[dt_toronto_geek]

Based on Doug's interview tonight where he repeated most of Rob's lies, I suspect he might be a co-defendant, sooner than later.

Dale has this one in the bag and Ford is most definitely screwed here (perhaps Doug too, I thought he was smarter than to be on about the "in our backyard..." lies after a libel suit is launched), there's no way Dale will lose. No way.

Please folks, allow Peepers to enjoy his vacation and let's move on. Please!

 

[jusbokeh]

The interesting thing is that Mr Dale has given Ford six weeks to retract his statement. Maybe he will.


Hahaaaa, just kidding. Is Hotmail pro on this?

the other guy who won him his conflict of interest is probably gonna take this.

also save post #38002 for posterity.

 

[Bennett000]

How wonderfully ironic that Peepers's posts about free speech got him banned from this board.

I think Peepers pushed his argument that harassment is free speech too far.

I think this is outrageous. I really value UT (and this thread in particular) and I agree with the majority opinion expressed here about most things. But I absolutely HATE the censorship policy of the mods and the mob mentality that supports this banning and many others like it in past.

In general I agree with this. I much prefer moderation systems like /.'s, however this is not /., it's UT. Having seen some posts deleted/moderated during my heavy refresh periods, I've come to appreciate the system. It's not perfect, but it keeps the thread on track. Still, it would be nice to have a better understanding of why people are banned.

 

[thereverend]

Oh the freedom of speech straw-man. If you are in my living room and my friends and I decide that you are behaving obnoxiously you will be asked to leave. You are free to continue your obnoxiousness on the street or at your home or at the home of someone who is not annoyed by you. You're freedom of speech has not been denied, just your right to shout in my living room. Shutting down debate at City Hall is an entirely different beast and conflating the two is a symptom of trollishness.

 

[Parker]

My personal bête noir: "Free Speech" refers to the freedom from government censorship of protected speech. Twitter can shut you down, Tumblr can pull your plug, an UT can ban your shiny behind and it has nothing to do with free speech. Freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to provide a platform for you.

Not all speech is protected - the classic example is you can't yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.
Hate Speech, harassment and sedition are also not protected.

Finally, Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom from criticism, nor freedom from consequences of your speech.

The More You Know™

 

[salsa]

From the rules of conduct:

- Make sure your posts contribute something meaningful to the thread.

Trolling
- No trolling, which is to say that a post or an ongoing series of posts of an antagonistic and disruptive nature, including borderline pathological attention to certain threads, which add little new perspective or information, and those which will only serve to needlessly and baselessly provoke a particular member or a group of members, are prohibited. An occasional harsh but fair comment would not be considered trolling.

So yeah I think Peepers was more interested in poking the hornet's nest rather than contributing a meaningful discussion. He repeatedly posts the same old conspiracy theories, sets off a storm of criticism, ignores it all, then posts the same thing again. Good riddence to him.

 

[mrtinfoilsocket]

The rest of you UTers, come on. If the Ford boys tried to shut down dissent in a budget meeting along these lines, you'd be outraged. So stand up for free speech in your virtual world as well.

I agree with you. I absolutely found some of Peeper's posts obnoxious - but that's because I disagreed with him. Did he repeatedly express a point of view that's contrary to the forum's prevailing opinion? Yes... but that's how debate is supposed to work. He saw the world differently than most of us but that's what drives discussion. Did we expect him to suddenly and artificially conform simply because we found it annoying?

I'm not trying to criticize the decisions that were made - I'm glad this place exists and I enjoy it immensely. I do think however that as a group we tend to use the term "troll" a little too loosely. Personally I'm willing to accept any type of debate that doesn't involve mean spirited and baseless personal attacks on other members... and I don't think Peeper was guilty of that. In fairness though, the keepers of this community (and it's members as a whole) are of course free to decide what type of debate they will tolerate.

 

[SunriseChampion]

In Peepers' defence, my c-word outburst a few weeks ago didn't get me banned, and by all appearances it was a lot more offensive to people here than anything Peepers has said lately.

I'm not complaining, just confused.
Though, maybe it was because I apologised sincerely and straight away.

PS: I didn't really consider Peepers a troll, just an odd individual.

 

[Bennett000]

In Peepers' defence, my c-word outburst a few weeks ago didn't get me banned, and by all appearances it was a lot more offensive to people here than anything Peepers has said lately.

I'm not complaining, just confused.
Though, maybe it was because I apologised sincerely and straight away.

PS: I didn't really consider Peepers a troll, just an odd individual.

You were really good about understanding the problems with what you said, and you retracted your statement.

edit, you said that yourself. I've got to learn to read.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Aaaanyway, where was this Doug Ford interview of tonight?

I completely missed it.

 

[flonicky]

I think Peepers is the very definition of a troll. He disrupted this thread again and again with the same nonsense (or different shades of the same nonsense). He did not bring an 'alternative view' ... he just distracted people. Banning him was good forum moderation; it's not a matter of 'free speech'.

 

[ShonTron]

Sigh.

I was the one who pulled the trigger, but it was not a decision anyone took lightly. The mods were discussing this for a long time. There has been a long history of objectionable posts, and obsessions on such things as Sharia Law and Halal Meats with undertones of Islamophobia, the Island Airport, Rob Ford, deliberately provocative posts. It's been tolerated for a long time.

 

[ThinkRicky]

Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to be a disengiuous hack and then constantly ignore when others when you get repeatedly called on it. That behvaiour doesn't drive discussion and it's dishonest. I'm glad Peepers is gone.

 

[cutlass]

Does anyone know for sure if there is a law against Doug Ford buying votes. I think there must be grounds for a charge here under the elections act.
He is a sitting councillor not a private citizen.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Does anyone know for sure if there is a law against Doug Ford buying votes. I think there must be grounds for a charge here under the elections act.
He is a sitting councillor not a private citizen.

I believe it would only apply during an election.

I could be wrong. (Probably am)