Safe Speed Forums

Incidentally, there is no comparison to be drawn between membership of this forum and car ownership vis a vis rights or the violation of rights.

You have no right to drive a car on private property without consent of the owner, and such consent may be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

Suspending someone from the site, for whatever reason, is not gagging their right to free speech, they can still post elsewhere, or print flyers and go hand them out on the streets should they please.

No 'authority' exists here; the moderators cannot compel you to do anything, they cannot sanction or imprison you for transgressions, they can simply act, on behalf of the owner, to ask you to leave, just like the landowner with your car, or indeed pushbike/Shanks's Pony etc.

....oh, before anyone argues the ECHR parallel: forum trolls are the equivalent to vexatious litigants, the subsequent suspension being the equivalent to disbarment; here is where the analogy dies. Besides, the stakes couldn't be more different.

I'll try to reply to various points at once to save an endless series of comments. First, thank you for considered responses!



In light of the ECHR ruling, I can't show you a single country in the EU where the right to silence is now absolute, but that doesn't stop it from being a good idea or something which should be pursued.

Furthermore, there aren't many popular fora which are attempting to overthrow large chunks of government policy and current legislation from a position of the moral high ground.

My point stands; SS is a special case because of what SS purports to be. I would like SS to be the exception to other "campaigning" sites, arguing from a position of strength and leading the way by example.



I think you unduly limit the scope of your comments - in reality, one has no right to drive a car on the road without consent of the owner (the Crown), and such consent may also be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.



But it does start to undermine the legitimacy of the forum as being representative of the membership and inclusive of all opinions. Unless the aim is to ensure that the forum broadly supports the site's objectives rather than reflecting the majority opinion...



I wasn't arguing quite that point; my belief is that attempting to develop a political platform built upon foundations which are lent apparent legitimacy by the size and strength of feeling of the attendant community should (IMHO) entail the site owner and the community itself being held to a higher standard.

You may disagree; indeed you have made the point that the moderators are acting, like bailiffs, on behalf of the owner. I personally think Paul has achieved great things with SS, but if he (and we) wish it to be anything more than a political sideshow and a source of a few tabloid column inches, it must grow in both size and stature.

What I proposed (essentially online, transparent justice) would be a brave thing for Paul to do - I'm not aware I suggested otherwise. But it would be no less brave than the gestures and actions Paul himself asks our politicians to make on a regular basis.



Hmm, are alleged vexatious litigants to be denied their right to a trial now?

In addition, I think I may not have been entirely clear. I was attempting to draw parallels between various sets of circumstances, not suggesting they were equivalents.

To reiterate, I think Paul has achieved a great deal with SS. I personally believe it deserves to grow into a movement with considerable popular involvement and consequent political muscle. But to get to that point I believe it is going to have to transcend the position of being a domain ruled by Paul's absolute discretion and move to a structure with a much broader base and greater community involvement in self-determination, partly to help attract that wider community, and partly to defend itself against the inevitable onslaughts of nay-sayers.

Yes, that would (frankly) be a first in online fora terms; but novelty of the concept should not, I believe, condemn it immediately to the dustbin. SS has already been a little iconoclastic and heretical; surely pursuing a new political paradigm should be all in a days work?

I would like to point out that I didn’t say all of what was in those quotes above


But there is more of this type than just SS, so my original point is still valid: it indeed “would (frankly) be a first in online fora terms”.



Of course not; they are denied the right to argue cases (there is a difference).
And therein dies the only relevance to this thread.


I’ve given a fairly detailed explanation as to why it would be somewhat more than a day’s work. The problem with trolls is that they are determined not to be reasoned with (I've personally found they resort to outright lies when you show how their logic is flawed); to allow these individuals to help determine the direction of this site would spell suicide for the campaign.

(now I'm half tempted to move these posts to a more appropriate thread)