# *********Censorship or Moderation?

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 10, 1999 at 09:52:49 {AAJB0ph6mYrRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: ********Censorship or Moderation? posted by Marquis on November 10, 1999 at 09:09:43:

Marquis

> According to that FPP statement links should be deleted to copyrighted material when that copyrighted material exists without authorization by the legal copyright owner.

> This is ridiculous, and a rule made to be able to "remove" unwanted information. Since when did anyone need to ask permission to link to anything online?

If you do not like this site’s participation policy then I suggest you take that up with its administrators. As it stands there are only two questions needing answer on whether to deleted a link to suspected publication of copyrighted material, 1) whether the material in question is copyrighted and 2) whether it is published without authorization by its legal owner.

- Do you deny that the material in question is copyrighted? Yes or no?

- Do you contend that Kent has authorization from the copyright owner to publish their material? Yes or no?

  If you answer, “No” to both the above then there is nothing left to debate on the issue of whether Kent’s link was rightfully deleted according to the standing participation policy of this forum.

  > You accuse Kent of doing your errors. You assume Kent is guilty because you feel he is - and that he should be convicted.

  Show me where I have assumed Kent is guilty and should be convicted of anything. According to you that should be easy enough. So show us.

  Here are Kent’s words:

  > The Watchtower did file a complaint to the police against me - and the police has dropped the case!!!

  > I did not do anything illigal - and that's that.

  With those words Kent presumes himself innocent of copyright infringement. Since that is Kent’s contention then let him prove it true. “The police has dropped the case” does not equate with innocence or guilt. It just demonstrates one thing and one thing only, that the police dropped the case, nothing more.

  Apparently you conclude that what a policeman does or says concludes the matter. Is that how you feel? If a policemen tells me that you are a murderer should that be the end of the matter or would you prefer a trial presided over by a judge (perhaps also with a jury)?

  What if the police had not dropped the case against Kent, would that make him guilty? Certainly that would not make him guilty any more than dropping it makes him innocent.

  In this case Kent asserts he has not infringed on a copyright. He has nothing but his presumption to support that assertion. Well, for Kent that presumption might work just fine, he may be comfortable with it. But others may not sit so well with only a presumption when the copyright is official and in writing and authorization to publish is not as evident. Without an accompanying and similar authorization surely even you can realize hesitancy to get involved. If Kent wants to duke it out with the Society more power to him. That is his prerogative. It is the prerogative of this site’s founders to distinguish and prohibit what they consider unauthorized publication of copyrighted material or links to it.

  You still have not addressed my questions challenging your appraisal of H2O. Why is that?

  Friend

  Follow Ups:

  Post a Followup

  Name:
  E-Mail:

  Subject: **********Censorship or Moderation?

  Comments:

  Optional Link URL:
  Link Title:
  Optional Image URL:

  [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]