Mr. Tidwell said
It’s my understanding that it is up to scottie to ban him, and he is generally really busy and doesn’t come into the board that much.

There was a discussion about whether he should be banned a while ago and a lot of people said if he promised to behave he shouldn’t be banned. He gave some weak, empty ass apology and scottie told him to chill and that everythings good as far as I remember. And then here we are.

And yeah, this is definitely not a question of freedom of speech and as scruffy said even if it was, smacks constant harassment actually violates the “freedom of speech”. 

^this^ was what I was looking for. The actual process involved. Good lookin out.

I feel like giving an opinion on whether or not he should be banned has been discussed/debated/argued ad nauseam at this point buuuuuuut just for the fuck of it

krunkazphuk said
Maybe freedom of speech isn’t just a political (government) thing, but something certain people live by. Have you considered that most mods (and possibly Scottie) don’t want to start banning people because it would likely not stop at one member once the gates are opened?

I’m all for freedom of speech but I also know what it actually is. It isn’t a vague idea of censorship or a lifestyle choice but a defined, legal concept. It allows (in theory anyway) citizens to speak publicly without government censorship. That’s it. Again, Faygoluvers is not the government so it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. If a company/business/website wants to stifle an opinion, it/they are absolutely allowed to do that so long as they aren’t (in theory) funded by government.

In regards to mods/Scotty not wanting to ban because it would be opening the flood gates, I had thought of that but didn’t know if that was THE reason why it hadn’t happened yet. What’s the reasoning and what’s the process, ya know? Was simply looking for some information.

krunkazphuk said

CellE2057 said  
…I’m all for freedom of speech but I also know what it actually is. It isn’t a vague idea of censorship or a lifestyle choice but a defined, legal concept. It allows (in theory anyway) citizens to speak publicly without government censorship. That’s it. Again, Faygoluvers is not the government so it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. If a company/business/website wants to stifle an opinion, it/they are absolutely allowed to do that so long as they aren’t (in theory) funded by government…
 

Congratulations on having THE correct answer. Good luck with that. Lifestyle choices may be central to who people are, and if you think censorship is a vague idea consider how stale it would be if ICP got arrested on stage every time they said stuff like “I’m that nigger that your bitch would die for.” I wouldn’t be here if one person (like Scottie or Mrs. Scottie) decided who stayed and who went. Fuck fascism. Happy Juggalo Weekend, bitches.

If by “THE correct answer” you mean “know definitions of things” than, thank you. I do indeed have THE correct answer. I’m completely against censorship of almost any kind. Can’t think of an example of where I’m pro censorship honestly. Shit, I’m pretty sure we’d agree more than disagree with one another on censorship. Considering both of us have been called “bigots” on here multiple times because we’ve said that people should be able to say what they want. If it came down to one person dictating who stayed and who left, I’d have to question whether or not to stay too. This forum is pretty damned self policing, which is why I’m still here but have bailed on almost every other form of social media. 

My point wasn’t against free speech, @krunkazphuk. Just saying that this situation has nothing to do with it. Because Freedom of Speech only applies to citizen(s) against government. There’s no government censorship happening therefor….see what I’m sayin?

ICP vs. Police = Freedom of Speech issue because it involves government censorship.

Scruffy vs. Smack ≠ Freedom of Speech issue because it doesn’t involve government censorship.

this