Should the F word be starred out?

[pete 2,499]

I am afraid i am with cotter to a point although telling people to F*** off for expressing their view is a bit OTT. The fight has to start with someone who can go the distance and not a couple of guy's who put all their extra money into giving us this chance to voice our opinion on a small forum. If we want to fight this then it has to include all the Rangers websites and have sponsors in place to fight the fight through the courts if needed. The RST and the Rangers assembly should be the ones putting up the fight and asking the questions. Unfortunately it looks to an outsider these people are more interested in tickling David Murray's balls other than asking the right questions. Is there no MP who will put his head on the block in the Scottish parliament to get the answers to these questions. What the fuck happened to freedom of speech. Spreading hatred is one thing but using words to make it obvious who you are talking about is another in my eyes.

[bmck 117]

They're only winning on certain issues in certain curcumstances. So far (in a legal sense) that involves breach of the peace charges for people singing the famine song combined with shouting things like 'fen!an bastards' and 'ef tee pee' at football matches.

 

And before that they weren't winning on breach of the peace charges for people singing the famine song combined with shouting things like fen1an bastard etc. But this is all becoming a bit tiresome.

 

The basic point is that we're covering our arse - both in unlikely legal scenarios and in ensuring we're above reproach whilst trying to denounce anti-sectarian things. Rightly or wrongly, that's the reason. Whether this is smart foresight or weak pandering is upto you to decide. I was once sued by my own adopted sister for giving her a mobile phone for free because she's derranged. It had no basis in law, but I still had to spend a few hundred quid having lawyer's letters written. It's arguable that even that guy's charge was false, and had no basis in law, but the guy still got done.

 

You seem to be arguing for the sake of it now, Zappa. I stated from the outset that the chances are extremely small but there's precedent for both ****** being deemed illegal, websites being shutdown/censored/prosecuted for things that are written on them, and fen1ans (oops) being pathologically interested in pursuing it. The stars are there in a vague and blunt will to express the site's non-condoning of sectarianism from any legal, moral, pragmatic etc attack. End of story. Your responses are just variations on the "It's unlikely" I admitted in the opening post.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bmck

[bmck 117]

I am afraid i am with cotter to a point although telling people to F*** off for expressing their view is a bit OTT. The fight has to start with someone who can go the distance and not a couple of guy's who put all their extra money into giving us this chance to voice our opinion on a small forum. If we want to fight this then it has to include all the Rangers websites and have sponsors in place to fight the fight through the courts if needed. The RST and the Rangers assembly should be the ones putting up the fight and asking the questions. Unfortunately it looks to an outsider these people are more interested in tickling David Murray's balls other than asking the right questions. Is there no MP who will put his head on the block in the Scottish parliament to get the answers to these questions. What the fuck happened to freedom of speech. Spreading hatred is one thing but using words to make it obvious who you are talking about is another in my eyes.

 

Agreed, it's a shocking erosion of both freedom of speech and a political power play by the Catholic church. That no-one in any position of authority - be it supporters groups, our inglorious leader, media, politicians etc - have the balls to stand up these people is utterly shocking. When you start making criminals/bogeymen of ordinary decent people you're on the road to ruin. The tims think they're righteous in everything they do to us because we're fundamentally evil - the exact same mentality as the crusades. They're an empty vacant lot.

[Zappa 0]

And before that they weren't winning on breach of the peace charges for people singing the famine song combined with shouting things like fen1an bastard etc. But this is all becoming a bit tiresome.

 

The basic point is that we're covering our arse - both in unlikely legal scenarios and in ensuring we're above reproach whilst trying to denounce anti-sectarian things. Rightly or wrongly, that's the reason. Whether this is smart foresight or weak pandering is upto you to decide. I was once sued by my own adopted sister for giving her a mobile phone for free because she's derranged. It had no basis in law, but I still had to spend a few hundred quid having lawyer's letters written. It's arguable that even that guy's charge was false, and had no basis in law, but the guy still got done.

 

You seem to be arguing for the sake of it now, Zappa. I stated from the outset that the chances are extremely small but there's precedent for both ****** being deemed illegal, websites being shutdown/censored/prosecuted for things that are written on them, and fen1ans (oops) being pathologically interested in pursuing it. The stars are there in a vague and blunt will to express the site's non-condoning of sectarianism from any legal, moral, pragmatic etc attack. End of story. Your responses are just variations on the "It's unlikely" I admitted in the opening post.

 

I'm 100% behind you, but given the stance you're taking, this poll and thread becomes irrelevant mate.

[bmck 117]

I'm 100% behind you, but given the stance you're taking, this poll and thread becomes irrelevant mate.

 

Mate, just to be clear. This isn't my stance. I'm just trying to argue the case for it being as it is. I don't really know what I think. My own choice would be for it to be unstarred and moderated on a case by case basis I think.

[Zappa 0]

Mate, just to be clear. This isn't my stance. I'm just trying to argue the case for it being as it is. I don't really know what I think. My own choice would be for it to be unstarred and moderated on a case by case basis I think.

 

You're the one that said I was arguing for the sake of it!!

[bmck 117]

You're the one that said I was arguing for the sake of it!!

 

Was waiting for that.

 

I just think you get the best debate when you get the strongest presentation of all sides.

[pete 2,499]

It has certainly been a discussion that has been lively over 2 different threads. Where are all the RST people now i would love to hear their thoughts on this. I guess they are off looking for our next takeover candidate.

[JMS 0]

I certainly think it is worth debating, as the whole reason for the site is to express yourself, within reason of course, as a Rangers supporter and if we

constantly avoid certain issues we are not having debate.

Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, not just the hope it goes away mob.

[maineflyer 0]

It has certainly been a discussion that has been lively over 2 different threads. Where are all the RST people now i would love to hear their thoughts on this. I guess they are off looking for our next takeover candidate.

 

Ffs don't tempt fate or they might actually return.