Quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you would just close your eyes and pretend all is well if someone used LF to gather data about the membership and then began harrassing that person's employer until they got fired -- just because it happened outside LF?

---

Post Extras:

Flag to: OWK, annalex

OWK:

Quote:

---

You're making a mistake not to act.

---

Post Extras:

Normally I would agree but apostacy is a capital offense among Muslims.

Post Extras:

Let us understand that you are advocating an ideological condition of membership.

Yes... I am advocating precisely that.

That each participates as a matter of conscience, and that all recognize that opinions worth having are acquired by persuasion, not the cyber-equivalent of force or fraud.

That is my minimum for participation here.

Post Extras:

I noticed in that exchange you posted that Bbox denied he was ever muslim

Where did I say that? He tried to convince his father that Zaph and Muslim were two different people. And, I assume, that he was not Zaph.

Post Extras:

I think it is incumbent on all of us to ruthlessly apply objective principles whether or not they meet our individual preferences.

That is precisely what I am trying to do.

Liberty Forum is a virtual community, not a real one.

But it is nevertheless a community. And if we are dedicated to and intend to "live" by libertarian principles, we must recognize first and foremost that ALL men must acquire and hold their views as a matter of conscience, and not as a result of threats, intimidation, and malicious abuse.

Inasmuch as we are a cyber community, it is clear that physical coercement of a member to force him to accept views contrary to those he would otherwise hold, is an impossibility on the forum. But I would hold that threats, intimidation, harassing phone calls, intervention into the lives of men to bring about mischief, are indeed the cyber-equivalent of force... inasmuch as they are undertaken for the sole purpose of intimidating or coercing an individual to embrace views contrary to the dictates of his conscience.

I find this particular instance to be doubly-damning, inasmuch as all of the participants (every one of them) know full well that they permanently stain the object of their ire as apostate, essentially condemning him to death in the lands from which he came.

You may ultimately choose to ignore what your know in your heart is malicious and disgusting abuse of another man... but I cannot be party to it.

Post Extras:

Where did I say that? He tried to convince his father that Zaph and Muslim were two different people. And, I assume, that he was not Zaph.

You didn't but I was reading some of Zaph's replies where he says he was never muslim and always an atheist.

Post Extras:

Far as I can see, Muslim's apostacy was simply entertaining gossip until ansar took it upon himself to inform the father. I see no evidence that anyone else knew that ansar knew the father.

If the facts are as described, then answer is guilty of a malicious act.

Post Extras:

In all fairness, he has never done it by stealth.

I'll tell you this: It's not bloody sporting.

Post Extras:

But when one poster takes it upon himself to spy upon the other members

The problem is that there is always a "but".

As in "I'm all for free speech, but...

It's the "but" that I can never get over.

Even when the offender is an ass...

Post Extras:

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.

Yup. Something he should have done in the first place if he had such serious issues that played in and out of the LF virtual world. It is common sense and caution. The unpleasantness of WRS aside, one must be responsible for one's own posting.

Post Extras:

As in "I'm all for free speech, but...

Free speech is intended to afford all the opportunity to voice their opinion, and to accept or reject what they will as a matter of conscience.

But veiled threats, overt threats of lawsuits, IP snooping to garner identity, calling parents with harrassing messages, calling schools to seek ouster... these things are not free speech.

They are absolutely contrary to free speech.

They have only one purpose.

To coerce others.

Post Extras:

Clearly ZBB did not wish his identity known.

Then he should have been bloody more careful about this whole thing, no? Sorry, it seems like too much melodrama here and not enough personal responsibility.

Post Extras:

Zviadist is a fundamentalist.

WTF???

Post Extras:

Then he should have been bloody more careful about this whole thing, no?

Or perhaps we should simply state that all views on Liberty Forum should be weighed and accepted or rejected as a matter of individual conscience, and that any attempts to bring about harrassment, threats, and malicious abuse of the members of it's community will demonstrate the abuser's unworthiness for inclusion in that community.

Post Extras:

In my understanding, you want the church to return to its roots. My apologies if I got it wrong.

Post Extras:

I vote for the second and hope you will continue to work with me to make this a shining example of reason and principle rather than an also ran cautionary tale. "Look at those poor libertarians, we warned them about those jihadis."

Sing it, brotha!

Post Extras:

OWK:

Quote:

---

if we are dedicated to and intend to "live" by libertarian principles, we must recognize first and foremost that ALL men must acquire and hold their views as a matter of conscience, and not as a result of threats, intimidation, and malicious abuse.

---

Quote:

---

But I would hold that threats, intimidation, harassing phone calls, intervention into the lives of men to bring about mischief, are indeed the cyber-equivalent of force... inasmuch as they are undertaken for the sole purpose of intimidating or coercing an individual to embrace views contrary to the dictates of his conscience.

---

Quote:

---

You may ultimately choose to ignore what your know in your heart is malicious and disgusting abuse of another man

---

Post Extras:

Free speech is intended to afford all the opportunity to voice their opinion, and to accept or reject what they will as a matter of conscience.

But veiled threats

There's always a but...

That's how FR got started.

Post Extras:

My apologies if I got it wrong.

Yeah. You did. No offense taken and I won't seek to have you banned.

Now why do you reject decent architecture and go for post post modernist crap? Far more important than this junior high school girl slam book crap.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Normally I would agree but apostacy is a capital offense among Muslims.

---

Post Extras:

This is where the problem lies. If said actions take place on LibertyForum, then we have a cause for action. If said activities take place outside LF said harassment, if sufficiently intense, should be taken up with the authorities for whatever locale the individual is living in.

They are taking place on Liberty Forum.

Your website is being systematically mined, for the IP addresses of it's participants.

Your website is being used to issue direct threats of malicious prosecution.

Your website is being used to foment the systematic abuse of certain of it's participants, because they don't worship the right God.

Your website is being used to post veiled threats and intimidation.

The ability to posters to converse, exchange opinion, and express themselves as a matter of conscience is being subverted.

I believe that if we are to extend the community metaphor, you've got a couple of punks running around the neighborhood threatening little old ladies.. And you have to decide whether the community is pacifist, or whether it is entitled to employ force in it's own defense by expelling the punks.

There is nothing libertarian whatsoever about allowing what is going on, to continue.

Free speech is being subverted, not defended.

With all due respect, I don't know anything.

I believe that we know plenty enough to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

All I know is that someone took it upon himself to post an individual's private correspondence without his apparent permission, and what I've seen (disclosures of personal information, threats of lawsuits, etc.) and I can tell you that these particular events are not acceptable within the context of our goals and principles.

We know that threats of malicious lawsuits are routinely made to silence rival opinion.

We know that information is mined to establish real identification, to intimidate.

We know that this information is shared amongst a network of intimidators.

We know that pictures of peoples' places of employment are posted to intimidate.

We know that people's parents, and schools are called by people who would clearly prefer this not happen.

C'mon JD... enough is enough.

This isn't free speech.

It is used to coerce those engaging in free speech.

Post Extras:

This is not such a clear cut situation, although those who dislike WRS would like to make it such regardless of the weight of evidence available.

This is a clear-cut situation. And, contrary to what you claim, those who denounce what he did do not necessarily dislike him. I, for one, do not. I'd like to meet the old fart and listen to his war stories. I'm sure it would make a great evening. I do dislike Kudzu. However I have not called for any sanctions against her.

Post Extras:

The parents might have been indifferent Muslims but once apostacy is brought to their attention, they would have to do something about it. Apostacy is a much more serious offense among Muslims than it is among Christians. Its a death sentence. Being kicked out of school is the least of his worries if papa is a serious Muslim.

Post Extras:

Does it make any difference if Z/Muslim is a minor?

I don't know that he is, but given the level of the alleged parental involvement in his life, I have to wonder.

Does anybody know Z's age?

Post Extras: