Reply #69: You're Still Missing My Point [View All]

[arwalden]

by trying to inaccurately compare online political dissent with online medical advice. That's a silly comparison. And in doing so, it dilutes or ignores the real threats and risks posed to DU by permitting medical advice (or its equivalent). It's an open invitation for our adversaries to claim damages--whether real or invented--and cause harm to DU.

Actual "treasonous" and "unlawful" activities that you suggest are happening here is prohibited by DU rules--as a moderator you should know that already--and if it's happening, then it is deleted to protect all of our interests. It's the prudent and responsible thing to do. This is no different.

>> Should we then consider all of DU's discussion, protest, open ideas etc. selfish and vain? <<

What an preposterous thing to ask... but I'll answer anyway.

No. We should not consider "all of DU's discussion" to be selfish and vain... only those discussions that put DU at risk of financial liability should fall into that category. I hope this answer clears up any confusion for you.

Following your logic, one might surmise that you'd be in favor of--or that you'd defend the rights of others to form--a bomb-making forum. As long as the proper disclaimers were included... why not, eh? ("This is for informational and educational purposes only. We do not advocate that you actually make a bomb, but here's the instructions anyway.") No... of course I know you wouldn't actually be in favor of that! I'm just being absurd to illustrate absurdity.

There is a difference between speech and topics that others find 'offensive' and those things which someone can be held legally and financially accountable for actual damages. If you truly don't understand the difference, then there's nothing more I can say. (Personally, I think you're smarter than the words you write... and that you really do understand.)