Author Topic: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)  (Read 25701 times)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« on: August 25, 2011, 12:09:03 PM »
Oratam_Weaping sent this earlier today.
-----------------------------------------
To whom it may concern:

I do not expect you to post this but I do expect to be taken off the monitores and review because there is not just cause to do so.  I have not made any threats or used profane language to anyone.

The sheer principal that I would be placed on a censorship and review because my choice of language was humorous at worse, and INTERPRETED derrogary by those whop may hav disagreed with my choice of harmless words, is unconstitutional. A violation of my civil rights.

I would like to remind the owner of this domain that it is .org, and further it ties directly in a numner of different "counts" to an adminitration that is employed by a government agency, the government agebct itself.

I herewith request be taken off review, or that the administration exhibit just cause as to why I was placed on review.

Please be advised that this communication is aimed at the preservation and enforcement of my civil rights and the actions of the moderator or administrator may be subject to action to [reserve those rights.

Thank You,

_________________________________
Please note that use of this board is contingent upon a user's acceptance of the registration agreement which everyone who posts here must accept before they can post. It is set forth below.

As I've said before, do not confuse your right to speak with the right to be heard.  No one has denied your right to speak.  However, you do not have the right to hijack this private website for your own personal soapbox.  I created this site, long before my employ with the city, to provide a convenient place for city dialogue. Good luck trying to get your posts in any newspaper.

You will be permitted to use this site so long as you do not abuse it.  You were placed on moderated posting (where I read your post before it goes live) because I considered your prior post "hateful"- a violation of the agreement.  I call them as I see them.  If you don't like the format, you can post someplace else.  In your post, you labeled homeless people as "undesirable". You also compared them to "pigeons" and stated they were "encroaching" your neighborhood.  If you deny this, I will remove your ability to edit posts. I see now that you choose to remove the hateful portions of your post. 

I will consider your request to turn off your post moderation. Understand: continued abuse may result in permanent removal of posting privileges.

__________________________________
Registration Agreement

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.

You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.

You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason.  We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.

After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.

Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.

Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 12:20:34 PM by Editor »



Offline Oratam_Weaping

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: -2
    • View Profile
    • Weap Integration in planniNG (Weaping)
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2011, 12:37:08 PM »
Respectfully: I have not posted anything of the nature, in my opinion which falls under the any of the provisions of abuse or agreemenmts described. There has been no such violation of the terms that could be considered under the "abuse" you described, and especially those that were cited in a previous post.
Any such violation is clealy subjective, and where public forums are concerned, that are in any way not part of a private organization, and ARE in any way connected to a government agency, or employee of a government agency, an objective opinion as administered by the law must be applied by process to determine: a) if the violation of the terms fall within the scope of definitions set forth by the agreement;
a-2) If any percieved violation could be justified as a threat to commit an act of violence, do bodily harm, result in the planing of destruction to property.; b) if the agreement to participate requires the forfieture of civil or constitutional rights (unconstitutional); c) if the forum is about politics, effects policy, or connected to any way to any public organization or government entity.

You can NOT be contractually obligated to consent to the forfieture of constitutional rights. You can not sign them away and neither can congress.When it starts happening on a local level, or effecting citizens, it's time to go to court. The government has to stop this too by mis-respresetation of the will and common good of the people, by elected officials. 


« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 01:11:16 PM by Oratam_Weaping »

Offline Oratam_Weaping

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: -2
    • View Profile
    • Weap Integration in planniNG (Weaping)
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2011, 04:31:52 PM »
This is a friendly note. I hope your interpretation of it picks up that it is as much meant to be helpful as it is critical:

It is beyond my nature to remove the prior posts you termed as "hateful" and I termed or intended as expressionary, and even humourous. Any edit I have done was and remains to clarify grammar and correct spelling. I have no problem with not being able to modify posts so long as I can post over corrections with new posts, and no-one else can modify them. I stand firm that what you may have considered inflamatory and abusive is not within the parameters of reasonable. However, it may be arguable that you or others may believe that my calling "Homeless" undesireable, and not very funny comparing Homeless people being handed vouchers akin to "Pidgeons (being fed) in Rome" I contend that political correctness to this degree is a wrongful representation of judgement in determining the extent to what a person may post on a public forum. Subjective. And, I assure you this is a public forum and directly connected to one or more public policy making boards, it is also visible to non-members. 

I would strongly suggest that if you intend this forum to have any credibility, and if you realize that it appears to many,  to be an official function or in some way connected to the city of Hackensack as it may be, it may be wise to separate your feelings from what can be interpreted by the courts as a Freedom of Speech violation.

That's all I want to say about it. If you have not restored my ability to post without review, please do so.

Thank you.

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2011, 05:28:31 PM »
Mr. Oratam means well for Hackensack.  He's lived in Hackensack, in the same house, for at least 55 years.  And therefore he has a unique and valuable perspective on what is happening to Hackensack, and especially on what is happening to his neighborhood.

He doesn't always agree with my posts, but I respect his opinion.

If I lived less than 100 feet from this proposed mentally-ill facility, I'd be going nuts on this website as well.  Especially after the Editor referred to it as a facility for the developmentally disabled. I have determined that to be a false statement. It's a facility for the mentally ill, including some who have homes and some who are homeless on the streets of Hackensack.  It is not a facility for the developmentally disabled, such as autism patients or cerebral palsy victims.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2011, 08:29:55 PM »
Roaches are undesirable.  Rats are undesirable.  Even pigeons can be undesirable.  To label people as "undesirable" raises a red flag for me, - if not a red, black and white one.  The term harkens back to a very sinister time in the not-so-distant past and was the stated reason to exclude whole segments of society,- including the mentally ill.     

No, this is not a case of hyper-political correctness on my part.  This is about taking responsibility for speech and understanding that speech can be used to incite, intimidate and harass. Our founding fathers understood that and our courts do too.  One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie house.  One cannot defame another.  One cannot incite mobs to violence. I don't know why Oratam chose the words he did.  I simply ascribed to his words their plain meaning.  Perhaps Oratam's decision to edit himself indicates some recognition of his poor choice of words. Somehow, I doubt it.   

If this forum is to maintain credibility, people who post here must be responsible for their words. Hiding behind the veil of anonymity to spew forth a hateful agenda is not responsible.  Making allegations and threats of legal action to further that agenda is not responsible.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a private forum.  This site is privately funded and in no way endorsed, approved or supported by any government entity.  Period. 

I'm curious how other members feel about this.  In light of several recent posts, two members have suggested that we put Oratam's member status to a vote.  Any thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 09:57:57 PM by Editor »

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2011, 10:39:15 PM »

I understand the Editor's frustration.  He owns this website.  For those posts to be online discredits the website, and puts the Editor in the position that if he does nothing, then HE looks bad.  People might start asking why he allows such things on the website.

Let's hope that Mr. Oratam has gotten the message, and that he will not cross the line again.

Offline Homer Jones

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Karma: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2011, 08:29:43 AM »
Assuming that the Editor is correct that this site is a private forum, privately funded and not supported or approved by any government entity, then "censorship" is not really an issue here. I have likened this forum to Lite FM where local and historical issues have been bantered about without, shall we say, a radical departure from the norm. This had been the case prior to the 1 Essex Street controversy where clashing personalities and philosophies have taken center stage.

 I have reached the point now that I refuse to read musings from certain parties since they detract from the successful format of the past and I hope the future of this site.

Might I suggest that Oratam_Watching start his own website where he and others with similar leanings may express their viewpoints on any range of topics and persons with similar views can likewise express their thoughts. I do not know the mechanics of establishing a website; but, I am sure that there are books or even other websites that can provide this information. Enough said on my part.

Offline BLeafe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Karma: 26
    • View Profile
    • Bob Leafe Photography
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2011, 09:37:54 AM »
Might I suggest that Oratam_Watching start his own website

That's an A#1 great idea, Homer, but you misspelled the misspelling.  (I trust that wasn't Freudian)  ;)

Think Elmer Fudd trying to say "Reaping".

Like music? Like photography? Step into my office: http://xrl.us/BobL - - - - - - - http://xrl.us/BobsDarkness

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2011, 11:32:26 AM »
Less than funny.

I've made important contributions to this website and I've started important strings. 

This is a neutral website, and it doesn't have a political agenda.  Officially.

There are thousands of readers of this website, but only a few regular contributors. 99% of the readers are still reading the postings of all the contributors.

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2011, 04:23:20 PM »
I feel the need to chime in. I was at the first Planning Board meeting when this application was heard. What I heard was very different from what Oratam Weaping stated on this forum. It is listed as a "vocational school", partly because our zoning code does not have any other definition that fits the activities there. There was also a client of the the agency at that meeting. She was clearly developmentally disabled. I refer back to the post where Oratam stated that it was I who moved my seat away from him and seemed to have a problem speaking. It was a developmentally disable person that he was disparaging. The way he speaks of these people, as if there were not human, it what scares me. It is those types of statements that scare me more than any of the clients of the agency.

If he can refrain from personal attacks and keep his comments civil, he should be able to post here. If he cannot do that, then I see no reason why the readers should be subjected to inflammatory statements.

I vote for probation. One more strike & he's out. :police:

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2011, 07:18:51 AM »
The way he speaks of these people, as if there were not human, it what scares me.

correction (was rushing out to football yesterday), sorry - just felt I needed to make this statement clear because it is the core of my issue with this

The way he speaks of these people, as if they were not human, is what scares me.

Offline Oratam_Weaping

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: -2
    • View Profile
    • Weap Integration in planniNG (Weaping)
Re: Censorship? (Oratam_Weaping)
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2011, 01:49:50 PM »
CAN WE GET THIS STRAIGHT AND MOVE ON:

1) my ISSUE WAS NEVER with the Developmentally Disabled or Mentally  Ill 
2) My issue IS, as I confidently presented, those who allowed to be DEFINED as Mentally Ill by SAMSHA that CSP-NJ advertises their statewide services to, and include: Released Prisoners; Criminals with history of Mental Illness and behavioral problems; Sex Offenders; Drug Addicts; Alcoholics;
3) That CSPNJ does not screen the people who drop in, or they interview, refer, or accepts; and in placing flyers to facilities which are intended for those  described in #2 (above), CSPNJ attracts them to the city of Hackensack where they are reffered county taxpayer services, and to free private services. They end up mixing with "questionable" populations in the troubled areas and rooming houses, in Hackensack and staying here.