Article Image Powell Gammill

Letters to the Editor • Media: Internet

Beyond The Right To Free Expression

To Ernest [and to Psychictaxi],

Let’s take note of this teaching-learning moment because this is about the inherent right of any media publication to declare its own EDITORIAL POLICY – to free the publication of libel or false personal attacks [written with malice] to damage reputations.  Publications reserve this right to protect the public from harm when opportunists misusing their rights to free expression are out of control.

Beyond the right to free expression is responsibility. The freedom of expression was not founded without that responsibility.

 Psychictaxi, this is the cynical comment you posted obviously to spite one who posted a different view:

“I didn\'t know there was any \'control mechanisms\' on free speech!?!”

Yes, there is, Psychictaxi.  This is the crux of the problem: Please try to understand and learn from this: You cannot shout “Fire! Fire!” when there is no fire, but you are just doing it for fun [sick and sadistic] inside a crowded theater because you believe you have the right to free speech -- and cause pandemonium, injury and death.

Please never think for a moment, that free speech is freedom to commit murder, okay so far? 

If you have gone to school of journalism to study this right to free speech among others, or at least own or run a newspaper or publication of general circulation like I did in these two instances, you shudder with the thought that out there, there are like you who are right now maybe thinking sadistically that free speech is a license to harm anyone or injure the public out of pure entertainment …

In another instance at this Psychictaxi link, you believed that THE POWER TO COIN AND PRINT MONEY was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY handed to a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as \'The Fed\'!” Up to now you have not proven that this statement is true.  You must support it with a U.S. Supreme Court declaration that such transfer of power “to coin and print money” to the Fed is unconstitutional.  For as long as you cannot support your unfounded insinuation, it is you, not Sumcad, who is fooling the public!

If you cannot back it up by citing such authority, the honest thing to do is to back out and discontinue spreading your disinformation. You cannot – should not – mislead the public by butting into a public conversation with false information or statement you cannot support.

Ernest, this is what I mean.  When those who are making comments are bereft of knowledge in development economics and monetary policies of which the Fed is central to the discussion [which could be formally learned from the academe as in the case of Sumcad, the author – and to add to it do not even know or understand the fundamentals of free speech when conducting a civil debate in this Forum] -- we cannot expect pleasant exchanges of ideas in public especially at this time when this country is in trouble and we need to communicate with each other as to what we think should be done vis-a-vis the problem/s.  Instead, what these guys want in this Forum are exchanges of mayhem as if they are going hammer and tong for a trophy as to who has the best expertise in name-calling!

From a Confused author-basher in this Forum, this is a sample of an entry of his expertise in this contest in name-calling:

When Confused bashed the author: “Well, we know who pays your bills Edwin. You are nothing more than a New World Order Confidence Artist.”

When Confused bashed Lolo who was expressing his views in support of what the author has written, maliciously insinuating that Lolo is “Edwin\'s over-protective Mom, or Edwin\'s henpecking wife/life partner …” niceties of insults. Does he need to insult not only Lolo but also Lolo’s mother and his wife? C’mon, guys …

The degree of sadistic binge involved in hurting people is even deeper than anyone may imagine when you read this these posted examples because this commentator declared without blinking that “I can\'t even pretend to care who gets offended …”  Take it directly from the horse’s mouth! His only purpose, albeit an insult, is just to offend authors in the Forum which obviously he derives some kind of sadistic enjoyment.  It is very disquieting to all of us because this aggressor who blatantly declared himself with defiance as an offender of FP’s posted guideline has no remorse in hurting people!

And just think about it – he has no idea what are the issues being discussed, so to spite the author he brought his Mother into the discussion to show how he was loved and taught good manners and right conduct and from there invited a rebuttal.  The subject of the discussion – the U.S. Federal Reserve – is nowhere to be found! He turned the Forum into something else!

Ernest, as Sumcad said, you always share your light with those in the dark so kindly bail me out on this, with whatever you think or whatever you think is worth … would it be okay for them to continue ignoring the guideline and turn this Forum into a site of retaliatory personality-hacking or do we need to remind them one more time to observe the editorial advisory when making comments – when posting remarks not on the person of the writer but on the opinion or writings -- not only out of respect of the views of contributing authors but also of the standing of the as a responsible media outlet in the Web. 

In closing, I apologize if this sounds disturbing. More so when by any chance this problem I am drawing attention to is coming from any member of the FP Staff.

In his flawed thinking, he thought that author Sumcad is a member of the Staff who was leading some kind of a disinformation campaign. He admitted this mistaken suspicion in this link bmcmolo: “I was mistaken to think the author of the article to which I responded was a FP staff member, and such was my concern.

I think clarification is the call of the day because when one of those who posted comments admitted that he thought editorials like that written by Sumcad came from members of the editorial Staff known to be committed to their “revolutionary” ideology, he expected them to be indifferent to any other views that are contrary, like the one he espoused.


4 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
The structure of FreedomsPhoenix is working well to keep these "discussions" compartmentalized for those few that care or wish to be entertained.

In the past, such 'Flame Wars' (oh, it's coming) would make an email list or blog useless. Here we have a chance to witness how such things play out without too much distraction.

There will come a time that I feel that FreedomsPhoenix and/or myself is being threatened with government force due to a writer's inability to "take it" and defend their opinions (or not) without resorting to 'they're picking on me'.

I am very familiar with the technique of selecting portions of a detractor's comments and constructing a more biased dialog. I find this the sign of... something yet to come.

I reserve the right/power/ability to set the level of access to this site at any level I want, to post to the Front Page,... or not, any posting I want/don't want. For the past few years I have had very little to do with what happens on this site other than encourage participation. But don't think that I will hesitate changing access levels based on whatever criteria I decide to use.

But for now, I will allow the evidence to continue to accumulate. This has bee a very valuable lesson for us all and I have been waiting for FreedomsPhoenix to experience it for years. Soooo, I guess someone deserves some thanks. I'll decide who later :)

Comment by Lolo
Entered on:
From Lolo: BETTER and SWEET

To Oyate – Your comment is the only sensible remark so far that had ever graced this page.
In order to give authors and the Forum even just a semblance of respect, I only called on those guys to observe the posted rules in making comments –no personal attacks when there are so many issues on board to discuss. But they passed judgment on Sumcad's person, on me Lolo, including my mother and my wife … personal attacks not on issues that were brought up!! I tell you these guys did their homework well on how to call and what name to give to anyone they don't like. They are on top of the dirt mound. Knowledge, ideas, civility – ZERO.

Anyway, thanks for coming in. I am sure readers would think your entry is a breath of fresh air. Your statement "Guilty by virtue of calling on the law" is short, but it packs a wallop. I only hope it is not too deep for them to understand.

To Jet Lacey –

Nobody cares whether or not I and Edwin are the same, except you.

Why only you are interested? Because you yourself had indicated that you are only in the Forum to show how good you are in name-calling. Your stack of vocabularies in attacking PERSONALITIES is unmatched. "Grow the hell up, would you please" is your latest [see above]. I would swallow my hesitation first before I can say this kind of vulgarity to others. It's surreal to me but to you, it is so natural and so easy.

Since up to your latest comment you are still on personalities – and out of the issues on Federal Reserve – your innuendo that I could be Edwin is unjust to someone that you think I could also be. You forgot my mother-in-law, for Christ's sake!

Please try to be correct even once, okay? You machinegun names to someone but still it doesn't hit!


Comment by foundZero
Entered on:
The irony of the editors publishing a spat about what they won't publish ain't lost on me. I can't resist getting involved.

I say the guy that said that they guy that said the other guy said this and that about the other guy after the other guy said this and that should be permanently banned, not because of any content infraction, but simply because the rule I have stated above is highly arbitrary. Like most civil law, it's simply an obtuse formula designed to produce one result: you are guilty.

Guilty by virtue of calling on the law.

Comment by Jet Lacey
Entered on:

We KNOW it's you writing your own responses in a "pseudo-handle" (I got the info from a reliable source).

Not to mention, we all wish you'd quit referring to yourself in the third person. It's weird man, REALLY wierd.

Grow the hell up, would you please?