1. Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

    Dismiss Notice

open letter to thelawproffesor,Mr.Michael Wechsler

Discussion in 'Other Legal Issues' started by john39, Nov 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. john39

    john39 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dear Mr.Michael Wechsler


    Your moderator irish223 moderated this thread here:

    http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44575

    The moderator did that by removing/deleting some posts from poster KCGirl and Vfielder,where KCGirl introduced certain video and Vfielder started conversation with KCGirl regarding that video (that such posting was inappropriate).

    irish223 left ONE post from Vfielder ,in which he was addressing KCGirl (post #46).here is its quote
    ""Arab Festival 2010: Dearborn Police Defending Islam against the Constitution"

    I'm sorry but this is about a 16 year old and car accident. If your from another country and don't understand the laws of the USA...educate yourself. "


    I was participant on that thread.I never took part discussing the mentioned video.

    Now,after such moderation,by removing all the posts from KCGirl and Vfielder ,regarding the mentioned video,AND NOT REMOVING that specific post from Vfielder,to an average, reasonable person,appears that Vfielder is addressing me,and not KCGirl and is telling me to educate my self on the laws of U.S. if I am from another country.

    I brought this to the attention of the moderator,by posting objection and explaining,if that objectionable topic is to be removed/moderated,I expect Vfielder comment be removed also,because it misleads the readers that I posted certain video (and I never did).

    I also requested from Vfielder to delete or edit his post,because now, it is misleading and doesn't make any sense.He agreed with me and he corrected that by making another post on the thread where he explained to the readers that he is not addressing me,but is addressing KCGirl.

    The moderator irish223,in the thread itself admitted that she deleted the posts from KCGirl and Vfielder.

    I left it at that,satisfied that now,after the additional explanations,comments,the readers will not be mislead that I posted certain objectionable video,and that is act of KCGirl.

    Today,I opened the thread again and to my shock,all posts regarding the video,including the explanation from Vfielder are removed again EXCEPT his post,that I here quoted,which misleads the readers that he is addressing me and not KCGirl about some video.

    Even though I and Vfielder agreed that such selective moderation by post deletion is misleading,and we corrected the problem by additional explanations on the thread,SOME moderator choose to erase all those posts,including the corrections/explanations again and leave the post from Vfielder which harms me,and that moderator CLOSED the thread so the posters can not intervene there to correct the misrepresentation.

    Please correct this injustice.

    Thank You
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010
  2. KCGirl

    KCGirl New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Well, my friend, that's what happens when people have the right to censor indiscriminately.

    And its also nice that you aren't concerned with the unfairness of the whole thing its just you don't want it to look like YOU are stupid. If I'm the one who is accused of being stupid then its no problem? Thank you very much.


    You received a very glowing commendation (and rightfully so) by a member here who is, imo, generally held in high regard. It appears that you've allowed such praise to compromise your sensibilities as I stated above.

    By way of explanation, I thought the video was appropriate and just a continuation of an exploration of how much authority police have and what the rights are in another scenario. I did not think it was stupid or that it was proper to make speculations about my intelligence or lack thereof only to have my defense of myself removed/censored.

    If members don't like my video or want to respond or think its appropriate the message will be received by me no one is interested when no one replies. I don't think its necessary to question my intelligence. Especially in light of the fact that I have been told I cannot have an opinion even if it pertains to whether or not a guest who asked a question was being maligned for her parenting skills.

    This is a poor impression to be made by a Law forum if individuals are censored by moderators who are guilty of transgressions and insults which far exceeded my initial attempts basically to not discourage a mother who as I said was imo being maligned.

    Further, said moderators removed very salient and appropriate statements and observations which reflected my true character and instead left my admittedly in poor taste ranting of a few days ago.

    Actions which it appears to me are designed to call my character into question. I disagree with moderators that it is based on the length of time one has been a contributor/member as to how judgmental they can be but if their premise is correct then further it means that it appears two wrongs make a right.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010
  3. vfielder

    vfielder New Member

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    John,
    I had no problem what so ever in the moderator removing all that you wanted. The whole post starting going towards the dark side. I don't think you have anything to worry about. I shouldn't have responded to KCGIRL towards the end because it all started becoming just a little twisted.
     
  4. KCGirl

    KCGirl New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It did get a little twisted however I hope you are not inferring that it is because of my defending myself that it became twisted. If so, it appears everyone is happy to provide their input and feels justified doing so just as long as I don't try to do the same. I say that because it appears both you and John were content with the censorship/removal as long as I was the only one appearing to have questionable motives and/or intelligence.

    It is somewhat offensive to see one's intelligence and/or reputation being discussed by two people of "superior intellect" talking over, as though invisible, the poor lost soul who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend her pathetic misfortune.

    Censorship is not a good idea. Censors are human beings who can be motivated for good or bad or indifference. That's why we should value and PROTECT freedom of speech.

    No one ever responded to my question as to how the authorities were supposedly justified in having such a heavy hand with which to silence peaceful people the same time that the hateful and vile language of Freddie Phelps is allowed to continue and do much harm. I understand why Freddie Phelps diatribes and vendettas are protected, not that I like it, but its to protect the freedom of speech of all of us. unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the result though, illogical as that may seem and it does seem so to me.

    Most groups are very good at self-moderation. Basically we vote on threads/discussions. Those which we think are interesting and worth exploring get a lot of attention. Those that are found lacking are left to perish on their own. Kind of like Freddie Phelps, if we ignored him and did not train the spotlight and the cameras on his hate speech it might go away.

     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.