Freedom of Speech

[AndrewG]

It seems that the Forum on the Official website (http://www.meatloaf-oifc.com) uses some kind of IP checking to block members. I have had complaints from some meaty friends via email who cannot post messages on the forum anymore.

Seems kind of unfair in light of the freedom of speech act. Suppose many of the messages were getting quite bad on there though.

Don't know what you guys think but I think everyone is still entitled to their opinion. However it suprises me to see people posting messages with a distinct lack of respect towards Meat Loaf.

Keep Rockin' guys. (Can't wait until the 30th!!!!)

[Oriel]

Aye, they're worse than Hilter. If you bring to people's attention the fact that Meat is not a god, and that his farts don't smell like flowers, then they don't take kindly to it at all, DavidM being the worse of the accused.*

M'eh, you just gotta live with it I guess. We all do.**


*opinion
**fact

[CarylB]

I disagree. The messages which have been removed are usually ones that are vitriolic, angry, abusive and in no way any fair reflection on the shows .. also many of them are clearly the work of one or two posting again and again under different names (identical poor spelling, absence of punctuation and same old phrases are a dead giveaway). It was pretty obvious that some had not even attended the concerts they were rubbishing. They have also removed messages from someone trying to sell illegal bootlegs. They do not ban people lightly, and would not ban anyone who is not abusive to Meat or people posting there.

The site is Meat's official international fanclub, and imo there's no reason why abusive posts should be left there. Freedom of speech does not cover libellous comments intended to damage the reputation of someone, nor does it excuse verbal abuse scattered graffiti-like by internet vandals. To refer to either Vee or Wez as "worse than ~~~~~~" is imo to abuse the very freedom of speech you say is so important.

Even here if abuse gets bad enough it is dealt with. Why shouldn't a website ban people who just seek to vandalise a site with abuse intended to hurt and upset Meat and his fans? Frankly I get tired of people going on about freedom of speech. This freedom was intended to allow people the freedom to criticise and stand up against such things aas tyranny, unfair treatment and "establishment" abuse. It was not intended to allow libel or slander, nor should it be used imo by cowards who use profanity solely to upset others, and who hurl abuse at individuals from the safety of assumed names on the internet.

Laws come with some level of responsibility on those who use them to justify what they do, and common decency should be observed in public forums. If someone abuses your telephone line it is entirely reasonable to have them blocked and dealt with. If someone abuses your email system the same is true. So, imo, is it with public message boards where if the standards of common decency are upheld and wanted by the majority, and those standards explained on them, to prevent those who are incaphable of behaving from posting is democratic.

Anyone is entitled to hold any opinion they choose, but this is about how they express it, and I applaud anyone who makes a stand against the abusive, the profane, the internet vandals and those who are incapable of expressing themselves in a civilised way.

[Debbi V]

Originally Posted by musicman2424

It seems that the Forum on the Official website (http://www.meatloaf-oifc.com) uses some kind of IP checking to block members. I have had complaints from some meaty friends via email who cannot post messages on the forum anymore.

Just a thought, but have your friends noticed the new spam filter on the OIFC Forum? You have to enter the indicated code to let the board software know that you are typing a message and that your message is not part of a mass mailing.

As I said, just a thought - Deb V

[AndrewG]

Well I agree with many of you that indeed I've seen some bad posts on there. Even on the Jim Steinman forum there is one particular person who's been posting bad things about Meat Loaf for years.

I understand there policy but the blocking of IP addresses is quite interesting as it's quite a fiesty measure I suppose.

It's a shame it has come to this.

[CarylB]

I understand there policy but the blocking of IP addresses is quite interesting as it's quite a fiesty measure I suppose.

I think it's a sensible measure, and one I know Vee does not take lightly, but has done rarely and then only after repeated warnings about abuse. As their message board is not password protected they are more vulnerable to this kind of internet vandalism, and even blocking an ISP is not foolproof, as people on dial-up access will be able to post on the board when their ISP changes. The only total protection is a password protected pay site. Then if people fail to heed warnings you can block them, and they can't sneak back in without paying again, and when they register a card to pay you can spot them and refuse membership .. few of these cowards are likely to set up false bank accounts to continue to enjoy their abusive fun :)

But if your friends have not repeatedly been abusive it may well be as Debbi suggests that they aren't putting the spam protection code in, which will prevent their post from being accepted.

[Kathy]

Originally Posted by CarylB

... common decency should be observed in public forums.
...
Anyone is entitled to hold any opinion they choose, but this is about how they express it, ...

I so agree, Caryl.

-Kathy

[Vickip]

Originally Posted by CarylB

I disagree. The messages which have been removed are usually ones that are vitriolic, angry, abusive and in no way any fair reflection on the shows .. also many of them are clearly the work of one or two posting again and again under different names (identical poor spelling, absence of punctuation and same old phrases are a dead giveaway). It was pretty obvious that some had not even attended the concerts they were rubbishing. They have also removed messages from someone trying to sell illegal bootlegs. They do not ban people lightly, and would not ban anyone who is not abusive to Meat or people posting there.

The site is Meat's official international fanclub, and imo there's no reason why abusive posts should be left there. Freedom of speech does not cover libellous comments intended to damage the reputation of someone, nor does it excuse verbal abuse scattered graffiti-like by internet vandals. To refer to either Vee or Wez as "worse than ~~~~~~" is imo to abuse the very freedom of speech you say is so important.

Even here if abuse gets bad enough it is dealt with. Why shouldn't a website ban people who just seek to vandalise a site with abuse intended to hurt and upset Meat and his fans? Frankly I get tired of people going on about freedom of speech. This freedom was intended to allow people the freedom to criticise and stand up against such things aas tyranny, unfair treatment and "establishment" abuse. It was not intended to allow libel or slander, nor should it be used imo by cowards who use profanity solely to upset others, and who hurl abuse at individuals from the safety of assumed names on the internet.

Laws come with some level of responsibility on those who use them to justify what they do, and common decency should be observed in public forums. If someone abuses your telephone line it is entirely reasonable to have them blocked and dealt with. If someone abuses your email system the same is true. So, imo, is it with public message boards where if the standards of common decency are upheld and wanted by the majority, and tose standards explained on them, to prevent those who are incapable of behaving from posting is democratic.

Anyone is entitled to hold any opinion they choose, but this is about how they express it, and I applaud anyone who makes a stand against the abusive, the profane, the internet vandals and those who are incapable of expressing themselves in a civilised way.

I absolutely agree Caryl !!
Thank you
Vicki

[Pudding]

There's a difference between banning someone because they're a complete moron and banning someone because they have a negative comment. And what one person interprets as a really harsh statement might not necessarily be so, it's just how they've interpretted it.

Obviously it's a very sensitive issue when someone might have a negative comment to make and then they post it on a message board because you have people who idolise, worship and are absolutely crazy about the person that message board is dedicated to. Hell you only have to read half a dozen posts from the "One for the girls!!!!!" thread on this board to realise that there are people out there who are living in a complete fantasyland and are potentially a danger to the general public at large. I once did a post elsewhere titled 'From Fan To Fanatic' where not only is it unhealthy but dangerous to the individual when someone starts talking about their idol as if they know them personally and know exactly what they're feeling, when clearly they've probably never met them or if they have, then only for a couple of minutes in an hectic surround. Clearly there are people here, there and everywhere who fit that mould but I'm not going to start pointing the finger. And I think no one can disagree that there are people who kiss arse more than a dog on heat!!!

I totally agree though that there should be a certain amount of decorum when posting a message and it is about how they express it but 'One Mans Meat is Another Mans Poison' so the saying goes.

Pud:o]

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Pudding

There's a difference between banning someone because they're a complete moron and banning someone because they have a negative comment. And what one person interprets as a really harsh statement might not necessarily be so, it's just how they've interpretted it.


I totally agree though that there should be a certain amount of decorum when posting a message and it is about how they express it but 'One Mans Meat is Another Mans Poison' so the saying goes.

Pud:o]

This is what I was getting at pudding.
I think they should indeed also have a log in system like this site.

[CarylB]

And what one person interprets as a really harsh statement might not necessarily be so, it's just how they've interpretted it.

And the posts which were removed were appalling Pud. I don't intend to repeat them here, but you know me for speaking clearly and not pussyfooting around. Trust me, these were extremely unpleasant. The only people who have been banned as far as I'm aware are people who have consistently, and despite warnings, abused individuals and Meat on the board.

Ultimately it's their website, and their decision. We would do the same on our website. I don't invite vandals into my home, and see no reason to tolerate them on one's webpages.

As far as a login system is concerned, I believe they are waiting for Meat's new site to be set up. Vee will be running the part for USA fans, and her boards will be safely behind a password protected system then.

Meat said:

op-ion yes, but putdowns, Lies and just plan being angry over what I don't know I will not tolerate

I agree. I see no reason why he should find them acceptable in his house or on his websites, nor any why I should tolerate them in or on mine

[Pudding]

Yes, a log in system works but I see that as a blessing and a curse. I've never been over to OIFC message board doo-dah and I don't intend to so i don't know the set up but I know at times on the Steinman board a log in system would be great, then you can just delete or block individual posts or posters. It's the freedom of expression that I like though where you can say what you want when you want and know that you're not going to get deleted unless things go South big time. Perhaps that's why a few over here feel that we're angry or mad over there because we can express ourselves more openly.

Pud:o]

[Dave]

Originally Posted by sinecure

DavidM being the worse of the accused.

OMG~!

It is with great pleasure that I bestow upon another waste of my valuable time....

* P O O F *

ROCK ON GOOD TIMES!!!

[Kathy]

Originally Posted by Pudding

Hell you only have to read half a dozen posts from the "One for the girls!!!!!" thread on this board to realise that there are people out there who are living in a complete fantasyland and are potentially a danger to the general public at large. Pud:o]

Oh, come on.
-Kathy

[Pudding]

Tis true I tell yers

Although I don't personally know Meat so I'm only surmising here but, I'm sure he doesn't get his jollies by reading what someone wants to do to him and how people have fantasised about him in a way that would make Mary Whitehouse turn in her grave.

How do you think he'd react upon meeting someone who had written about their fantasy and said I'm so and so, and Meat saying "Oh yes you're that person who wants to pour jelly in my belly-button just so you can lick out the fluff! And shove a carrott up my arse and dip it in hummus!"

Come on people have been locked up for less.

Pud:o]

[CarylB]

Come on Pud .. I'd be willing to stake the odd Loafdom dollar that Meat doesn't bother to wade through a thread which is essentially pictures of him, supplemented with a bit of female fantasising .. and he IS the one who proclaims himself a Sex God anyway :)

On balance though, as he sees that face every time he takes razor in hand I'd guess he spends what time he can afford here looking at other things .. unless he's in need of a Sex God boost .. in which case a thread of excitable and pretty harmless fun will do the job! As to "shoving a carrot up his arse and dipping it in hummus" .. don't recall spotting that one .. perhaps it's an Aussie kind of thing? Like all those smiling sheep?

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by CarylB

As to "shoving a carrot up his arse and dipping it in hummus" .. don't recall spotting that one .. perhaps it's an Aussie kind of thing?

It probably is Thank God I live in New Zealand!

Pud

[CarylB]

A sentiment no doubt shared by the sheep .. :) :) :)

[Pudding]

Oh yes, I'm a lucky lad and they're lucky sheep

Pud:o]

[Di]

Well..... somebody's gotta shepherd all those poor innocent sheep who have lost their way.....



Di

[little_dancer]

Well...Pud

Maybe I haven't read 'One for the Girls' in some time, then...I don't recall having read anything remotely sexual or fanatic, mostly just girls who think Meat Loaf is 'cute' posting 'cute' pics of him....um pudding, have you read a movie magazine?? Plenty of people think that various celebrities are 'cute'. You may not find him 'cute' but is finding a rock star 'cute', that strange??? What fantasies are you talking about??

but as I say, I haven't read it in a long time, I haven't had time to do anything but work at my crazy jobs in a long time- god I need a vacation- so perhaps it has become weird....

Still, girls do giggle about boys Pud-

if you want to see weird- go check out what male fans say on a Pam Anderson website- it sure 'aint pictures and 'gee she's cute' captions!

[Cabbie212]

Well said!

[RoknRollJesus]

Originally Posted by Pudding

Hell you only have to read half a dozen posts from the "One for the girls!!!!!" thread on this board to realise that there are people out there who are living in a complete fantasyland and are potentially a danger to the general public at large

Wow...I was only aiming for being a danger to my immediate friends and relatives....I think I like the public at large even better!

I think I'll go post a picture in the "One For the Girls" forum...

jo
Disclaimer:The above post is TOTALLY meant to be in jest...please do not take it personally or send me a flame.

[CarylB]

Little dancer wrote:

if you want to see weird- go check out what male fans say on a Pam Anderson website- it sure 'aint pictures and 'gee she's cute' captions!

From my mind to your keyboard ..

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by little_dancer

Still, girls do giggle about boys Pud-

That's funny

Depends what you mean by a 'boys pud'

Pud