Censorship is ILLEGAL and Moderating Posts is CENSORSHIP

[Toad Uoff]

I see forum owners EVERYWHERE think they are LAWYERS and they CAN AUTHOR whatever LAW they WISH.

That's known as ANARCHY and is ILLEGAL AS FUCK.

The only problem with the Rules of this forum is the remark that We can be banned at the Discretion of the Moderators, when that's violative of Anti-Trust Laws, by MONOPOLIZING SPEECH.

You CANNOT threaten RETALIATION AGAINST the MEMBERS in your RULES.

Online Forums are NOT HOME RULE GOVERNMENTS, they are PUBLIC FORUMS, and GOVERNED BY EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS and not your FUCKING OPINION.

"Good Faith based Civil Public Speech, overruled by Anarchy (aka: personal censorship) on the Information Super Highway, also known as the Internets, or in ANY other Open Public Forum, is blatantly violative of Due Process, as well as being violative of 15 U.S.C. 2 and 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242 & 1584; whereas 18 U.S.C. 1464 is not applicable to the Internets, but the Internets is a Highway for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1985; and 17 U.S.C. 201, 202, & 501, is also applicable and the portion of 202 that says "absence of an agreement" is referring ONLY to a Lawful/Constitutional Agreement, not an Unlawful/Unconstitutional Agreement, because ANY Agreement that FORCES an individual to sign-away their Copyright Ownership of their personal intellectual works/words SIMPLY for the "privilege" to have the ability to speak-out PUBLICLY for-or-against a matter being discussed publicly, or to instigate a new public discussion nearby, does not qualify as a Lawful Agreement that can be DEMANDED nor ENFORCED by ANYONE, since it qualifies as a SLAVE CONTRACT and Slave Contracts are UNLAWFUL IN TOTO, because Civil Public Speech is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, and once ONE person is allowed to openly insert an argument for-or-against a matter being discussed publicly, ALL persons then have the RIGHT to speak-in about the matter, with ORDER controlling the situation, not CONTROL controlling the situation, and everyone has the RIGHT to speak-in about the matter in the nearest-vicinity to where the matter is being discussed PUBLICLY, within reason, and once allowed to insert a Good Faith argument, the person's words cannot be DELETED afterwards or ONE-WAY SPEECH is going down, which is violative of the Free Trade of Ideas that is embodied in the First Amendment and also violative of Anti-Trust Laws Worldwide; which the Free Speech GUARANTEE of the First Amendment SourCes directly out of the Good Faith Doctrine built into Article 4, first-and-foremost, and to Delete someone's Good Faith Speech inserted lawfully ANYWHERE online, also qualifies as Theft of Intellectual Property; and Good Faith Public Speech is not allowed to be censored for CONTENT on the Internets, nor in ANY other Open Public Forums, which is also why Public Nudity isn't illegal in any Open Public Forums, since SIMPLE Nudity qualifies as Symbolic Speech, which is also the foundation for why Public Streaking isn't unlawful; and that's because Public Streaking qualifies as a Lawful Civil Protest, thus, Public Streaking and/or simple Public Nudity is a Protected First Amendment Constitutional Right too, online and offline, just don't go over the line with your Public Speech; and that LAWFUL LINE is drawn by the Good Faith Doctrine, not someone's OPINION." (aka: Ray Steven's Law) – Old Toad Proverb

[see: Hustler vs. Falwell (1988) & Edwards vs. California (1941) & Martin Luther vs. Borden (1849) & Slaughterhouse Cases (1849)]

Ribbit

 

[Gnug215]

Ok, so my curiousity finally got the better of me, and I went ahead and approved all your 5 posts, against my better judgment.

But what the hell are you on about?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Toad, demand that your local newspaper prints your column because to do otherwise would be illegal censorship. When they refuse sue them. After you have won your lawsuit get back to us.

In the mean time, enjoy this:

P.S. Do you know what the Internet domain ending ".co.uk" means?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

P.S. Do you know what the Internet domain ending ".co.uk" means?

:lol:

[sarcasm]Well, you know Al Gore invented the internet, thus 'Merica![/sarcasm]

 

[Toad Uoff]

Toad, demand that your local newspaper prints your column because to do otherwise would be illegal censorship. When they refuse sue them. After you have won your lawsuit get back to us.

In the mean time, enjoy this:

P.S. Do you know what the Internet domain ending ".co.uk" means?

You covered 3 things, so I will cover each in the order you presented them.

Newspaper comment: the better thing to do is to hit any online Press websites that allow you to Comment on their News Articles and then submit a Comment that pertains to the News Article but the Comment is constructed in such a way so as to foul the senses of a moral busy-body, because once your Comment is DELETED, you can turn them in for an Anti-trust violation and since that QUALIFIES as Press Sedition (aka: Treason), they are usually fined the FULL AMOUNT of $100 Million, of which you get 10% but you have to submit the proper Report to the government when you Snitch.

The Cartoon: I will address each section of it separately, since it's that BAD.

"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say."

That is NOT correct! You can be arrested for saying many things, to include inciting a riot. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't leave that stone unturned in the INFAMOUS Hustler decision:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html

"See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) ("It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers"). Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. We recognized in Pacifica Foundation, that speech that is "`vulgar,' `offensive,' and `shocking'" is "not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances." 438 U.S., at 747 . In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), we held that a State could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting "`fighting' words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id., at 571-572. These limitations are but recognition of the observation in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 758 (1985), that this Court has "long recognized that not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance." But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by any exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above."

"Start with bad Math, end with Bad Math, irregardless the answer." - Old Toad Proverb

Next section of Cartoon: "That doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it."

On the first part, no one is forced to listen, but as to the last part, that is incorrect. The high court has always said the "controller" of a PUBLIC FORUM can either "OPEN IT TO ALL or CLOSE IT TO ALL" and once OPEN, they have to also be CONTENT NEUTRAL. Any other answer and it qualifies as Censorship, which violates Anti-trust Laws. So once you open a Public Forum for Public Debate, you cannot control what is said and you cannot Delete the post without violating LAW.

Next section of the Cartoon: "The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences."

Criticism isn't DELETE, it is OPPOSING ARGUMENT. And NO CONTRACT can get you out of VIOLATING CRIMINAL LAW, which is known as CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

Next section of Cartoon: "If you are yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet Community, your Free Speech Rights aren't being violated."

Up to the point where it talks about the Internet, all of that has nothing to do with what is said about the Internet Community, and that's what's known as "confusing the issue" to HIDE THE TRUTH. Because the Truth is, while it can be said that getting banned on an Internet Community doesn't violate your Free Speech Rights, it does violate Anti-trust Laws, in that it creates ONE-WAY Speech, and the courts have said you cannot MONOPOLIZE SPEECH LIKE THAT, so once again, the Cartoon has STATED a MISTRUTH, a LIE.

"Start with Stupid, end with Stupid, irregardless the answer." - Old Toad Proverb

Last 2 sections of Cartoon:

"It's just the people listening think you're an asshole."

AND

"And they are showing you the door."

It's the People "showing you the door" that are the REAL ASSHOLES, and that's a FUCKING FACT! Because the People "showing you the door" are ALWAYS NAZIS and Nazism is ILLEGAL and PROSECUTEABLE to the FULL EXTENT THE LAW WILL ALLOW.

Lastly, you said:

"P.S. Do you know what the Internet domain ending ".co.uk" means?"

".co.uk" = NAZIS

The RSOS recently proved that with a Study:

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150292

They further proved it by CENSORING my Comments I posted to the Article, since they MODERATE Comments at the RSOS, which doesn't qualify as OPEN SCIENCE, in any, way, shape, form, or fashion, so the RSOS proves the UK is full of Nazis, just as you just proved you're a Nazi Sympathizer.


http://oi66.tinypic.com/20aqi6t.jpg


What the online forums and social/media websites are doing is known as JUDGING and that requires a Sovereign Government to be FULLY behind your actions and you don't have that PROTECTION and NO Contract can authorize you to commit CRIMINAL ACTS and then YOU GET AWAY WITH IT; that's not how Contract Law werks. The Contract has to be LEGAL to begin with or it FAILS in its ENTIRETY, as ALL online forum Contracts FAIL that I've ever read, except my own forum that I owned a while back, so as to ESTABLISH on the RECORD how it's supposed to be done, to include NOT allowing my moderators to violate a single member. In my forum, not a single member ever had their post/thread Deleted nor did I censor the forum.

The Internets is a Glasshouse so you don't want to commit a Criminal Crime online unless you know how to cover your e-Tracks and online forum owners and their moderators think their Membership Contract is going to protect them from being prosecuted for their Criminal Crimes, when it won't.

All of the e-Nazis are about to be in a government workcamp, alongside a shitload of g-Nazis (government Nazis). Just read Nostradamus's 77th Quatrain for that one.

http://oi67.tinypic.com/24m5jew.jpg

Ribbit :facepalm:

 

[Toad Uoff]

Ok, so my curiousity finally got the better of me, and I went ahead and approved all your 5 posts, against my better judgment.

But what the hell are you on about?

I am Can Hell-Sing, Nazi-Karma-Vampire Hunter & Jew-Shyster-Nigga-Wannabe Contracts Lawyer, extraordinaire. I hunt-down e-Nazis and set them up for stealing their Karma from them when the shit hits the fan here shortly, by simply pushing their button(s) with LAWFUL Speech. If they Delete me and/or Ban me, I win; if not, I win, because then I have a place I can talk without fear of reprisal from an idiot that doesn't understand what I just said.

Censorship is bad, it violates Anti-trust Laws and British Parliament is about to get fined 4 Billion for it, because of Censoring ALL OF THE UK for the longest now, with their Public Broadcasting setup and Advertising setup that favors the Printed Press in a way that forms a monopoly.

100% Pay-2-View = Anti-trust violation

Days of the Week segmented by-the-hours to the Broadcasting Companies = Anti-trust violation

Weeks segmented by-the-days to the Broadcasting Companies = Anti-trust violation

Eliminating Public Broadcasting Advertising = Favors Printed Press = Monopoly on Advertising = Anti-trust violation

So, Bi-segmented 100% Pay-2-View Advertisement Free Public Broadcasting is violative of Anti-trust Laws.

And since Corporations are held to US $100 million liability, the countries are held to 10-times that amount, which is $1 Billion max liability per/Anti-trust violation. So you can expect the United Nations to fine British Parliament 4 Billion here shortly and since the UN needs money, don't think they won't fine the UK, especially since the Anti-trust violations are so FLAGRANT and it's within their POWER to fine the UK.

Does that explain me enough?

http://oi67.tinypic.com/1r5jzd.jpg

http://oi66.tinypic.com/2mpmnn9.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/20k2n1d.jpg​

Ribbit :ugeek:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[Visaki]

I concur.

Though, just for giggles, I'd like to know what institution is going to fine the British parliament (note; not the British goverment, but parliament) 4 billion somethings?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I concur.

Though, just for giggles, I'd like to know what institution is going to fine the British parliament (note; not the British goverment, but parliament) 4 billion somethings?

[sarcasm]Well, obviously Anonymous and Bitcoin.[/sarcasm]

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Please leave. Leave and never come back. Dealing with one bot is enough

 

[Toad Uoff]

I concur.

Though, just for giggles, I'd like to know what institution is going to fine the British parliament (note; not the British goverment, but parliament) 4 billion somethings?

[sarcasm]Well, obviously Anonymous and Bitcoin.[/sarcasm]

You can expect to be seeing BitCoin being confiscated by the Secret Service here shortly.

BitCoin received a New York State Banking Charter that they say gives them the right to do business in the 50 United States, but a State Banking Charter is LIMITED to doing business in THAT STATE ONLY, the State Legislature only has Intrastate Commerce Banking Powers. To do banking business in the 50 United States REQUIRES a National Banking Charter from CONGRESS, not no State Legislature. But the State Legislature of New York has been usurping Congress's Interstate Commerce Banking Powers for the LONGEST and it's bout to come back on them here shortly, when the President puts an end to that ILLEGAL practice and many State Banks in New York are about to FAIL and BitCoin is going down COMPLETELY.

Ribbit :lol:

 

[Toad Uoff]

Please leave. Leave and never come back. Dealing with one bot is enough

Child Psychology says you subconsciously don't want me to Leave.

The best way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to do it.

Someone loves me!

Ribbit :lol:

 

[Toad Uoff]

I concur.

Though, just for giggles, I'd like to know what institution is going to fine the British parliament (note; not the British goverment, but parliament) 4 billion somethings?

British Parliament is England's version of Congress (aka: England's National Legislature) and when the UN fines the United States shortly, for its Anti-trust violations, they will be fining Congress, not the United States, but the United States will be paying the fine thru Congress, just like the UK will be paying the fine assessed against the British Parliament.

The government body RESPONSIBLE for the Anti-trust violation(s) is who is ASSESSED the Fine, you MORON. They are the ONES that are GUILTY of the Unlawful matter.

I see you don't understand how your governments work, to include the United Nations nor do you understand the EU's POWER over the matter!

Monopoly = Violation of EU Charter agreement.

British Parliament is about to LOSE ALL of their Monopolies and the Control Freak Nazis are going to be BROUGHT DOWN FOR GOOD.

I see that the Nazis have dumbed-down England so bad the People of England don't realize the only reason a Queen is ever a Bitch is if she's got Nazis all up her butt and Elizabeth is a Bitch, which England has Churchill to thank for that, he stole the Crown through Elizabeth's father, who was a PURE COWARD. Elizabeth is NO Coward, nor is she a Nazis. She deplores Nazis as much as I do and the majority of Brits are now full-fledged Nazis, thanks to the Politics out of British Parliament; and the Political parties of the UK are about to get a wake-up call here shortly, too, when they are being arrested for Treason and Mr. Cameroon will be lucky if he isn't given a Royal Beheading. I'd love to see that, personally, but I don't like the Mothman so I'd love to see the little fucker lose his head.


Ribbit :lol:

 

[Toad Uoff]

Ribbit

 

[Toad Uoff]

Ribbit :lol:

 

[Toad Uoff]

"Good Faith based Civil Public Speech, overruled by Anarchy (aka: personal censorship) on the Information Super Highway, also known as the Internets, or in ANY other Open Public Forum, is blatantly violative of Due Process, as well as being flagrantly violative of 15 U.S.C. 2 and 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242 & 1584<i></i>; whereas 18 U.S.C. 1464 is not applicable to the Internets, but the Internets is a Highway for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 241 & 42 U.S.C. 1985<i></i>; and 17 U.S.C. 201, 202, & 501<i></i>, are also applicable and the portion of 202 that says "absence of an agreement" is referring ONLY to a Lawful/Constitutional Agreement/Contract, not an Unlawful/Unconstitutional Agreement/Contract, because ANY Agreement/Contract that FORCES an individual to sign-away their Copyright Ownership of their personal intellectual works/words SIMPLY for the ‘privilege’ to have the ability to speak-out PUBLICLY for-or-against a matter being discussed PUBLICLY, or to instigate a new public discussion nearby, does NOT qualify as a Lawful Agreement/Contract that can be DEMANDED nor ENFORCED by ANYONE, since it easily qualifies as a SLAVE CONTRACT and Slave Contracts are UNLAWFUL IN TOTO, because Civil Public Speech is a RIGHT, NOT a PRIVILEGE, and once ONE person is allowed to openly insert an argument for-or-against a matter being discussed PUBLICLY, ALL PERSONS then have the DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak-in about the matter, with ORDER controlling the situation, not CONTROL controlling the situation, and everyone has the DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak-in about the matter in the nearest-vicinity to where the matter is being discussed PUBLICLY, within reason, and once allowed to insert a Good Faith argument, the person's words CANNOT be DELETED afterwards or ONE-WAY SPEECH is going down, which is violative of the FREE TRADE of Ideas that’s embodied in the First Amendment and also violative of Anti-Trust Laws Worldwide; which the Free Speech GUARANTEE of the First Amendment SourCes directly out of the Good Faith Doctrine built into Article 4, first-and-foremost, and to DELETE someone's Good Faith based Public Speech inserted lawfully ANYWHERE online, also easily qualifies as Theft of Intellectual Property; and Good Faith based Public Speech is NOT allowed to be CENSORED for CONTENT on the Internets, nor in ANY other Open Public Forums, which is also why Public Nudity isn't unlawful in any Open Public Forums, since SIMPLE Nudity qualifies as Symbolic Speech, which is also the foundation for why Public Streaking isn't unlawful; and that's because Public Streaking qualifies as a Lawful Civil Protest, thus, Public Streaking and/or simple Public Nudity is a Protected First Amendment Constitutional Right, too, online and offline, just don't go over the line with your Public Speech; and that LAWFUL LINE is drawn by the Good Faith Doctrine, not someone's OPINION." (aka: Ray Stevens Law) - Old Toad Proverb

[see: Watchtower vs. Stratton (2001); & Hustler vs. Falwell (1988); & Women Strike for Peace vs. Morton (1972); & Edwards vs. California (1941); & Slaughterhouse Cases (1873); & Martin Luther vs. Borden (1849); & Passenger Cases (1849); and Article 4 and Contracts Law.]


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584

18 U.S.C. 1584 - Sale into involuntary servitude<i></i>

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude<i></i> or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude<i></i>, any other person for any term<i></i>, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be subject to the penalties described in subsection (a).


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

18 U.S.C. 241 - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person<i></i> in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway<i></i>, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/202

17 U.S.C. 202 - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object

Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied<i></i>. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.


Those laws are FULLY applicable in the UK, via Laws of the UK that are IDENTICAL in nature to those Laws that are Laws; your RULES are NOT LAW, ASSHOLES!!!!!

Ribbit :lol:

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Please leave. Leave and never come back. Dealing with one bot is enough

Child Psychology says you subconsciously don't want me to Leave.

The best way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to do it.

Someone loves me!

Ribbit :lol:

I am so confused.

What is even going on right now?

 

[Toad Uoff]

Child Psychology says you subconsciously don't want me to Leave.

The best way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to do it.

Someone loves me!

Ribbit :lol:

I am so confused.

What is even going on right now?

Ribbit

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am so confused.

What is even going on right now?

What is going on is you are responding to a troll. Just ignore it, and it will slowly starve. That or the moderators will put it out of its misery.

 

[Toad Uoff]

I am so confused.

What is even going on right now?

What is going on is you are responding to a troll. Just ignore it, and it will slowly starve. That or the moderators will put it out of its misery.

I'm a Nazi Troll, that's why you don't like me, you're a Nazi, just as you proved now. :!:

Ribbit