forums

TRULY REPREHENSIBLE...LOOK AT THIS CRAP

Papo said:
Not now @Mao , we have a family member down and now we have immature folks from FSWho poking fun at it.
Click to expand...
While tasteless, it was a jab at their own OL, not at Norton. They are poking fun at their own crappy OL. There are just better ways to do it than this.
 
Advertisement
A better joke would be something like he a 3 technique. The semonoles can’t even score with a good troll joke.

A tragedy but at least Norton can eventually move on with his life. Hope the young man finds peace within himself.

He can still get some puss from a chick and beat his own meat. His football career maybe over but he can still enjoy the perks of being a man. Looking at the crash it could have been worse. Dead or paralyzed where his legs and junk does not work

We should get a go fund me started to make sure our fellow cane is taken care of.

Stay strong big Homie. Much Love
 
Last edited:
ItsAUThing.com said:
People have been hiding behind screens and saying some sh*t for years now. Rival fans taking digs at rivals players is nothing new—especially on social media when looking for laughs, likes and engagement.

Best thing you could've done here was not post it and give the hate anymore fuel. What does showing more people this ugliness on a UM board do to help the case (except get your thread more eyeballs, likes, etc.) Zero good comes out of sharing this.

Like any bully-type behavior and ugliness, let this garbage die. Every time it gets reposted or retweet—the author of the post wins, as they're getting what they want—and more people are being exposed to it.

News flash; we don't need anymore reasons to hate Florida State and their scumbag fan base. That hate is already inherent. This is just gas on an already burning fire.
Click to expand...
Well, burn MF burn!!! Cause we comin'!!! Disgusting fan needs to be taught a lesson!!!
 
Jokes are fair game so we can’t be to upset even though it is someone we care about

Let’s make sure we take care of our own fellow canes. We really should do something for the big Homie.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Actually, the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is a well-known example of a First Amendment EXCEPTION, as it is predicated on public safety. Commonly taught in law school.
Click to expand...

Good to know. I worded what I meant incorrectly. I just meant people aren't whining about "but my 1st amendment rights" when it comes to that, but maybe people did whine about it when it first was enacted. I wasn't around then.
 
mikensherri924 said:
I agree that it's a horrible thing to say and that I would defend Norton as well.

But my argument about twitter "guidelines" stands. I could just as easily report anyone who claims someone is racist when the supposed racist said nothing about race. But I wouldn't because I think that these media guidelines are pathetic. Violations are in the eye of the reader and are more often than not adjudicated with extreme bias.

I for one don't think that social media...which is really just a public space that has IP owned by a company...should be allowed to dictate anything other than 1st ammendment protections.

Making a sick distasteful joke is not the same as saying fire in a theater. It does not but anyone in risk of injury or death. And when "hate speech" becomes anything you don't agree with or offends you...this is when the 1st ammendment starts to unravel. The knee jerk reactions have to stop.
Click to expand...

It is owned by someone. They are allowed to make the rules. That is my point. No one is saying he shouldn't be able to say these things in public.

That is fine that you think social media should be treated as a public space, but it is also fine that other people disagree with you.

If I owned a restaurant and someone came in talking schit about Norton and I kicked him out that is within my rights. It is the same thing here.
We aren't calling for him to be arrested. If the guy violates the rules set by the company(Twitter) than they should be banned.

Should we allow all the Gator trolls to post on this board and run amok because banning them would violate their 1st amendment right?

Violations are in the eye of the company. Readers don't set the rules. They just follow them.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
It is owned by someone. They are allowed to make the rules. That is my point. No one is saying he shouldn't be able to say these things in public.

That is fine that you think social media should be treated as a public space, but it is also fine that other people disagree with you.

If I owned a restaurant and someone came in talking schit about Norton and I kicked him out that is within my rights. It is the same thing here.
We aren't calling for him to be arrested. If the guy violates the rules set by the company(Twitter) than they should be banned.

Should we allow all the Gator trolls to post on this board and run amok because banning them would violate their 1st amendment right?

Violations are in the eye of the company. Readers don't set the rules. They just follow them.
Click to expand...

I agree in most part other than I think a restaurant falls under private real property.

No one can actually own a portion of the internet. I am sure it will be an interesting supreme court case in the near future. As far as I know you can register domain name bit you don't own the space because there is no actual tangible space to own?

I also see your point about a forum like this being able to ban gaytors. I think this is a site that is intended for one audience. A site like Twitter in my opinion is a complete open forum for communication and thus should be as unlimited and unregulated as possible.
 
mikensherri924 said:
I agree in most part other than I think a restaurant falls under private real property.

No one can actually own a portion of the internet. I am sure it will be an interesting supreme court case in the near future. As far as I know you can register domain name bit you don't own the space because there is no actual tangible space to own?

I also see your point about a forum like this being able to ban gaytors. I think this is a site that is intended for one audience. A site like Twitter in my opinion is a complete open forum for communication and thus should be as unlimited and unregulated as possible.
Click to expand...

So you think the government should come in and decide how a website owner should run his website?

Like I said I can respect your opinion, but I do not think the gov should decide what sort of rules should be placed on a private website.

There is no real difference between being in a private place and being on a website. If twitter was a government owned forum, then yes freedom of speech should apply, but this is private.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
So you think the government should come in and decide how a website owner should run his website?

Like I said I can respect your opinion, but I do not think the gov should decide what sort of rules should be placed on a private website.

There is no real difference between being in a private place and being on a website. If twitter was a government owned forum, then yes freedom of speech should apply, but this is private.
Click to expand...
I dont recall calling for govetnment intervention at all. No, quite the opposite. The less government intervention the better. Hence free speech. The 1st Amendment applies to public and private land. The whole purpose is to prevent the government from limiting speech. Hence my original argument that people should not be "reported" for saying something that makes someone uncomfortable.
 
mikensherri924 said:
I dont recall calling for govetnment intervention at all. No, quite the opposite. The less government intervention the better. Hence free speech. The 1st Amendment applies to public and private land. The whole purpose is to prevent the government from limiting speech. Hence my original argument that people should not be "reported" for saying something that makes someone uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

This is government intervention.

If I created twitter and decided I wanted to have certain rules on the website and the government stepped in and said "you are not allow to ban people for hate speech" that is 100% gov intervention.

It is my website. My company. I can run it how I like.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
This is government intervention.

If I created twitter and decided I wanted to have certain rules on the website and the government stepped in and said "you are not allow to ban people for hate speech" that is 100% gov intervention.

It is my website. My company. I can run it how I like.
Click to expand...

Again I never said you can't ban hate speech. I said the problem is that many people invent their own perspective of what hate speech is. What the FSPOO guy wrote was distasteful, but it was far from hate speech. Yet we have a person claiming it was racial and that it should be reported. You're going way beyond what my argument was and putting words in my mouth. You're not realizing that we agree on limited government oversight. But I also don't want censorship on an open forum. The Supreme Court has already ruled that social media is an open forum which has to allow protected speech.

People are progressively bending and blurring the line of what is legally considered hate speech and that is what I am arguing against. Offensive speech is not same as hate speech against a protected class.
 
mikensherri924 said:
Again I never said you can't ban hate speech. I said the problem is that many people invent their own perspective of what hate speech is. What the FSPOO guy wrote was distasteful, but it was far from hate speech. Yet we have a person claiming it was racial and that it should be reported. You're going way beyond what my argument was and putting words in my mouth. You're not realizing that we agree on limited government oversight. But I also don't want censorship on an open forum. The Supreme Court has already ruled that social media is an open forum which has to provide protected speech.

People are progressively bending and blurring the line of what is legally considered hate speech and that is what I am arguing against. Offensive speech is not same as hate speech against a protected class.
Click to expand...

Ok, but this is my website. I can determine what can and cannot be posted on my website. The fact that the gov stepped in and decided that Twitter needs to abide by certain rules is an absolute disgrace.
 
Back
Top