Flag to: John Deere, OWK, annalex

Quote:

---

JD, in order to bring this unpleasant backroom proceeding to an end, why don't you set up a public thread for this business to be thrashed out. Nominate one person to act as "accuser" - perhaps tc would take that role, and limit authorised posters to the thread to you, the accuser and the accused, initially, to cut out the usual cacophony.

Other posters can be authorised as and when necessary.

The thread should start with the accuser laying out the charges and what "sentence" he thinks is appropriate.

---

Post Extras:

Just say it's nothing to do with you, or try to get the guy some help?


I'm sorry Randal, but as a libertarian I have to reject this line of reasoning.

Free men choose their own path.

We don't need jailers and keepers to "help" in the form of religious mafioso to keep us on the straight and narrow by harrassing our parents.

And I think you're being disingenuous when you suggest that "helping" was the intent of the actors in this little passion play.

They were trying to screw the guy.

Post Extras:

I won't stand for it either and will sooner leave this place than allow this to continue.

Post Extras:

OK.

Then the banning of WRS should proceed on these grounds: that the discovery of Zaphod's identity was a criminal act. Posting policies have nothing to do with this.

I am not convinced though that informing a parent that his son is undergoing a crisis of faith is a crime.

Post Extras:

On FR it used to be quite a popular passtime to sleuth out the identities of liberals who dared to post and then track them down and harrass their employer until they got fired. Apparently we are headed for that same fate here.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Look at it from WRS/ansar etc's point of view - you have an enthusiastic co-religionist suddenly vanish and then an aggressive atheist appears posting in his place.

Even once you establish that it really is the same person, how do you react? Just say it's nothing to do with you, or try to get the guy some help?

---

Quote:

---

What would you do if it were a devout Catholic you knew personally (even if indirectly)? And are you sure you wouldn't call his parents to try to help him in what you would presumably see as a serious mental and emotional crisis?

---

Post Extras:

tc:

My opinion on this is as follows:

1) It's evident that WRS and others engage in drama and intrigue outside LF
2) It's evident that WRS and others have had contact with Muslim/ZaphodBeeblebrox outside LF
3) WRS has revealed information that can link an LF identity to a tangible reality identity (MayflowerMusa)
4) #3 is not the first time WRS has violated the spirit of our privacy policy. In the case of #3, however, he actually violated the stated policy.
5) No one forced WRS to reveal his actual identity and yet he uses his identity to threaten legal action based on libel.
6) The tit-for-tat revelation of personal information seems to have escalated. Kudzu felt free to play word association games with MayflowerMusa's last name, someone else posted an article with links to Kudzu's tangible reality identity, and someone else commented on the geographical location of an LF member which resulted in frantic PMs to our moderators from WRS with the subject line "EMERGENCY."

As salacious as #s 1 and 2 may be, I don't find them actionable on our part. We have no control whatsoever over what one member chooses to reveal to another either on or off LF. Should a well-known politician be a member of LF and should he reveal his identity to someone on LF, we can only control whether he is "outed" in LF. If the person he confided in outs him outside LF and his writings on LF result in negative repercussions to his political career, it would be unfortunate but out of our control.

I would say that this does not leave any of you who suspect someone of acting to make life difficult for an LF member outside LF, without any recourse. You are well able to refuse to interact with the objectionable individual (shunning).

This leaves us with items 4-6. The identity of LibertyForum is as a platform for free-speech (with very few and specific limits) and its goal is to end coercion. A case can be made that, WRS has engaged in coercion of sorts intended to curb speech. This coercion has taken place via revelation of private information and through threats of legal action (based on his voluntary revelation of his identity). This is the area over which we do have some level of control.

First of all we have the issue of theological disagreement getting out of control and resulting in threats to life and liberty. From a practical standpoint, I have no burning desire to host content that might threaten the security of an individual outside LF (i.e. personally identifying information being posted on LF). In addition, I don't have the time to be screwing around with individuals that claim mortal wounds to their offline reputation as a result of their exchanges on LF and their subsequent threats of lawsuits. Were it up to me, I would have anyone that chooses to reveal their tangible reality name and identity, sign a disclaimer saying that they release LF from any liability as a result of choosing to go on their own name.

From a philosophical standpoint, I have a problem with people who are unable to restrict their activities to discussion and opt instead to threaten action outside LF in order to shut the opposition up, whether it be legal or physical. I find these activities to be in direct contravention of what LF was set up to be. In order for these events to be actionable, however, they must take place on LF and as a rule, in public.

The issue of ZaphodBeeblebrox may have merit, but not as presented. A reposting of a PM sent to individuals is not only a violation of ZaphodBeeblebrox's confidence (he could have posted publicly, should he so have wished), it is also hearsay. If ZaphodBeeblebrox is not willing to make charges himself, it is not for any of us to try to make his case for him.

He appears to have done the wisest thing which is to stop posting and thus stop the damage done as a result of his earlier disclosures to various individuals. I have not heard from him personally and am not about to make a case based on his purported PM without even knowing whether he wanted it distributed, much less try to examine the merits of his allegations. I would add that any efforts to try to force help onto him may be more counterproductive than helpful.

So what are we left with? An individual that has violated our policy relating to privacy and who violates the spirit of our non-coercive goals.

JD

Post Extras:

100% Agreed.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Apparently we are headed for that same fate here.

---

Post Extras:

As will I.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

What would you do if it were a devout Catholic you knew personally (even if indirectly)? And are you sure you wouldn't call his parents to try to help him in what you would presumably see as a serious mental and emotional crisis?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I am not convinced though that informing a parent that his son is undergoing a crisis of faith is a crime.

---

Post Extras:

I am not convinced though that informing a parent that his son is undergoing a crisis of faith is a crime.

The identity of Zaphodbeeblebrox was none of WRS's business.

Clearly ZBB did not wish his identity known.

His "crisis of faith" was his to deal with, and he was I'm sure as torn and tormented as anyone by it.

He simply changed his mind.

But from the standpoint of the Muslim fundamentalist, this is unacceptable.

To accept Allah, and then reject him is heresy.

So WRS's religion compels him to act in ways which are antithetical to liberty, and contrary to rights.

In short, WRS and his band of fundamentalist cohorts could give a flying fuck less about rights and liberty.

These people views themselves as having a responsibility to compel men to behave as they see fit, no matter WHAT.

They stop at nothing.

Harrassment, malice, systematic pursuit, threats of lawsuits, phone calls to dad, phone calls to the kids school to try and get him bounced.. all bullshit behavior.

And you defend it.

That is what I find most peculiar.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Apparently we are headed for that same fate here

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm sorry Randal, but as a libertarian I have to reject this line of reasoning.

Free men choose their own path.

We don't need jailers and keepers to "help" in the form of religious mafioso to keep us on the straight and narrow by harrassing our parents.

---

Quote:

---

And I think you're being disingenuous when you suggest that "helping" was the intent of the actors in this little passion play.

---

Quote:

---

They were trying to screw the guy.

---

Post Extras:

You appear headed for the same inaction which in my opinion promulgated this case.

Only next time, it'll be worse yet.

Each inaction is met with an even greater affront to the spirit and the letter of forum policy.

You're making a mistake not to act.

Post Extras:

Flag to: OWK, Earth_AD, Randal

All I am saying is that if the reason to ban WRS is that he, being a religious fundamentalist, acted like one, then you should make that reason clear, and pe prepared to ban everyone whose real life conduct falls short of libertarian principles.

Post Extras:

Good point. We are back to dealing with a fault not a crime. You can do it fine, no need for a popular jury.

Post Extras:

JD, there is the specific question of this post. Without it, we not would be having this discussion. It was clearly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of LF's policy.

I humbly suggest that you need to find a way to make sure it never happens again.

Edit: Warning. Clicking on the above link will take you to WRS' server unless you turn pics off first.

Post Extras:

We each have our bias on the religion aspect, but I would say that if a hardline atheist young friend of yours suddenly started posting as an aggressive moonie, you might
feel some concern for his mental and emotional well-being.


Perhaps I would yes.

But I would not feel it authorized me to disregard his obvious desire for anonymity, ferret out his identity by nefarious and previously condemned means, publicly post it, and foment others to harrass his parents. Call his school, and attempt to have him kicked out.

I would like to think I'd employ an attempt at changing his mind via reason, and to respect his decision as his own if I failed.

The fact that you equate these two paths, disappoints me greatly.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

behaving in a demonstrably irrational manner

---

Quote:

---

I would say that if a hardline atheist young friend of yours suddenly started posting as an aggressive moonie, you might
feel some concern for his mental and emotional well-being

---

Post Extras:

Flag to: John Deere, earth_ad

Quote:

---

So what are we left with? An individual that has violated our policy relating to privacy and who violates the spirit of our non-coercive goals.

---

Post Extras:

My take as well.

Post Extras:

He has one of those little gifs in the post you linked. You should edit in a warning so people can turn pics off before clicking it.

Post Extras:

Yes, dear.

Post Extras: