I don't like the rules of this forum which is why I have been challenging them with these posts. You guys are taking out one of the best parts of an online forum experience: FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

A well-argued non-fallacy-containing (freedom of speech mentions are often part of a fallacy: freedom of speech as a legal/political concept does not apply to private spaces. This forum can be compared to someone's living room: if someone behaves like a bad guest the owners are allowed to tell that person to please leave their house) essay would be more convincing than just posting a lot of insults that are bound to get edited, often before many people see them. Your posts aptly illustrate (in my personal opinion) why such policy is there on our forum - because the forum would rapidly detoriate into flames and fighting otherwise.

I coped this from some site because I'm lazy. This also presumes you mean the US law regarding free speech, because there is no law about free speech for forums.

"Freedom" does not mean "free of restrictions." On several occasions the U.S. Supreme Court has noted that there are no "absolute" freedoms: "Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection."(1 ) Therefore, although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the government may do just that: "[T]he unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance."(2)

Some types of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled are not subject to First Amendment protection include:

* Obscenity: "If a state obscenity law is [appropriately] limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary." Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
* Defamation: "[I]t is recognized that punishment for the abuse of the liberty accorded to the press is essential to the protection of the public, and that the common-law rules that subject the libeler to responsibility for the public offense, as well as for the private injury, are not abolished by the protection extended in our Constitutions." Near v. State Of Minnesota Ex Rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
* Causing panic: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
* Fighting words: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). However, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects speech that encourages others to commit violence, unless the speech is capable of "producing imminent lawless action. Even advocating "illegal action at some indefinite future time" is protected. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).
* Sedition: "We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence." Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), where one of the "acts" which the Court found the government could prohibit was to knowingly and willfully "advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing and destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence."

Flames and fighting are jokes. A flamewar can never develop into something serious and all you have to do is ignore it if it ever does happen. No need for censorship.

You also are pushing the limits between what is and isn't a flame. If I were to call you a coward and you really were a coward, would I get censored for such an opinion?

ok I've had my fun here.

Buh-buy (WA)

[Wide attack removal - FQuist]

Yes. It is not up to the administrators to exert value judgements about users - that would be pretty much impossible to enforce (admins would be bound to have different opinions on who is a coward and who is not) and also just generally not a good idea since it would raise too many questions about biasedness.

Wow. This must be a world record in time. From "let's curse around randomly" to "I hate you nazi mods" to "I hate you all goodbye" in less then an hour. Bye, random social reactionary =D

Oh and could you ban me just for kicks?

To seal the deal:
(WA)

[Wide attack removal. You get a warning. - FQuist]

Well, you have to consider some facts:

-Fquist (or someone. I forget) owns the JCF. He pays money for this, and thus gets to decide how it is used.
-If you wish to exercise freedom of speech, you can make your own forum. Maybe for free, even. Someone does this about every six months. They say a few acronyms that were censored on the JCF, flame Derby, then the forum dies. gj
-Civilized people don't need to resort to fighting. Uncivilized people don't get much respect.
-You have no reason.

I like how your censorship of the word (-) actually diagrams the word better than I ever could using the English language.

Originally Posted by TTFighter972

I like how your censorship of the word (-) actually diagrams the word better than I ever could using the English language.

That's why real men use Dutch.

Also, you did not respond to my points. Do you have a response, (FTG)

[Flame tag removal - FQuist]

I'm actually curious. How did you come across this site? A random google search? Most new people who come here either have played the game or are here to advertise jazz music. You, obviously, are neither.

Spanish, (PA). :P

[Personal attack edit - FQuist]

Originally Posted by Risp

I'm actually curious. How did you come across this site? A random google search? Most new people who come here either have played the game or are here to advertise jazz music. You, obviously, are neither.

If I told you, I would violate the terms and agreements of my almighty ninja master.

I'm not so sure how to respond to that.

Originally Posted by Risp

I'm not so sure how to respond to that.

Respond with the dignity and respect of the Florida State Legislature.

You're JACK THOMAS

And you still didn't respond to my points. C'mon. Scared?

Originally Posted by Radium

Scared?

FQuist, Radium is personally attacking me! CENSOR HIM!

And now you have my response.

Originally Posted by TTFighter972

And now you have my response.

No I don't. All I have is a humorous yet predictable response to my joke.

Originally Posted by Radium

All I have is a humorous yet predictable response to my joke.

It's still a response.

Unless this turns into a constructive topic soon I'll have to close this.

Close this window and you are shunning a future President of New America into the dark!

You? The president?
Ha. Don't worry, US will be dead long before you even have a chance.
December 2012, everyone. Be there for the Ragnarok. Good ol' mayans.

Originally Posted by n00b

You? The president?
Ha. Don't worry, US will be dead long before you even have a chance.
December 2012, everyone. Be there for the Ragnarok. Good ol' mayans.

I said New America.

Originally Posted by TTFighter972

I said New America.

Tim Brown? Is that you?

Ban the school uniforms and move to Kentucky! God bless the new currency.

Well, that was a missed chance. Closed.