customer and explained that Spain was in Europe.
Some got mad,some laughed,some went racial and others just said politely ''oh sorry'' didn't know,so what Spanish food you can recommend?
Those last ones were the ones i really liked,the rest of them could go to Wendy's for all i cared.

Nothing against Mexico or Mexicans but Spanish food has nothing to do with Mexican food.

Well anyway we did have to refuse service to some of the customers because they were actually really rude and using racial slurs.

Totally agree with MikePetro on this one,and to quote him:

''My company, my rules, is my belief, though the government may not agree.''

I have traveled a lot,seen a lot and talked to a lot of people from different walks of life and I'm saying this without directing it to anyone in particular but when i have heard the whole ''1st amendment'' comment in a defensive manner it has been mostly used for people that were being A holes.

 

[ShowMeTwice]

And I don't know the specifics of these banned accounts. I read people saying it happened to them, but they don't say what they said. They may have been making posts advocating murder or robbing banks for all I know.

You mean like what we saw and are learning more by the day about what happened on 6 January in D.C.?

People were advocating murder on sites leading up to 6 January. In the video's at the Capitol it is very clearly heard who they wanted to murder.

Every single one of those people should be banned. And also the sites promoting violence. Guess that's happening now.

That kind of "speech" cannot be tolerated. Ever.

Even says so in the link Kent put in his last post.