Growing Pains

Friday, March 03, 2006

Being the admin of an important and "known" online website/blog/forum is a tough job.

Over the years, Boycott-Riaa.com has been a prime destination for folks who give-a-damn about the evils perpetuated by the (now mostly foreign owned) corporations upon the American recording industry against the citizens and would-be consumers of music. In all that time, we have made many friends and had a lot of sucsess in "getting the word out" about who we are and what our agenda is all about.

One thing we, overall, as an online site/community have always believed in is freedom of expression.

However, (and I am only speaking as myself ...and in my own opinion) I think Boycott-Riaa has been TOO permissive about what we have continually allowed the TROLLS to get away with in our forums.

Free speech is one thing. But should a Nazi be allowed to go to a synagogue and write pro-Hitler messages on the blackboard? Should an Environmental Liberation Front member be allowed to deface an oil companies newsletter? Should the Democrats be allowed to have hackers take over the GOP websites?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Boycott-Riaa will always CONTINUE to allow respectfull debate over the issues and agenda....

But damnit, our site is NOT a "neutral" place. WE ARE BIASED PROPAGANDA FOR OUR SIDE!!!

This is OUR chalkboard and OUR megaphone!

Those pesky trolls with personal "beefs" against other members (or admin/owners of this site) have the rest of the Internet to "get ugly" against us if they so wish.

But CRAP will no longer be tolerated at Boycott-Riaa!

Call me, or leflaw, or any of our appointed admin/techs/mods nasty names if you want.

But damnit, if you are being abusive to other members OR are found in our judgement to be consistantly deliberately derailing and/or side-tracking the PURPOSE of this site...

EXPECT to have your post deleted. EXPECT your ass to be banned.

=============

Disagreements about ISSUES are still always welcome.

BUT TROLLS ARE TROLLS.

We are DONE playing around.

This is BOYCOTT-RIAA

It is NOT an "open forum"

============

(I appologize to all for letting my beliefs in freedom of speech to cloud my judgement in the past in regards to OUR freedom to speak in our OWN mind in our own website/forum.)

We tried to be FAIR to everybody,

(but what we ended up with was a situation where we'd let miscreant children run amok and track up our floors with muddy feet.)

Meaning,Long story short? Free speech and free expression will not be tolerated. PERIOD!

thewiretapir, that is NOT what I said.

Get a grip.

independentmusician

I'm shocked at you. You for the most part knew that banning people from the site was bad. And judging from the weak turnout in the posts, it has! I choose you to write to because I figure you're the only one with a sound mind around here anymore. Do the right thing, allow all the members to have a free voice. Even the trolls just may have something good to say every once in a while. You're all making yourselves look bad with these declarations of censorship and outright threats. Remember musician, if everything fails, it's not the irrational individuals like some who are going to take the blame. It will be you!

thewiretapir,

What do you want?

Should we turn our chalkboard/megaphone over to the masses? Should you and I both have our voice-boxes only utter the things that anyone (yes, ANYONE) comes up and whispers in our ear to say?

We have worked HARD for this site over many years FOR THE PURPOSE of saying what our very NAME (boycott-riaa) implies.

...just because WE who own/control/moderate this site believe in "freedom of speech" does NOT mean that we should pass OUR megaphone to the enemies and distractionists.

(They can start their OWN damn websites!)

WE are NOT stopping them. (We wouldn't even WANT anyone to unfairly stop them from it.)

Here, somebody start a site called:

"boycott-boycott-riaa"

(That's what all the leechy blood-sucking TROLLS who have been clinging to our fur should do.)

And, for the record, I have NEVER banned anyone in my entire time as the admin here.

(And, from what I understand, leflaw has only temporarily blocked a few user-names from posting, PENDING re-contact with HIM.)

===========

Folks, you don't have to like me or leflaw, or dmusic, OR what Boycott-Riaa itself stands for to be able to post here.

But you DO have to be reasonably RESPECTFUL in OUR HOUSE!

So far, word-for-word, what "thewiretapir" said above in this thread is NOT considered "beyond the pale" ...although I do have a slight suspicion that "thewiretapir" is possibly yet another user-name of one of our regular trolls trying to trip me up on all of this. (...the response was too quick and "pouncy" upon me/our agenda. Our "trolls" unfortunately are sometimes more likely to pay more attention to what we do at Boycott-Riaa than the intended audience)

Ok, rip my tin-foil paranoid hat off my head now.

...but who else here agrees with me that our site/forums have lately mostly only been a useless game of "whack-a-mole" against the trolls?

SHOULD we "crack down" in our own house as to what gets written on the sign displayed in the yard?

Are we "Boycott-Riaa" or are we "Write Your Own Message Here"

=================

Convince us as to what, which. or other.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in public. But if someone comes into your house and starts screaming at you, you can kick their ass and throw them out because your house is not a public place.

This is an open forum, but it is privately owned, which means that the owner and/or anyone acting on their behalf, has the legitimate right to determine where the line is. So leflaw owns the place and he left Shmoo in charge. It's Shmoo's Place -- like a bar where you have to bring your own refreshments but everyone can bitch about shit and have FRIENDLY arguments.

And just like every other club in the country, there's a sign above the dusty, unused cash register that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Why do people have such a problem with this concept? This is not about Freedom of Speech. If it were, you couldn't say "fuck".

It's about pissing off the guy behind the bar. That's Shmoo. Piss him off and you're outta here.

(Thank you GZ! ...you don't know how much what you just said meant to me!)
-------------------------------------------

I try hard to one of the most tolerant persons anyone will ever meet in this world.

...but THIS site is BOYCOTT-RIAA folks!

WE HAVE A PURPOSE AND AGENDA!

Go get 'em, Shmoo!

Freedom of speech is about feeling free to voice your opinions...it's not about being free to abuse others.

Most "reasonable" people understand this.

It's just one of the immutable Laws of the Universe.
•Bartender is Supreme Ruler of the Bar
•Admin is the Supreme Ruler of the Domain.
•There's an Asshole in Every Crowd

gdZiemann Great speech, right on as usual. Shmoo, you and leflaw have every right to control what goes on here....are we still allowed "off topic" stuff in the sound off area, like my "girdle story"?

I honestly do not understand why gad has made it a 1 person mission in life to disrupt this site.
It has to be a strictly personal vendetta.

Gad keeps coming back with name after name as though nothing else in it's life has any meaning. It's almost sad.

Some trolls have personal vendettas.
Some trolls receive reimbursement for causing disruption.
Some trolls thrive on posting for attention's sake.
Most trolls have issues or unmet needs.

— Dr. OldCodger, PhD of Psychiatric Analysis and Therapy
(Just kidding, foks!)

"foks" = folks

Where's that elusive edit button when you need it?

thewiretapir
172.162.204.233

We are on it.

If its the same AOL block, we will supplement our complaint. No further warning. AOL will respond with ID info; we have done this before.

Signed,

Leflaw the psycho.

172.162.204.233 traced to: ACA2CCE9.ipt.aol.com

Man, some poor bastards IP is out there and when he finds out he's going to sue this website and its owner.

Whats even more funny..Thats not my IP address.

More insane antics I suppose

Hmm, maybe that "whack-a-mole" analogy isn't too far off the mark.
Sometimes a mole can show up here, then over there, and after that somewhere else -- along with occasional change of name.

"What's even more funny...Thats not my IP address."

So, are you using random proxy servers or something?

Actually, the weirdest thing of all is how you stay so determined over a several year period of time to continue to make trouble for somebody.

"If someone [Gadfly/Sweetie] has that much energy to hound us all these years . . ."

. . . they are damned and determined to keep pushing unless something dramatic happens to stop them.

thewiretapir said: "You're all making yourselves look bad with these declarations of censorship..."

If you have time, watch this 1986 interview on CNN's Crossfire with Frank Zappa, John Lofton (Washington Times) and Robert Novak about censorship. I think it's excellent! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6526525473785351949&q=frank+zappa

zapp's a jerk.

he needs a vocabulary for Christmas.

I've never been a big Zappa fan, comp. But did you watch the video?

I thought Zappa showed admirable restraint, and a lot of class.

Government censorship of words - thats what the first amendment is about.

Novak and Braden got it. Lofton was idiotic.

Zappa predicted a fascist theocracy in the US.
What say you all?

check this out:

http://www.dmusic.com/forum/music/21539

zappa said "they're just words", but we are judged by our words all the time

government censorship: this is a day-long debate question...gov't can be the best and the worst (as of a long time it is the latter), and it is supposed to be limited by the people

if it censors words, the next thing you know it's censoring thoughts...and we must take care in this area for it is fraught with danger either way

on an aside re the gov't, 9/11/01 was an inside job [why did wtc7 fall?

see this: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html ]

words?...you better not say "fire" in a theater, or "bomb" on an airplane...

i have always dug zappa's music, but he is off-base on this to a degree

as far as monitoring/censoring this site by the admins , there is no question: have at it!...it is yours and should be kept up as best as you can

i eat sleep breathe music (blues, rock, hard rock, bluegrass, jazz, etc...) i play lead guitar, been a drummer all my life, play keyboards, studied formally the theory of music, am interested in fine recordings (which is the indies weakest suit), love the recordings of many riaa artists, spend considerable time looking for good indie music on the net (so i can play along!), and my idea of a guitar player is somewhere in the neighborhood of hendrix, bonamassa, srv, kenny wayne shepherd, etc., and i am a christian saved by Jesus

no, we don't have a fascist theocracy today...just a fascist oligarchy...as in New World Order (which is Satanic)

keep it real...and don't kid yourself...we're all gonna die soon enough...and...

words...what about words from that creep that keeps coming on this forum with his CRAP (adequate word, don't you think?) about pedophile rights...give me a break...the gov't should lock him and his predator friends up for a long, long time (either that or the death penalty...doesn't matter much either way)

God doesn't want anyone to perish, but He will not condone sin in His presence...but that pervert still has an opportunity to get right with God before he passes on from this to the next life (or death)...

Bible-thumper? no, but i know it says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

finally, down with the avarice and thought-control from greedy, misguided recording companies who don't understand music and the love thereof

and God bless boycott-riaa.com

What never really got said in that interview, but started to ...

Words are used to express thoughts.
Controlling words is a step towards controlling thoughts.

Lofton never did get around to saying exactly who IS worthy enough to decide for everyone else which words OTHERS can be allowed to use to express their thoughts. God did he sound familiar .

According to Zappa..they are "just words" and as such mean very little by the off handed way he was handling the interview. I suppose he would think singing about condoning kiddie porn would be all right as well....just words indeed!

This whole site here is "just words" and look at the arguments that come up?

Phone sex is a whole huge business based on "just words" and it thrives....unfortunately.

Kids have killed themselves over some of those "just words" in music....Zappa was way off base here...

Agreed.
I've never understood the old sweeping-generalization about how "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can harm me none." (It's patently absurd to say words can't cause harm.)

"Words are used to express thoughts.
Controlling words is a step towards controlling thoughts."

Well articulated.

". . . exactly who IS worthy enough to decide for everyone else which words OTHERS can be allowed to use to express their thoughts."

You can almost hear the resounding rhetorical answer that immediately comes to mind: "nobody!"

Lofton was a flaming asshole.
Novak was and is a douchebag.

and for the "just words" crowd, listen to the interview again. It's about the 7 banned words
made famous by George Carlin. Only FZ and , of all people, John Denver showed up at the Congressional hearings to fight against the censorship of music lyrics. His point is who gets to decide when an artists' mouth gets washed out with soap.

Listen to "We're only in it for the money" if you want to hear a really scathing critique of the RIAA. FZ was so disgusted with the labels that he formed his own, Barking Pumpkin. Frank was decades ahead of his time.

As for the power of words just two, enemy combatant, uttered in the same sentence as your name by Bush will strip you of all your Constitutionally guaranteed rights, make you disappear and probably get you tortured as well. Lofton probably has no problem with that. Fascist oligarchy indeed.

perhaps we should just use the N word, let white supremisist litriture in schools, tell our wives that dress does make her look fat. after all they're just WORDS and unimportant. we can let the listener decide weather they want to hear them or not.

and yes Lachette I did see the vid and that's all he could say "they're just words". He also said music videos are not pornogrophy. the only difference between many music vids and porn is there's sometimes a better musical score, sometimes. If we let our kids watch music vids then lets not have a rating system. just words after all. not important and not harmful.

that's why I don't respect him.

"and yes Lachette I did see the vid and that's all he could say "they're just words". He also said music videos are not pornogrophy. the only difference between many music vids and porn is there's sometimes a better musical score, sometimes. If we let our kids watch music vids then lets not have a rating system. just words after all. not important and not harmful."

All that being true .....

Who decides ??
Who gets to pick which videos I can see ?
Who is so special that they can watch anything, then decide , for me, whats not good for me ?
The Government ??
What makes them smarter, or better suited to decide ?
Their wealth ?

As far as MY kids go ( I have 2 ), it is MY responsibility to ....
Listen to what they listen to
Watch what they watch
Monitor their internet usage .. etc ..

MY responsibility as a parent.
Not the government.
Not my neighbor.
Not the school.

Mine.

THAT is what appears to be franks discomfort.
not only the "just words", it is the "who decides" factor.
I will NEVER be comfortable sitting back and letting someone else decide whats good for me, my kids, my family, regardless of what "Authority" they claim.

As a PARENT I take the time, or, MAKE the time to know what my kids are into.
I RESENT anyone else telling me what they can or cannot see,read, hear.

NO Government should ever have THAT power.

btw,
Did you see Lofton whine like a retard when the guy to his left TRIED to ask him exactly who IS good enough to decide for everyone else ?

THAT was priceless.

what about adults? using the N word. writing booklets on how to use household cleaners to blow up things. porn is harmful to more than just kids and the list goes on. these things have nothing to do with parenting and the things that do, can harm kids weather there are good parents or not. parents can't be with their kids (especially Teens) 24/7 and they're going to want to experiment.

I'm not advocating censorship by any means but it is out there everywhere. In Schools (government controled) in public buildings (government controled) on the streets (government controled) most of it for the publics own good (there are abuses). There must be guidlines and structure in every society to govern it's people and to prevent abuse of these freedoms. Free speech to me is the freedom to express ideas, not any word we choose since many words can express the same ideas.

You can say "Bush is a F@#$%*& moron and I'd like to see him shot dead" or you can say "Bush is the worst president we've ever had and the sooner he's out of office the better." Both express the same idea but one will get you in trouble with Homeland security.

Words hurt (ask any verbially abused wife) and destroy. Words mislead people (cults for example or or expressing the idea that insest is a good thing)

Who decides? those in power like always.
This is what troubles me about Zappa, free speech and setting guidlines (some call censorship) is a very complicated issue and needs to be thought through and debated from all points and he's very narrowly focused. "they're just words" is way too simplistic for such a complicated debate.

Total freedom of speech is impossible in any society. guidelines have to be set and there'll ALWAYS be someone unhappy with them and yell CENSORSHIP!!!

"perhaps we should just use the N word"

Black friends of mine call each other nigger all the time. It's not something I would say, being white.

It's not the word. It's the context.
To ban words is stupid and Orwellian.

Comp, read up some about Larry Flynt and why he won his SCOTUS case.
Dredd has it right, gov't censorship is a bad idea at best and a slippery slope into 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 at worst.

"Total freedom of speech is impossible in any society."


Why?

I don't know anyone who has a problem with throwing the guy who yelled Fire! in a crowded theater in jail when there was no fire.

With freedom comes responsibility.

If you're white and call a black person you don't know a nigger you have to accept responsibility in the form of getting the crap beat out of you.

It doesn't mean the word should be banned. Hell, half of Chris Rock's material would go away.

"Why?

I don't know anyone who has a problem with throwing the guy who yelled Fire! in a crowded theater in jail when there was no fire."

you just answered your own question.

but you don't hear chris rocks material during prime time do you?

and I'm not talking about banning. no guidelines are accepted by everyone. the only other alternitive is anarchy. BTW I'm sure there are those who DO believe you can yell fire in a crowded theatre. there are those who think it's ok to promote kiddie porn. to call their wives stupid ignorant bitches, to teach others how to make meth. all these will be the first to yell Censorship, free speech!!! where do we draw the line??

The Constitution places value on what is best for the public welfare (society as a whole), as well on what is conducive to the pursuit of happiness.
The first amendment provides freedom of speech, though not exclusive of obvious practical limitations.
I sense a quest for balance from the founding fathers.

Perhaps we need to consider the rationale for government in the first place (sometimes referred to as "theory of government").

Regarding "the only other alternative [to protective limitations] is anarchy":
This can be a very good topic, indeed.

My limited experience with the ACLU has made an impression that they lean EXTREMELY strong on individual liberties. If there are libertarians by degrees, I'm a moderate one, and the ACLU is extremist.

"the only other alternitive is anarchy."

Maybe some anarchy would loosen the shackles.

"where do we draw the line??"

I'll draw mine.
You draw yours.
I don't need the likes of Ashcroft or Bush to compell me into thinking what is right.

One would really have to wonder what kind of nation we would have if the ACLU could have its own way about EVERYthing.
That's why there has to be some kind of reasonable balance struck.

The challenge our country faces at the present time does call for careful attention to preserving the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
You know how the saying goes, something to the effect of how a nation that slides down the slippery slope of sacrificing freedom for security will end up having neither one. I truly believe that to be a crucial concern.

"Regarding "the only other alternative [to protective limitations] is anarchy":
This can be a very good topic, indeed."

It can, indeed ... if ....
If the discussion can stay rational.
It's one of those topics that can EASILY degenerate into personal bashing.

In reading Compmore's post ....
I am not in total disagreement there, but as OldCodger puts it ...

"I sense a quest for balance from the founding fathers. "

A quest for balance.

And once again .....
Who decides ??

"but you don't hear chris rocks material during prime time do you?"

I wouldn't personally care if it WAS on prime time. My daughters hear worse than that in school.
Does that mean I approve of my daughters talking like truck drivers ??
Not at all.
But it is NOT POSSIBLE to keep it from their ears.
As a parent it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that they understand the context and use of what they are hearing.
My responsibility, no one elses.

Another point Frank TRIED to make ....

Strong language HAS a place.
Really, it does ( IMHO ).
I don't talk like a longshoreman to my kids, BUT .....
When I do cuss, my kids drop what they are doing, and LISTEN. They know i am serious. Play time over .. period.

"You can say "Bush is a F@#$%*& moron and I'd like to see him shot dead" or you can say "Bush is the worst president we've ever had and the sooner he's out of office the better." Both express the same idea but one will get you in trouble with Homeland security. "

I see this as a problem, and it gets real lly close to "Thought Crimes". Someone says they'd like to see buch shot dead .. and they should be harrased by the government ?? For this opinion ??
Because he said it, does that means he is in a position to do it ? Well, he's thinking about it by god, throw his butt in jail !!
Doesn't seem reasonable.
That's what government controlled speech brings.

Someone writes a book on how to blow up things ???
So what.
They wrote a book.
If someone wants to harm or destroy badly enough, they will do it, book or no book.
You see, somewhere in history, someone wanted to blow something up, and figured out how to do it, all on their own. Invention. Eplosives are used for positive reasons as well. There will ALWAYS be unbalanced people who will turn something useful into something destructive. Shit, isn't that the definition of Military R&D ??
Eliminating the books will never eliminate the minds that create them. Ever.

Comp, you are absolutely correct in that this issue is immensely more complicated than " Just Words".
It's also much too complicated to just hand it over to ANY government to just mandate, and decide.

I AM pretty confident though, that what I teach my kids will be passed to my grandkids, their kids, etc ....

That is really where it starts, and ends.

I believe in limited government.
What has developed in America in recent years is an expansion of federal power beyond the optimum, and I truly understand the frustration and apprehension such undue federalism has engendered.
In a closed society, political power is a limited resource that can be spread around rather fairly . . . or disproportionately (which most of us would agree has already occurred).
The big question is HOW to make things better and more just for the majority of citizens (FOR whom government is supposed to exist in the first place).

"A quest for balance.

And once again .....
Who decides ??"

Our form of government is a democratic republic.
Majority rules, BUT with proper concern for the minority. This concept of our government was intrinsic from its inception. The Constitution was ratified by certain small states only by means of compromise.

Concerning the notion of thinking about something as having an impact:
How do you feel about the legal concept of "malice aforethought"?

Or, how about this one: A man is as he thinks he is.

I think we would agree that intentional, planned homocide is more heinous than a reactionary, impulsive
killing. Obviously, both are murders, but the former will usually deserve the greater punishment.

Insofar as that saying I threw out about "A man is as he thinks he is," we surely know that one to have logical flaws. A person can think himself into being Napoleon, but thoughts don't always equate to reality, do they.

"you just answered your own question."

No, my question remains. How can the gov't ban the use of a word?

"but you don't hear chris rocks material during prime time do you?"

I hear a hellava lot worse walking past the bus stop.
The Stones pissed off Ed Sullivan when they refused to change the words from "let's spend the night together" to "let's spend some time together" as Ed insisted.
The Stones somehow survived and everyone didn't turn into rapists as the CBS censors had feared.

If comp is advocating a community standards approach to local obscenity laws than fine, I'm all for that. As is SCOTUS.
But when the Feds get involved that's a different story. As different as the community standards of San Franciscans and the Amish. One size does not fit all.

Great thought provoking material here. I love it. Dreddsnik I agree with you quite a bit.
banning words is a terrible idea gfmicka and I misread your intent before I answered. however guiding where, how, and when certin words or phrases are used Is the responsibility of the individual, society and government depending on the situation and, like you said, there are consequences for using them inaproprately.

There's a good argument to be made for a greater degree of states' rights and less federal intrusion.

You know what's kinda neat here lately? We're having a relatively civil discourse . . . and NOT having to deal with "you-know-who" posting some slamming insult against leflaw or some disparaging remark about our website.
It's almost as if one can feel the morale around this place to have made a dramatic improvement.

"How do you feel about the legal concept of "malice aforethought"?"

Not a legal expert, but if I understand this correctly ??

Isn't that in context with an ACTION ??
The crime ( an ACT against someone ) was comitted with malice aforethought .

Lots of folks hate each other. It means nothing unless they take ACTION against someone they have "malice" towards.

"It's almost as if one can feel the morale around this place to have made a dramatic improvement."

I know.
And you know what sucks ?
It's late and I have to go to bed

Catch all of you later, and I really hope things continue THIS way.

"Great thought provoking material here. I love it. Dreddsnik I agree with you quite a bit. "

I really appreciate that Compmore, always had a great deal of respect for you, even when were not on the same page.

Could be a little nicer to Frank though LOL He really WAS ahead of his time.

"the only other alternitive is anarchy."

What about an unlimited highway speed limit?
The autobahn has no speed limit in several sections yet remains one of the safest roads to travel on. Why? Severe penalties for traffic infractions which cause injury/damage.

They are not penalizing the top speed of a car (words) but the consequences of irresponsible use of the car (actions).

Comp, should no car be able to go over 65mph?

gfmicka that's for the states to regulate not me. to be honest I really don't have an opinion on that. (unbelievable but true )

However your example of the autobon is a good one however that's not a comparrison to anarchy. there's still trafic laws and penalties. they just differ with us on the cause and how it's applied

Night Dreddsnik. I still don't like Zappa. never did. I didn't even like his music much.

Actions should be actionable.

What if the Federalist papers had not been published anonymously?

And just for the record, sans Hendrix and Clapton, I think FZ is the greatest guitarist who ever lived. Check out "Shut up an play yer guitar". It's a 2x2CD set and had the "Warning: Offensive Lyrics" Label on it.
Funny thing, it's all instrumental.

That's what makes the world go round. we need a lot of different opinions otherwise this would be a boring world. have a good night all.

goodnight, from gfmLcka.

Well stated, Shmoo.