Crosswords2 mins ago
Ab Censorship.
200 Answers
Hello AB.
On 02:26 Sun 10th Mar 2019, I posted the following question to the Editor's Blog:
“Why Do You Shut Down Active Threads?”
I then went on to explain why a thread involving me and a false allegation about me had been locked down, preventing any further debate. I received no reply.
Now, a week or so later, I return to see if the AB editors had anything to say on the matter. And lo and behold, the entire exchange on the Editor's Blog has been eviscerated from the site. It's as though my question was never asked. The original question thrown down Winston Smith's “Memory Hole” in true 1984 totalitarian fashion.
Nice one AB. Nice one. Censoring legitimate debate about the matter of legitimate debate. You must be so proud. I hope you sleep well at night in your beds, safe in the knowledge that you are the true custodians of morality and righteousness and that all opinions that differ from your own are illegitimate and morally deficient.
You censorious ***-wits. I don't normally swear on forums such as this but seeing as this post will likely be immediately deleted because of the criticism of AB rather than the profanity, I simply don't care anymore.
On 02:26 Sun 10th Mar 2019, I posted the following question to the Editor's Blog:
“Why Do You Shut Down Active Threads?”
I then went on to explain why a thread involving me and a false allegation about me had been locked down, preventing any further debate. I received no reply.
Now, a week or so later, I return to see if the AB editors had anything to say on the matter. And lo and behold, the entire exchange on the Editor's Blog has been eviscerated from the site. It's as though my question was never asked. The original question thrown down Winston Smith's “Memory Hole” in true 1984 totalitarian fashion.
Nice one AB. Nice one. Censoring legitimate debate about the matter of legitimate debate. You must be so proud. I hope you sleep well at night in your beds, safe in the knowledge that you are the true custodians of morality and righteousness and that all opinions that differ from your own are illegitimate and morally deficient.
You censorious ***-wits. I don't normally swear on forums such as this but seeing as this post will likely be immediately deleted because of the criticism of AB rather than the profanity, I simply don't care anymore.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
hc4361, //If you don't like the rules - go elsewhere.//
Firstly that isn’t helpful to the retention of a healthy membership, and secondly you’re missing the point entirely. It isn’t a case of not liking the rules – the rules are reasonable. The problem is that the rules are applied inconsistently – and in many instances interpreted by the zapper to align with his/her personal opinions or personal likes and dislikes of particular members here. Some people insult regularly and with apparent impunity – see this thread at 11:23 Mon - others laugh at a joke – and have the post zapped. No surprise that some people feel disgruntled.
Firstly that isn’t helpful to the retention of a healthy membership, and secondly you’re missing the point entirely. It isn’t a case of not liking the rules – the rules are reasonable. The problem is that the rules are applied inconsistently – and in many instances interpreted by the zapper to align with his/her personal opinions or personal likes and dislikes of particular members here. Some people insult regularly and with apparent impunity – see this thread at 11:23 Mon - others laugh at a joke – and have the post zapped. No surprise that some people feel disgruntled.
jno, that isn't helpful to a sensible and reasoned discussion. Birdie's point is that a false allegation was made against him and because the thread was inexplicably closed, he had no opportunity to set the record straight and he was given no explanation for the closure. Nevertheless the false allegation remains for all to read and potentially believe.
As previously stated, it is the inconsistency.
I've seen the AB Royalty (we know who they are) post comments and insults that would get yanked if other users posted them, and yet they remain for all to see.
A few months ago I posed what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question about Carl 'Nick' Beech - the Walter Mitty character at the centre of the VIP abuse inquiry, and the fact he had been charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. The story was widely reported in the papers, and yet the question was yanked. I have no idea why.
I've seen the AB Royalty (we know who they are) post comments and insults that would get yanked if other users posted them, and yet they remain for all to see.
A few months ago I posed what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question about Carl 'Nick' Beech - the Walter Mitty character at the centre of the VIP abuse inquiry, and the fact he had been charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. The story was widely reported in the papers, and yet the question was yanked. I have no idea why.
I like the AnswerBank which is why I’ve been around here for years, but I hate the loss of so many valuable members. I believe that if the mods were identified, as they are on other sites, not only would it serve to dispel the air of secrecy and consequent mistrust that exists, but it would encourage those who do abuse their position to carry out their duties more responsibly and with rather more consideration.
Birdie is an articulate and knowledgeable contributor and an asset to this site. I sincerely hope he continues to post.
Birdie is an articulate and knowledgeable contributor and an asset to this site. I sincerely hope he continues to post.
The judgment I referred endorsing which upheld the conviction of Sabaditsch-Wolff under Austrian law was made the ECHR.
In its summary it stated:
"57. The Court, in conclusion, finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydın Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.".
This is the full summary:
"57. The Court, in conclusion, finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydın Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."
The full document is here:
https:/
In its summary it stated:
"57. The Court, in conclusion, finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydın Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.".
This is the full summary:
"57. The Court, in conclusion, finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydın Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."
The full document is here:
https:/
AB censorship i never knew there was such a thing. I joke, of course I did i am subject to it almost daily. However, when i moan, i get a removed thread, if i moan again i get a suspension it seems birdie not only do you get the proud satisfaction of having a should be removedthread up to 56 answers but you also get to keep your status and make your point heard. Good show my chap.
However now i've got involved this will soon get closed. So lets have a hey hi and a ho bye before that happenes ay :)
However now i've got involved this will soon get closed. So lets have a hey hi and a ho bye before that happenes ay :)
Peter Pedant at 11:30, Anne:
"// It was a European Court ruling, pp. //
this is not a catch all - like in the sixties -" it is techonological dat is...." [ the white heat of the techonological revolution - Harold Wilson 1962]
or in the nineties " the computer says no"
chapter and verse please
(no please dont quip - "no you find it den!!")
I predict it will be a case where a treaty on free speech doesnt trump domestic legislation in this case
and that it has NOTHING to say to us except sometimes treaties render legislation inactive and sometimes they dont.
and no I cant say until you tell me which case you are talking about"
"// It was a European Court ruling, pp. //
this is not a catch all - like in the sixties -" it is techonological dat is...." [ the white heat of the techonological revolution - Harold Wilson 1962]
or in the nineties " the computer says no"
chapter and verse please
(no please dont quip - "no you find it den!!")
I predict it will be a case where a treaty on free speech doesnt trump domestic legislation in this case
and that it has NOTHING to say to us except sometimes treaties render legislation inactive and sometimes they dont.
and no I cant say until you tell me which case you are talking about"
Sometimes we all have to put on our big-girl (or big-boy) pants and accept that we aren't going to be able to have the last word on any issue.
I suggest those that feel this to be manifestly unfair cancel their subscription and demand a refund......oh, wait....
The t'interweb is a big enough place for those who believe it would be a crime to deprive the hoi-polloi of their views to find an alternative vehicle.
I suggest those that feel this to be manifestly unfair cancel their subscription and demand a refund......oh, wait....
The t'interweb is a big enough place for those who believe it would be a crime to deprive the hoi-polloi of their views to find an alternative vehicle.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
50 Years For Not Killing Or Raping
News4 mins ago
Body & Soul14 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
