Mr. LaBarge, I normally wouldn't be responding to you about this but you
brought it up as Mr. Rizoli discussed the survey, then your featuring his
discussion as an example regarding restrictions.
So having said that .... it seems that Mr. Rizoli is correct when he expresses
the sentiment that causes me to think there is an 'open season' on him, that he
can be maligned when others are not. The balancing act of free speech is not
equally applied.
One thing I have observed is that Jim HAS taken responsibility for his part in
the bad feelings with JP and has made an attempt at reconciliation, though JP
has not; however, Jim continues to be wrongly maligned. It seems to me that
because he maintains his innocence and addresses the consequent wrongful
punitive measures against him, which caused his cable shows to be terminated,
why not revisit this. Allow him to explain exactly what happened. Give him his
day in court to present his case to this forum.
Some insist that he repeatedly brings up the subjects concerning the sanctions
against him. I would too in this wrongful prosecution, if you will. I would
continue to seek justice and that would be important to me. I don't see how
there is a difference between those who repeatedly bring up dog parks and dog
poop, topics important to them and Jim's topic which is important to him - the
similarity being REPETITIVE postings. Should we not give Jim the right to
express himself without interruption or sanction, censorship on something that
is important to him? We (non dog owners) have to endure the constant seeming
diatribe of dog owner issues and I don't object ... but I would if my topic was
being censored in deference to dog owner issues.
Look at it this way. Jim feels he was mistreated by AF-TV and by others and
also here on this forum as a result. He thought he might find understanding
and support, if more details of his situation were known .... the injustice
being similar to a violation. It would be like a woman who was raped hoping to
find understanding and support but instead being blamed for her assault - "You
must have done something to deserve it or it wouldn't have happened" -- making
the victim now a villain.
I might have thought this the case with Jim, especially from the seeming
legitimate counter responses, but holding onto the adage, (seriously
paraphrased) "... everything seems correct and true until you hear the other
side..." Keep in mind, I'm a vehement advocate of free speech and it is
immaterial to me the political or historical discussion .... just the freedom
to discuss. I realized that Jim is and has not being/been given the
consideration of a fair hearing here or appeal with AF-TV.
So, since the issue of restrictions emerged in this discussion from the forum
survey, the whole idea sending shivers of dread up and down my spine, the idea
of increased restrictions with the pretense of 'rule of civility', "...
threatening, insulting, or inciting hostility against any person or group of
people because of their race, color, national origin, ethnic background,
immigration status, religion, religion (creed), social or economic class,
occupation. gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age,
height, weight, disability, political affiliations, marital status, family
status or military status." ... bothers me greatly. I look at it as the
slippery slope to NO freedom of significant discussions.
Some believe there are few people who post because of the direction of the
conversations. I believe people rise to the issue of debate. What they stay
clear of is being demonized and sanctioned for their opinions. I suspect many
of the 850 members on this forum don't wish to engage in discussion for this
reason. The specter of further restrictions would only reduce participation
further.
Specifically, Mr. LaBarge, and again, since YOU made reference to Jim Rizoli's
situation with AF-TV, as an example of necessary restrictions on this forum, I
will return to it. I realize that AF-TV has specific rules, Jim abode by them
and apparently AF-TV did not. I myself would appreciate hearing from Jim,
point by point, what happened. What were the rules in question? What was he
accused of? What did AF-TV do?
Just because an agency, particularly a business or government agency DOES
something doesn't make it right. The issue of the children taken from Mr.
Wolfe's house, for example, (earlier post) and (I'm still having a difficult
time wrapping my mind around that one), just because they were taken doesn't
mean it was right or even legal. It bears further investigation.