everyone loves contracting

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Stephen,

there are days when I just wonder....

[Dustin James]

Are you representing Jim and the LO when you talk about the limiting of free speech on this board?

Yes, I'm Jim's unhinged 300 lb. Samoan attorney, Dr. Gonzo... and you are badgering my client --clearly you'll get arrested and tortured by redneck deputies....not to mention the snake pit...

Lighten up Stephen. It's just a blog... and you are a guest.

You conveniently dropped the censorship part of my statement..."on any holy grounds of censorship or freedom of speech is misplacing the argument." Which simply points to your getting all bent over DL applying the terms of the site....as in censorship....get it?

The argument was about copyrighted material. The images were not copyrighted nor were they taken by an American photographer. I did not copy or paste any written material.

Technically any work created by an author is automatically copyrighted, so it gets down to what chance one wants to take. It can be registered for copyright up to 5 years after publication. I guess you think you are right....or have rights...or something. But if the Observer chooses to enforce it's terms of service on any grounds, based on their judgment-- dude they can. A little copyright background...
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

You also ignored my statement --

I don't know who pays for the servers to be maintained on this site. I know it's provided "as is" and not something that can- or should be taken for granted....

I'm quite serious about this. Do you think you have rights? Are you paying for this service as a personal forum? I happen to like some of your posts. I like and hate many posts here. But anybody can be booted for terms of service pretty much everywhere on the net. Didn't you get the memo?

Again....do you think you have rights here? Please answer this, because I want everyone to know what our collective "rights" are here on the deck....and how can we pay for more. Oh that's right, it's free.

[Stephen Eisel]

I'm quite serious about this. Do you think you have rights? Are you paying for this service as a personal forum? I happen to like some of your posts. I like and hate many posts here. But anybody can be booted for terms of service pretty much everywhere on the net. Didn't you get the memo?

Again....do you think you have rights here? Please answer this, because I want everyone to know what our collective "rights" are here on the deck....and how can we pay for more. Oh that's right, it's free

Again, are these the views of LO and Jim or just your rantings?
Again, I have no problem with limited free speech on a board or censorship. Just make it clear what the boundaries are...

[Stephen Eisel]

Technically any work created by an author is automatically copyrighted, so it gets down to what chance one wants to take. It can be registered for copyright up to 5 years after publication. I guess you think you are right....or have rights...or something. But if the Observer chooses to enforce it's terms of service on any grounds, based on their judgment-- dude they can. A little copyright background...
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

Pictures have to be registered.

[dl meckes]

Boundaries are not clear cut. I would not expect that someone would link to an image that is not his that shows an abused corpse.

Deck readers cannot rely on Deck administrators to censor every post that might "cross the lines" but it is the opinion of the LO advisors who weighed in on the question, that the image you linked to was not yours and was offensive.

The addresses to the images were not deleted.

The right of free speech is one that concerns limitations that the government may or may not impose on the citizens of this country. The LO is not the government. Private entities do not have to guarantee free speech.

I'm sorry that the advisors and our lawyer did not have the foresight to specifically add to the list of caveats, "Don't post images that show abused corpses." Frankly, the thought that anyone would consider doing so didn't come into our conversations.

While readers cannot expect that there will be censorship or moderation, or that each post will be reviewed for objectionable material, that doesn't mean that it won't happen.

Because another poster has addressed this issue, it does not mean that he has any principle connection to the LO. Mr. James does have a long-standing personal connection to some in the LO project. I have been proud to call him my friend for more years than I can remember. I did not solicit his opinion about this matter.

[Stephen Eisel]

Deck readers cannot rely on Deck administrators to censor every post that might "cross the lines" but it is the opinion of the LO advisors who weighed in on the question, that the image you linked to was not yours and was offensive.

This is a good enought answer for me.. Thanks

[Stephen Eisel]

The right of free speech is one that concerns limitations that the government may or may not impose on the citizens of this country. The LO is not the government. Private entities do not have to guarantee free speech.

That is definitely clear when you are moderating thanks for putting up with me

[dl meckes]

Knowing that the LO is not the government should allow us all to sleep better.

[Phil Florian]

Sadly, this discussion of "rights" and "Censorship" on the internet took away from Ryan's original post. Seems today in the paper that the love of mercenary forces in Iraq is on the wane. There was an interesting editorial by a person who was "protected" by Blackwater employees. She was very glad to see them go. They had total disdain for all Iraqi's, assumed everyone was a terrorist, drove ridiculous speeds that actively endangered others, and caused collateral damage to property and persons with no way the Iraqi people to seek redress (since we made mercenary forces immune to both US and Iraqi law). They were hostile to citizens which is counter to the US military which attempts to build relationships. They destroy with no responsibility when the US military must buy what it breaks. And yet they are also better paid and supposedly better equipped than our own troops. Nice. We are clearly paying these mercs a bit too much and maybe some of this money needs to head back into the field into our troop's hands.

Also, should we be encouraging private armies to be built up on our soil? Well equipped, well trained private armies? It is one thing to have armed citizens walking the streets like well-heeled cowboys but another to have a private army setting up shop in the neighborhood.

[Dustin James]

Again, are these the views of LO and Jim or just your rantings?
Again, I have no problem with limited free speech on a board or censorship. Just make it clear what the boundaries are...

For sure, strictly my rantings with no contact with Jim or the LO. Although I apologize if it sounded too much like ranting. Just was hoping to get to place where it looks like you reached above. No more no less.

Thanks Stephen

.

[Kenneth Warren]

Stephen:

I am glad you see us landing in a mutually satisfying zone of communication and exchange.

As you know the LO is a work-in-progress and I serve as an advisor. So I offer that we consider the exchange a civics lesson in the value of self-censorship when considering the suitability of an in-your-face dissemination of a graphic image potentially upsetting to the sensitive souls drawn to the LO Deck.

It's a matter of neighborly consideration, courtesy and respect for the queasy and easily troubled.

As did all the advisors I believe dl made a reasonable judgment call in light the project’s civic aims and the sensibilities drawn to participate in our neighborhood civic communication platform.

The discourse on the LO Deck generally avoids the potty mouth syndrome and people generally get the gist and pursue the delicate art of the neighborly high ground. That’s self-censorship at its finest.

Kenneth Warren

[Mark Crnolatas]

A note about Blackwater and the other private military contractors. Blackwater and a few others over there are doing work that in many cases the Iraqi's are not proficient at doing themselves.

It is known that Blackwater and other similar companies are also doing (intel) work that is highly classified, my guess ibeing n some information gathering role, that we need, and cannot obtain by any other means.

This brings up my point about the U.S. media. We the people do NOT need to always know what every aspect of the military is doing, and to put it on the front page across the world. In my opinion, it is best to leave the spook work and anything else that helps make our troops more effective in general, to the people that know what they're doing, and it is our job not to feed any helpful information to the enemy.

FWIW
Mark Allan Crnolatas

[ryan costa]

What would Pinkerton have charged