Should the Dehlin/Rosebud drama be deleted?

[jpatterson]

To be fair, Shades could decide tomorrow that anyone who has not attended a Perfume concert will have their posts removed, and it would be perfectly within his rights to do so, as we are using his asset and subject to whatever rules he decides upon.

Okay? I have, multiple times, acknowledged this point. Why are there now 14 pages in this thread if the point is not to discuss our various opinions?

In other words, what's your point?

[Marcus]

Just so I understand, you think this thread is clearly implying that Rosebud should be banned? Could you explain how you have come to that?

Don't want to get into an argument with you but I interpreted the title as suggesting she should be banned which is why I said earlier that I don't think she should be banned. There are two points in the poll question and because I would say yes to one point and no to the other I haven't answered the poll. I guess it's down to interpretation but it can be read as that. I know it doesn't literally say that but that was what I read it as so if someone else has then maybe they read it the way I did.

I see. It's been quite clearly explained that the title does NOT suggest she should be banned, but ask Shades if you need further understanding of that.

Also, starting your posts to me with things like "Don't want to get into an argument with you but..." is a passive-aggressive technique that you employ frequently. You can just give your opinion, especially since you quoted a question I asked someone else, not you.

[canpakes]

To be fair, Shades could decide tomorrow that anyone who has not attended a Perfume concert will have their posts removed, and it would be perfectly within his rights to do so, as we are using his asset and subject to whatever rules he decides upon.

Okay? I have, multiple times, acknowledged this point. Why are there now 14 pages in this thread if the point is not to discuss our various opinions?

In other words, what's your point?

I’m responding to your 9:08 and 9:10 posts, with the point being that accusations of censorship for moving the thread don’t hold a lot of water, in my opinion.

If you’ve come around on that one, then I’m glad to see that happen.

[jpatterson]

I’m responding to your 9:08 and 9:10 posts, with the point being that accusations of censorship for moving the thread don’t hold a lot of water, in my opinion.

If you’ve come around on that one, then I’m glad to see that happen.

And you responded by saying my opinion doesn't matter since Dr. Shades makes the rules.

So why are we here giving our opinions?

[canpakes]

I’m responding to your 9:08 and 9:10 posts, with the point being that accusations of censorship for moving the thread don’t hold a lot of water, in my opinion.

If you’ve come around on that one, then I’m glad to see that happen.

And you responded by saying my opinion doesn't matter since Dr. Shades makes the rules.

So why are we here giving our opinions?

Because you want to be.

[jpatterson]

Moving an ENTIRE 185-page thread to a less- or completely not visible place on the forum in response to one post people find objectionalbe, as Shades has suggested he is considering doing, is tantamount to censorship, on top of being complete overkill.

[IWMP]

Don't want to get into an argument with you but I interpreted the title as suggesting she should be banned which is why I said earlier that I don't think she should be banned. There are two points in the poll question and because I would say yes to one point and no to the other I haven't answered the poll. I guess it's down to interpretation but it can be read as that. I know it doesn't literally say that but that was what I read it as so if someone else has then maybe they read it the way I did.

I see. It's been quite clearly explained that the title does NOT suggest she should be banned, but ask Shades if you need further understanding of that.

Also, starting your posts to me with things like "Don't want to get into an argument with you but..." is a passive-aggressive technique that you employ frequently. You can just give your opinion, especially since you quoted a question I asked someone else, not you.

I started like that as a defence because I get anxiety when I respond to you. This is me basically saying don't start on me. Not passive aggressive.

I expressed that it is how I read it and acknowledge that I probably read it wrong but if I read it like that then others may have too. Am I not allowed to respond to questions posed to others?

ETA:

Should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban accusations of criminal conduct?

Quite clearly says ban accusations of criminal conduct which rosebud has done. So therefore, quite clearly could lead one to think shades is asking should she be banned. If this has been explained to the contrary in the thread then I have missed it as others may well have.

[jpatterson]

Because you want to be.

As do you.

[Dr Exiled]

Here is what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says and it protects sites like this one from posters like Rosebud, bent on defaming:

Section 230 of Communications Act
Section 230 is a pivotal provision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 230). It provides immunity from liability for online platforms and services that host user-generated content, as long as they do not create the content themselves.

Key Provisions:
No liability for user-generated content: Providers of interactive computer services (e.g., social media platforms, online forums) are not liable for third-party content, including defamatory, obscene, or illegal material.
Good Samaritan protection: Providers are shielded from liability for removing or editing content they deem inappropriate, as long as they act in “good faith.”
No prior review required: Providers are not obligated to review or approve user-generated content before it is posted.
Interpretations and Implications:
Immunity for online platforms: Section 230 has been interpreted to grant broad immunity to online platforms, shielding them from lawsuits and legal liability for user-generated content.
Encourages online expression: By providing a safe harbor for online platforms, Section 230 has been credited with fostering a vibrant and diverse online environment, where users can express themselves freely.
Criticism and controversy: Some argue that Section 230 has been misinterpreted or overused, allowing platforms to avoid accountability for harmful or illegal content. Others contend that repealing or modifying the provision would stifle online innovation and freedom of speech.
Recent Developments and Debates:
Bipartisan efforts to reform: In 2020, the House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed bipartisan legislation to reform Section 230, aiming to hold platforms accountable for harmful content while preserving their ability to moderate user-generated content.
Executive Order: In 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order aimed at regulating online speech, which some interpreted as an attempt to undermine Section 230.
Supreme Court cases: The Supreme Court has taken up several cases related to Section 230, including Google v. Perfect 10 (2005) and Twitter v. Taamneh (2020), which have further shaped the provision’s interpretation.
In Summary:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity for online platforms and services hosting user-generated content, as long as they do not create the content themselves. While this provision has been credited with fostering online expression and innovation, it has also been criticized for allowing platforms to avoid accountability for harmful or illegal content. Ongoing debates and legislative efforts aim to strike a balance between preserving online freedom of speech and promoting accountability for online platforms.

As far as allowing the posts, obsession to continue doesn't bother me. Other posters here have continually exposed it for what it is and so perhaps the child will some day finally cry herself to sleep and move on, in 20 years or so. And frankly, her obsession might have driven some to take a look at her obsession. Having groupies does bring the band some notoriety.

[drumdude]

Res Ipsa seemed to be the driving force behind worrying that Rosebud might drag the forum into a legal battle.

Unfortunately he’s no longer here to explain his position. It does seem that the board is protected under the above law.