Incitec Pivot Ltd T.IPL

RE:MMMM

[Sadie222]

Lack of censorship is more damaging imho. That allows anyone to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. It allows the production and distribution of distorted information and outright lies by sociopaths who have an agenda, and relies on the audience to do their own DD. It’s abundantly clear that most can’t/won’t. Since this ignorance affects the way people make choices (eg voting) it is, effectively, anarchy. A recipe for disaster.
The rules for censorship can be maintained by a non-affiliated group that has access to experienced sources to provide reliable background on particular issues (no stuffing the group with political/religious agendas), but WE NEED SOMETHING that doesn’t cost your firstborn to enforce (like our current legal system).

marketsense wrote: Looks like collecting will be a problem for both the court and the plaintiffs.   The lawsuit was
successful in court but doesn't mean much if you can't enforce it so being "careful" in what
you say has very little "impact" in the real world of chat board discussion IMO.  The internet
is a conduit for both good and bad and is really a reflection of the good and bad in people,
which ultimately cannot be controlled or suppressed.    As annoying and frustrating at times 
this is,  the only fix for this is something even worse,  like an internet thought police. 

Censorship in any form has its own evils,  especially in n open free society like ours.  On the
other hand,  anyone being subjected to slanderous,  insidious hateful like comments should 
have legal recourse and protection.    Society as a whole needs to come to grips with these 
issues and to my understanding,  has had a very difficult time in doing so.  There are no easy
answers and the bottom line is a continuation of what is IMO.   I read SH for information and
feedback of what others are thinking.  I use my own discretion as to what's valuable and what's
annoying,  and what's useless garbage.  It works for me.