Double standards on this site

[antimon9]

I’m totally fed up with the double standards  the so  called moderators on this site apply. 
I ask a sensible question about something other than the dubious lust everyone here has for HIV and I get suspended (under another soubriquet, obviously). 
I can’t understand why wanting to talk about hiv is good and wanting to talk about something else is not permissible. 
I challenge Viking 2x2 (or whatever puny stat he likes) to explain himself. 
no doubt this will be censored- tho your precious 5th amendment should allow me to say what I fucking  like
 

[antimon9]

9 minutes ago, antimon9 said:

I’m totally fed up with the double standards  the so  called moderators on this site apply. 
I ask a sensible question about something other than the dubious lust everyone here has for HIV and I get suspended (under another soubriquet, obviously). 
I can’t understand why wanting to talk about hiv is good and wanting to talk about something else is not permissible. 
I challenge Viking 2x2 (or whatever puny stat he likes) to explain himself. 
no doubt this will be censored- tho your precious 5th amendment should allow me to say what I fucking  like
 

Just to be clear - how is it ok in the back room to talk about acquiring an hiv infection but not ok to talk about getting anything else

 

its completely incomprehensible to me and only explicable on the basis that new moderators are required 

[BootmanLA]

25 minutes ago, antimon9 said:

Just to be clear - how is it ok in the back room to talk about acquiring an hiv infection but not ok to talk about getting anything else

 

its completely incomprehensible to me and only explicable on the basis that new moderators are required 

If by "anything else" you mean a sexually transmitted infection, the rules on that (which went into effect more than a year ago) are crystal clear. The reasoning behind them - which you may or may not agree with - are also spelled out here: 

 This post appears at the very top of the Backroom section, and if "READ THIS!" isn't sufficient to get someone to actually read the rules, I'm not sure what else the site owner could do.

Regardless, your ire is misplaced. The moderators enforce the rules laid down at the top. The site owner, who makes the rules, has made his position clear on this. Complaining and mocking the moderator who gave an infraction is childish and unproductive.

[ErosWired]

The First Amendment is only a guarantee that the government will not make laws preventing free speech. It doesn’t mean anyone can say anything he wants anywhere, especially on a privately hosted website belonging to someone else who gets to make his own rules in his own house where you are a guest.

What, one wonders, do you hope to achieve by insulting the moderators and by circumventing a suspension, which, on other sites that I am familiar with, would get you banned at the IP level? But perhaps they are more gracious here.

[BootmanLA]

31 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

The First Amendment is only a guarantee that the government will not make laws preventing free speech. It doesn’t mean anyone can say anything he wants anywhere, especially on a privately hosted website belonging to someone else who gets to make his own rules in his own house where you are a guest.

What, one wonders, do you hope to achieve by insulting the moderators and by circumventing a suspension, which, on other sites that I am familiar with, would get you banned at the IP level? But perhaps they are more gracious here.

To be fair, I think the OP here *IS* implicating his Fifth Amendment rights (conceptually speaking; they obviously don't apply to private companies). Because he sure as shit is waiving his right to testify against himself. 

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

To be fair, I think the OP here *IS* implicating his Fifth Amendment rights (conceptually speaking; they obviously don't apply to private companies). Because he sure as shit is waiving his right to testify against himself

I wonder, though, since he says “your precious fifth amendment”, whether he isn’t indicating that he isn’t a U.S. citizen, in which case it’s unclear why he should complain of not receiving the benefits of a Constitution that doesn’t apply to him.

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I wonder, though, since he says “your precious fifth amendment”, whether he isn’t indicating that he isn’t a U.S. citizen, in which case it’s unclear why he should complain of not receiving the benefits of a Constitution that doesn’t apply to him.

Fwiw, at least for now, some portions of the Constitution DO apply to non-citizens. The Court has held that absent a qualifying adjective, "person" means all persons, citizen or not, and in general, any provisions of criminal law in the constitution apply to all persons. As do First Amendment rights, for that matter.

Of course the current regime might well ditch that precedent at some point.

Interestingly, because SCOTUS has held the Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess a firearm to "people", some federal courts are holding that restrictions on undocumented immigrants possessing firearms are unconstitutional. (Felons can be prohibited from firearm possession as that flows from their conviction with, one presumes, due process.) 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

Fwiw, at least for now, some portions of the Constitution DO apply to non-citizens. The Court has held that absent a qualifying adjective, "person" means all persons, citizen or not, and in general, any provisions of criminal law in the constitution apply to all persons. As do First Amendment rights, for that matter.

The question is, what benefits of the U.S. Constitution can a foreign national residing in another sovereign nation claim entitlement to simply by virtue of accessing a U.S.-based website from abroad, which is what I’m assuming is the case here. The First Amendment doesn’t so much positively confer a right as expressly prohibit the government from interfering with it. It doesn’t say “every person in America shall have the right to speak as he wishes”, it says “the government shall not tell the people what they can and cannot say.” Perhaps it might be closer to the mark to say that our form of government (thus far at least) has recognized that all persons are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, and these must therefore apply to people no matter what country they happen to live in if they cross, physically or virtually, into our realm.