Our open forum.......

[Leon]

Sometimes good people get caught in our open forum policy. As most know, just about anything can be said if you put your name by it. Not everyone likes this policy.
Everyone should know that Each member is legally liable for what they say too. You can be taken to court if you libel someone on this board. Those things said I thought I would get some feedback on an exchange below. There really isn't anything I can do (if I stick to the policy) about these things. Members can always rebut what is said here, ask members to edit their comments or take legal action. They can come to me for help but that just won't happen when it concerns censoring or deleting etc.....Here is an exchange I had last night..... The first response (right below here) is the first message I got...then below that is my response....etc....( I x'd out a few things on purpose as I don't want to out this person)



1. First email
Hello Leon,
I am writing you in regards to the following post which I provided the link
for below.

http://net54baseball.com/showpostXXXXXXXXXX

I am very shocked and surprised that you would allow members to make such
posts without any proof. What kind of website are you exactly running over
here? I know you wouldn't appreciate me posting on the CU board that Leon
Luckey shills auctions and other off the wall stuff like that. No doubt you
would be on the phone with Joe Orlando. I just ask for the same courtesy.

I have spoken to many friends of mine in the hobby and they are frankly
disappointed you have allowed this guy to push things this far. As much as
it is a pain for me to have my eBay account dragged into the mud for the
less educated collectors, it is also not a good reflection on you.

I appreciate your time.

Take care,



2. My response-

Hi XXXX
You have a misunderstanding of what Net54baseball is about, concerning this
issue. I don't tell people what to say or not to say. It is an open forum as
long as someone puts their name next to their post. It's that simple. If you
would like to rebut his statement, it is within your right. Let me know if I
can be of any help.
Regards
leon



3. His response-


Hello Leon,

You can be of some help, please remove me from your website as well as your emails as
I do not want to be associated with a website that allows its members to say whatever
pops into their heads. An open forum is one thing, but to libel someone is something
totally different. I shouldn't have to go after someone in court because you feel like having
an "open" forum. I do not wish to push this issue, but it is not ethical to me. Maybe because
I'm a XXX I believe that ethics are important.

Just know that reputation is all one has and your reputation has been hurt more than mine
ever will.

Take care,



4. My response-

Generally speaking I don't remove things from the website. Sorry for any issues you have but I just don't tell people what to say or not to say.
Regards
leon



He then asked to delete his account and I abided by his wish....(he only had a few posts)

I just don't see changing our policy. There are a few folks that don't like it but I am a firm believer in an open forum. Thoughts?

[calvindog]

Doug Allen?

[CharleyBrown]

Leon,

I agree with your policy of an open forum. To be honest, that poster would have been far better off addressing his/her concerns on the board. His/her reluctance to do so makes them seem as if they know they don't have a leg to stand on, and that they may, in fact, be guilty of the accusations.

I like the fact that you don't delete threads - it requires people to think about what they post before doing so, as they know their name will be attached to it.

His statement that your reputation will be more hurt than his is ridiculous. In fact, I think it speaks volumes of your character to stand by your beliefs and honesty as an individual.

[teetwoohsix]

I agree with your response Leon, for all of the reasons stated.

I don't know who the person was, but he/she did have the freedom to speak their mind regarding whatever thread it was on.... that is the beauty of an open forum. Instead, they chose to email you to complain about the poster/thread.

I've heard of another forum that makes threads go "poof" and I can say that I would never want to be a part of a forum that controls free speech like some North Korean dictatorship. Long live the first amendment in the Bill of Rights!!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[nolemmings]

I would have guessed it was Lichtman but I see where he's posted since.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Doug Allen?

LOL....Doug and I have had that conversation before....as well as a few other folks (including advertisers). It wasn't Doug.

[Sean]

Leon,I agree that this is the best way to run this forum. You are not responsible (legally or ethically) for what members say. If this person is so injured by what someone said about him then he should respond to that board member, not to you. He sounds pretty thin-skinned to begin with.
In any case,we're all adults here, and we should be able to defend ourselves and our opinions without crying to you every time someone says something about us that we don't like.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go bid in the REA.

[GoldenAge50s]

I agree w/ those who have posted so far and your response to the offended party.

If he feels libeled all he has to do is deal w/ the poster, not the venue.

Sounds to me as if he has no intention of addressing the issue he is complaining to you about--says volumes about the accusation & his failure to defend himself!

[cyseymour]

The forum should generally be open, but things like slander and libel shouldn't be accepted. There needs to be limits in order to protect people's reputations for the good of the hobby. Now, if people can provide evidence for their accusations, it is one thing... but other times things have gone too far.

Sometimes the board can become too ugly and there needs to be better controls in place... "freedom of speech" only goes so far - like in our country, there needs to be limits. The idea that freedom of speech means that anyone can say anything at any time is an oversimplification of an ideal.

So basically I feel that the complaint is legitimate and what is tolerated/accepted on the board ought to be examined and reconsidered... not in the spirit of quashing people's ability to post, but in the spirit of allowing people to protect themselves and not get unjustly slammed by others on a public forum.

[mark evans]

I think you're right, Leon, and that your policy is one of the virtues of the Board.

I could see drawing an exception maybe where it is clear that one member is engaged in a personal vendetta and makes constant attacks against another with no apparent factual basis. But, I don't know that this has happened and my comment is not directed at anyone in particular.

Thanks again for all the effort you (and the other moderators) put into this Board.

Mark

delete (repeat)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

delete (repeat)

Hi Ty
While I/we don't delete threads we do delete them for operational reasons, especially duplicate posts. That is what Happened here....I deleted your other identical one then you deleted the other one. My apologies.

[4815162342]

I'll pile on. Great job Leon, as always. You're doing the right thing, and we all commend you for it.

[AMBST95]

I like the way you handled this. I do think that if someone is proven to libel another that they should be removed from the forum. We have the right to free speech, but we also have the right to be held responsible for how we exercise this right.

[bigtrain]

I, too, agree with the concept of an open forum bearing in mind that "freedom of speech" applies to a soapbox on the street corner, not necessarily to an online forum. The problem that arises is that libelous conduct can occur and that taking it up with the "slanderer" is not always feasible. There is no criminal libel in this country. Therefore, one would have to file a civil lawsuit, try to effect service on someone who could potentially be thousands of miles away and then try to collect a civil judgment against someone who maybe judgment-proof. In my mind, it is much easier to have a few reasonable rules of conduct.

Originally Posted by Leon

Hi Ty
While I/we don't delete threads we do delete them for operational reasons, especially duplicate posts. That is what Happened here....I deleted your other identical one then you deleted the other one. My apologies.

Now that IS funny.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

The forum should generally be open, but things like slander and libel shouldn't be accepted. There needs to be limits in order to protect people's reputations for the good of the hobby. Now, if people can provide evidence for their accusations, it is one thing... but other times things have gone too far.

Sometimes the board can become too ugly and there needs to be better controls in place... "freedom of speech" only goes so far - like in our country, there needs to be limits. The idea that freedom of speech means that anyone can say anything at any time is an oversimplification of an ideal.

So basically I feel that the complaint is legitimate and what is tolerated/accepted on the board ought to be examined and reconsidered... not in the spirit of quashing people's ability to post, but in the spirit of allowing people to protect themselves and not get unjustly slammed by others on a public forum.

I disagree with "freedom of speech only goes so far". Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not. I don't like everything I hear or read, but I always respect their right to say or write it. This is America. That's why it is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Originally Posted by AMBST95

I like the way you handled this. I do think that if someone is proven to libel another that they should be removed from the forum. We have the right to free speech, but we also have the right to be held responsible for how we exercise this right.

Why wouldn't the person libeled deal with the person libeling them? Is it a moderators responsibility? It's not that I/we can't do it but I am just not sure I should. If someone libeled me then I would deal with the person not the venue. The only thing I might ask the venue for is contact info of the person saying things about me. In that respect everyone should know that I WILL give out contact information in these type instances. Otherwise, contact info is private and protected.

And as for 1st Amendment rights, while I believe in them, this is a private forum and I don't think 1st Amendment rights apply here (though I am a strong believer in them and this forum is run, for the most part, that way)

[Lordstan]

Leon,
You are a 1000% correct in your position on this matter. I am very proud to be part of a forum where freedom of speech, as we as, being held responsible for the contents of what you say, is held in such high regard.
I wholeheartedly disagree with Cy's position. Once you decide to limit a freedom, it opens up a whole new can of worms. Who gets to decide what is and is not acceptable? Who gets to decide how much proof is sufficient to allow someone to post their story?
These type of issues become the heart of the matter once you start censoring free speech.
Don't get me wrong, people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences. Freedom, it all forms, must come with personal responsibility and accountability for the actions taken.. I think Leon's rule of having your name identified on all posts like this is the appropriate counterweight of responsibility. It allows for those who feel they have been falsely accused to either defend themselves just as publicly as they were accused or have written evidence of the slander, that can be used in a court of law, if necessary.
The person who wrote to Leon complained that he shouldn't have to take him to court to defend himself. Why not? That is how our system is set up. If you don't like it then lobby to change it . Just be very careful what you wish for, you might get it. If you do, then you can't complain when someone makes the rule that whatever you have to say is forbidden.
Keep up the good work, Leon.
Best,
M@rk V€l@rde

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[teetwoohsix]

I understand Leon, and appreciate that you do allow free speech here. I'm speaking more "in general".

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I understand Leon, and appreciate that you do allow free speech here. I'm speaking more "in general".

Sincerely, Clayton

I know your thoughts fairly well Clayton. We agree on stuff pretty close to 100% of the time. I appreciate everyone's kind words too. It never hurts to get opinions to make sure we are on the right track.....and as far as I can tell we are.

And one follow up.....I think "moderation" is the key to some situations. I think after someone makes their point...makes it again and again and again...then it's time to move on. Anymore could be construed as badgering and I don't think badgering is a good thing either. But overall, I strongly feel members should get to say what they want to.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I disagree with "freedom of speech only goes so far". Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not. I don't like everything I hear or read, but I always respect their right to say or write it. This is America. That's why it is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

[Hankphenom]

Leon,
You rule!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

I have found that well thought out rebuttals to someone's accusations are quite effective in swaying a conversation. It wouldn't take me thousands of dollars to dispute an accusation that I shill bid (which I have never done).

[Craig M]

Leon,

Being a moderator of a forum such as this one is basically a big baby-sitting job making sure everyone behaves themselves. It's easy to say that it looks like a big headache and frankly speaking, I don't know how you do it.

There is no possible way that you will be able to make all satisfied. All that one can ask for is that you do your best and keep some as semblance of order; which you are.

Keep in mind that just because a person wants to be deleted from the site doesn't mean that he/she still doesn't monitor the site. A person doesn't need to have a log-in name to view the forum so therefore that same person that was deleted or banned yesterday can view today and see what is being said about them.

A bigger issue on this forum than the unhappy previous member is a tremendous amount of DISHONESTY that get caught in their own untruthfulness. For these untruthful types what about making that GREEN online dot by their name, a RED one so that members know when they are buying cards from a dishonest red online dot (until that person cleans up his act) and turns back into green.

Thanks for all of your very hard work in making this forum the best.

Craig

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Craig M

Leon,

Being a moderator of a forum such as this one is basically a big baby-sitting job making sure everyone behaves themselves. It's easy to say that it looks like a big headache and frankly speaking, I don't know how you do it.

There is no possible way that you will be able to make all satisfied. All that one can ask for is that you do your best and keep some as semblance of order; which you are.

Keep in mind that just because a person wants to be deleted from the site doesn't mean that he/she still doesn't monitor the site. A person doesn't need to have a log-in name to view the forum so therefore that same person that was deleted or banned yesterday can view today and see what is being said about them.

A bigger issue on this forum than the unhappy previous member is a tremendous amount of DISHONESTY that get caught in their own untruthfulness. For these untruthful types what about making that GREEN online dot by their name, a RED one so that members know when they are buying cards from a dishonest red online dot (until that person cleans up his act) and turns back into green.

Thanks for all of your very hard work in making this forum the best.

Craig

Membership on this forum is not a right or guaranteed. I understand that folks that are banned or not logged in or not a member, can read it. I think it should be that way. I abhor not letting someone see something that is written about them, even if I don't like or disagree with that person. They should still be able to see what is said.

And as for me, or other moderators, arbitrating honest vs dishonest, I am not sure I want to be the deciding factor. Now that being said, if someone is dishonest on this forum there is a strong chance they will be banished anyway.

[Lordstan]

I expected the not yelling fire in a movie theater example to come up. The way rules work is that every action has a possible positive and negative consequence. Freedom demands we be held accountable, to these consequences, for our actions. Nobody said that slandering someone is legal.

If you yell fire in a theater, when there is none, you can be arrested and go to jail. If you slander someone, they can sue you and collect damages. The issue is whether we should be allowed to say what we want as long as we are accountable.

The point is that Leon has made the choice to allow people the freedom to post what they want. He is choosing not to be the one who decides what is slander and what isn't.

Lastly, Leon has the right to make whatever rules he wants in a private forum. Each of us has the right to decide if we want to participate.
Mark
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Clayton, those aren't actually the laws in our country, that "Any free person should be allowed to say anything they want, at any time, regardless of whether someone else likes it or not." Perfect example is that you are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Same thing applies to slander and libel... unfortunately, the concept that it is somehow American that anyone can say anything at anytime is not only false, but has never been the case at all.

Here's to the common sense suggested by bigtrain and the original plaintiff that we all shouldn't have to spend tens of thousands on a courtcase just because Leon holds an ideology about an "open" forum that actually isn't the American Way, never was and probably never will be.

Here's some evidence to that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I laugh when people try to use the old "can't yell fire in a theatre" thing to justify putting limits on free speech. And then you talk about "the American Way"? Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I expected the not yelling fire in a movie theater example to come up. The way rules work is that every action has a possible positive and negative consequence. Freedom demands we be held accountable, to these consequences, for our actions. Nobody said that slandering someone is legal.

If you yell fire in a theater, when there is none, you can be arrested and go to jail. If you slander someone, they can sue you and collect damages. The issue is whether we should be allowed to say what we want as long as we are accountable.

The point is that Leon has made the choice to allow people the freedom to post what they want. He is choosing not to be the one who decides what is slander and what isn't.

Lastly, Leon has the right to make whatever rules he wants in a private forum. Each of us has the right to decide if we want to participate.
Mark
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

+1 Thank you.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I laugh when people try to use the old "can't yell fire in a theatre" thing to justify putting limits on free speech. And then you talk about "the American Way"? Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

Sincerely, Clayton

I know what the first amendment says, but that's not how it's applied in America today. The limits override that... It is U.S. Law as it exists today.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have found that well thought out rebuttals to someone's accusations are quite effective in swaying a conversation. It wouldn't take me thousands of dollars to dispute an accusation that I shill bid (which I have never done).

Yes, but the damage is still done by the original accusation. That's why they call it slander, because even if you deny it, many will still believe the false rumors.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I know what the first amendment says, but that's not how it's applied in America today. The limits override that... It is U.S. Law as it exists today.

How it's applied?

The first amendment is what it always was. Nothing overrides it. You can be held accountable for what you say- but, you DO have a right to say it.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

How it's applied?

The first amendment is what it always was. Nothing overrides it. You can be held accountable for what you say- but, you DO have a right to say it.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, sorry buddy, but you're mistaken. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country. Just saying otherwise doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't think I can go any further with you on this.

[Shoele$$]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

Pretty much in a nutshell...

This isn't the only open forum with the same policies on the web. It's been working roughly the same way since web based message boards first started in the mid 90's with the dawn of the Internet age. This really isn't anything new.

Leon you gave the best response possible, it was handled the right way.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Leon, you did the right thing.

[Wymers Auction]

I agree with Leon, but I think as we post on this board we should be careful of wild speculations that could hurt the livelihood of others. For example, I have seen many times where people come on here about Ebay sellers and feel like they have been shilled only to have it pointed out by others that it was not the case. Yes it was corrected, but that person's reputation has been questioned and for what reason? I like most of what I read, but I will admit there are a few people that do not believe there is a single honest AH or Ebay seller. I do not think we should change the way the board here is ran, but we do have a responsibility to be fair and honest in our statements as it deals with others.

[barrysloate]

I make a distinction between Freedom of Speech, something we are all constitutionally guaranteed; and intelligent speech, something we all need to develop. I suppose we can say any crazy thing we want to, but we are all better served if we think first and say something worthwhile.

Everything posted on this board may be allowed, but it's not always intelligent.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone makes a defamatory remark, that's their responsibility and problem, not the forum. I think the current policy is fine.

The concern stated in this thread is not a matter of the consequences for the slanderer, but for the consequences for the slandered.

[Rich Klein]

That one of the best things about this board is the right to defenc yourself by knowing exactly whom is saying certain things about you.

That is an American belief and as such, as long as the person puts their name behind their beliefs then I'm OK with what is being said.

In the case of someone such as Ken Thimmel (I never got my lithograph either for signing up); the evidence against him is overwhelming,,

Leon, it sounds like you are dead on and enjoy the weekend.

Rich

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I make a distinction between Freedom of Speech, something we are all constitutionally guaranteed; and intelligent speech, something we all need to develop. I suppose we can say any crazy thing we want to, but we are all better served if we think first and say something worthwhile.

Everything posted on this board may be allowed, but it's not always intelligent.

"That's what she said!" - Michael Scott

[Texxxx]

There are many restrictions on the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. It does not allow anyone to say anything they want. Some examples that have been upheld in courts are:
1. Obscenity - Many restrictions here.
2. Speech in schools - Kids cant wear anything on there clothes, etc.
3. Political speech - Anonymous advertising, etc.
4. Commercial speech - Must be truthful, etc.

That being said I go along with Leon policy of having a open forum. I also believe that anyone that makes statements towards other people should have there name up front. Full name not names with symbols. People that continue to liable other people without proof should be dealt with in some manner.

[T205 GB]

Probstein123 is my guess. Based on the religion comment.

It has been mentioned many times here about bidding practices in his auctions. Now he is feeling the effects of it due to the exposure and is washing the blame off on the board. Jmo

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Clayton, sorry buddy, but you're mistaken. There are limits to freedom of speech in this country. Just saying otherwise doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't think I can go any further with you on this.

cyseymour,

Sorry buddy, but I'm not mistaken. Actually Barry is correct. But, according to your logic, Rock Master Scott must have been arrested every time he performed this song live, right?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5B2Fzumzo8

I don't think I can go any further with you on this either. I hope people never buy into the theory that there are "limits to freedom of speech". You can be held accountable for what you say (example: seditious speech) but you are still free to say what you please in America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Probstein123 is my guess. Based on the religion comment.

It has been mentioned many times here about bidding practices in his auctions. Now he is feeling the effects of it due to the exposure and is washing the blame off on the board. Jmo

I wouldn't guess and I am not saying but It's not Probstein and not PWCC.....so just rule them out right now. Otherwise, it needs to stay private. The issue wasn't brought up to negatively affect someone as much as it was to make sure the policy is about as good as it can be. It is entirely, 100% impossible to please everyone. Party on and happy collecting....

[wolf441]

1. Leon, I believe that you've handled the situation correctly.
2. I never thought that a topic could actually make me look forward to a new Zone91 thread!

[cyseymour]

sorry, double post - was working off my cellphone. Pls delete. Thanks.

[nolemmings]

Clayton, your knowledge of the First Amendment is about as extensive of your knowledge of the Second Amendment, that is to say, limited.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on free speech, just as there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Your "rights" to these freedoms are not unfettered. The Supreme Court has said as much for years. Basically, you have no "right" to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre--such conduct can in appropriate circumstances be considered a crime. You have no right to instigate a riot. The rights of others to peaceably assemble trumps any "right" you may think you have in those circumstances. Moreover, if you go out and criticize your employer you have no "right of free speech" to claim when you get fired (absent certain whistleblower protections). You have no right as a felon to carry a weapon. Banks, schools, churches and others can prohibit you from carrying a weapon--you have no "Second Amendment right" to assert there.

I would agree with you in this statement that you made earlier though:

Lately, people are losing sight of what the "American Way" really means.

[Section103]

Maybe its been said upthread, but the 1st Amendment does not apply to Net54 in any way, shape or form. It only guarantees that "Congress shall pass no law". Congress isnt about to pass a law regarding Net54. You are not guaranteed the right to say whatever you want here, at your workplace or anywhere outside of the public arena. This is a private enterprise.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Clayton, your knowledge of the First Amendment is about as extensive of your knowledge of the Second Amendment, that is to say, limited.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on free speech, just as there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Your "rights" to these freedoms are not unfettered. The Supreme Court has said as much for years. Basically, you have no "right" to falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre--such conduct can in appropriate circumstances be considered a crime. You have no right to instigate a riot. The rights of others to peaceably assemble trumps any "right" you may think you have in those circumstances. Moreover, if you go out and criticize your employer you have no "right of free speech" to claim when you get fired (absent certain whistleblower protections). You have no right as a felon to carry a weapon. Banks, schools, churches and others can prohibit you from carrying a weapon--you have no "Second Amendment right" to assert there.

I would agree with you in this statement that you made earlier though:

Thanks for the compliment Todd.

The right to free speech and the right to bear arms, aside from being Constitutionally protected, are Natural rights. People have the right to say what they want, and the right to protect themselves, naturally.

Are you refering to the same Supreme Court who says it's ok for the government to make you purchase something by calling it a tax? Or, the same Supreme Court that says a "corporation" is a person?

I understand all of the legal jargon, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I believe we have natural rights.

Don't be so quick to assume I have limited knowledge when it comes to the first and second amendment. I may just have a different outlook on life than you do. My mind is free.

Sincerely, Clayton