I just joined NowPublic "nowpublic.com." To do so, I had to agree to their " ." Those require me to agree not to post anything, among other things, as follows:
unlawful, harassing, libelous, defamatory, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature or transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, provincial, state, national or international law or regulation.
Can it be done by anyone? No. The terms are subjective in the mundane. I understand NowPublic's position. They are covering themselves. They are offering themselves a method for removing those they wish to censor or whom they don't wish to defend for allowing to post.
To join, one must also agree to their "." That code emphasizes the term "harm." They don't want any member deliberately violating "[their] points - especially those that harm other members...."
Harm is subjective in the mundane. I "preach" against all harm. Others take my "preaching" as harmful to their cause. I take their position as harmful to harmlessness. Who's right? The issue can be and is debated; however, no one has ever debated it against me to its logical conclusion.
NowPublic is opposed to ad hominem attacks.... An ad hominem is a personal accusation. However, how may one avoid such? Anyone who disagrees with me is accusing me of being personally wrong. To avoid the ad hominem is to avoid exhaustively discussing right versus wrong. This is the logical conclusion. Where do people draw the line concerning what becomes an unacceptable personal attack versus a debate about right versus wrong that must be had in the open?
When one is discussing the evils of war with a war maker, what is "civil" discourse? What is "rudeness or hostility"? War is not civil, polite, or non-hostile by its very nature. How may I say so without "harming" the war maker or being labeled as uncivil, rude, hostile, and one engaged in ad hominem attacks?
Lines are drawn. Are they in the right places?
I've been censored and banned for speaking truth to power (false power). (See: "TRUTH PICKS FIGHTS, OR DOES IT?")
Am I against NowPublic, per se? I'm for what I say. Are they against it? I'm for what is best: Perfecting. Are they against it? Must I abide by their notions and thereby avoid the truth contained in the message of Jesus, my brother?
What's a flamer on NowPublic? A flamer, according to the Wikipedia and quoted by NowPublic, is a person who "is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others."
What's a troll on NowPublic? Flamers who "wish to upset and offend other members ... are trolls."
Now, looking for sites that differ in world and spiritual view from one's own and engaging those sites is not necessarily wrong.
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. (Ezekiel 33:6 KJV)
You see here that if I know something is wrong societally and I don't speak out, I'm accountable for having avoided the discussion. Do I believe this? Yes, I believe it. Do people become upset by the truth? If I say homosexuality is harmful, it upsets some people. It heartens others. Therefore, is it acceptable to NowPublic that I say it or not? If I say the same of war, the same pertains, and also of greed.
Here's part of what NowPublic says:
This ain't no democracy. This isn't to say we're a dictatorship either-more like the Knights of the Round Table. We'll protect and defend those citizens who honour our little Camelot. And those who don't? We shall strike you down by the blade of Excalibur. Or, in laymen terms:
Deciding who is or isn't a flamer, and how that contributor will be handled, is at the final and sole discretion of the NowPublic staff.
The flamer ... [makes] sweeping statements about ... your beliefs;....
The flamer presents his/her opinion as the only correct one;
The flamer makes a statement or poses a question that seems hateful, abusive, inflammatory ... or otherwise serves to marginalize a person or persons, or generalizes about a person or persons;
The flamer makes a personal statement or poses a personal question that makes you uncomfortable or angry.
These are ripe for subjective abuse.
If I say that all homosexuality is harmful ("Homosexuals: What they ignore") and that therefore all homosexuals bring forth bad fruit, am I making a sweeping statement that make homosexuals (some) feel uncomfortable or angry and that therefore I should be banned from NowPublic?
Why does NowPublic have this relative position? Why are so many sites arbiters on this level? Does it have a damping impact upon the watchman's trumpet? It does.
NowPublic says the following about itself:
NowPublic is a community that values intelligence and openness. Our users need not subscribe to hate speech, abusive or inflammatory behaviour in order to get a point across. This is not a schoolyard, and you are not a ten year old.
I find that those who like this notion of "hate speech" ordinarily like to apply it as a one-way street. If a homosexual or homosexual advocate says "Christians" this or that, it's ignored. The prohibition against "sweeping statements" will be ignored provided the entity putting forth the point (right or wrong) sides with the ideological view of the site's controllers (whether they call themselves dictators or not).
It is a huge error to seek comfort defending iniquity. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (Matthew 24:12 KJV)
I am hated. Do I censor them for it, or do I promote intelligence and openness?
I thought about joining NowPublic before but opted not to at the time for the very reason that their worldview is at cross-purposes with Jesus's. Nevertheless, being banned for speaking truth (harmlessness in the ultimate) is a badge of honor not sought pridefully but for love — real love; self-sacrificial love that God loves, and I know it.