Originally Posted by FWAAA
If your interpretation is correct, then FlyerTalkers must speak respectfully of all complete wastes of flesh, including Osama bin Laden and other worthless trash. Others might seek to extend the protection to dead trash like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and others.
I've always thought the TOS prevented attacks on other FlyerTalkers, not public figures (unless they register as FlyerTalkers and request that the disrepectful posting about them cease).
You may be right - as I said, it's only my interpretation.
However, what point is furthered by calling someone "worthless trash" in a post (whether they are indeed worthless trash or not)? Unless, of course, there's a topic over on OMNI entitled something like "Worthless Pieces of Trash I Love to Hate" (and for all I know, there could be
). Usually such language only serves to inflame emotions, not enhance reasoned discussion.
Your reference to "public figures" (à la
New York Times v. Sullivan?) seems to imply that any "protected speech" under the First Amendment may be OK under the
FlyerTalkTOS. I don't think the TOS is meant to be coextensive with the First Amendment (as
PremEx rightly observes earlier in this thread, "It's always been my impression that you
can't say anything you like here...even if it's true!"). I think it is intended to ensure polite discourse. (Note that one can report a post for being "rude".)
So, if the idea encompassed by the TOS is to encourage reasoned discussion rather than "flaming," it seems to me that it would indeed be a violation to gratuitously call someone a piece of "worthless trash" irrespective of the objective truth of the statement.
Again, just my opinion.