New Rule here at Fchat. And it's simple and easy to follow.

Problem is, Bob is not kidding. Hi, Bob.

Guess these guys are trying to test the rule.
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=137035312&posted=1#post137035312

 

Bill,
Lets get together in NY before, and after my depo.

 

What is this, The Patriot Act, Part 2? While I do not condone reckless behavior, I defend your right to speak about it freely! It's called the First Amendment, and it's been so whittled away by you so called do-gooders that they'll be nothing left of it soon. One day, someone will gag you from talking about something YOU want to discuss. Maybe religion, or sex, or what you had for breakfast. Slippery slope, my friends!! Be careful what you wish for.

 

Technically, this is Rob's site, and 1st amendment doesn't apply here. He makes the rules. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other sites out there that will allow it. He's not saying that you can't do it, or preventing you from talking about it anywhere except for on this site.

There are other sites out there if you don't like the rules here.

Dom

 

Right on! Wait a second, your either with us or with the terrorists

J/K. I think this is what was really bugging me and you nailed it.

 

Ah, what about the, well, you know...

Dale

PS Seriously folks, I can't believe the crap that Bill Hart has been taking from some of you. If anybody embodies the heart and soul of F-Chat, it is Bill. My guess is that the idiots among us think that Paris Hilton is dumb...

 

It's simple:

This country was founded on the principles of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, provided you do not get infringe on someone else's rights. If the moderators of this forum feel you are doing something that could impact the rest of us, then you are done. Period. End of story.

Don't like it? Go talk about it elsewhere. Create your own site and have at it.

It's just like the folks that complain about the US: At least we let you leave. There's the door, off you go.

Funny how not too many people - despite all the complaining - actually leave. I'll bet it's the same with this site here...

 

My speedo has been broken ever since I bought the car....

As far as I'm concerend, I haven't broken the limit in 7 years...good overall rule BTW!

(P.S. if and when resale will ever happen (which will never come)...full disclosure will happen).

 

But most of them don't get to buy the cool expensive toys.

 

I love illegal aliens.

 

Let me guess. You are a lawyer ? A defense lawyer ? This is not a free speech issue at all. Predicting the future using the "Slippery Slope" argument is ridiculous.

Mark, PLEASE don't respond to this

 

If you look at his profile, he's a traffic ticket attorney! Just the person to defend someone's "right" to speed AND to be caught at it! Sorry, I don't mean to demean msgsobe in any way, but when I saw his profession I found his argument perfectly congruent .

 

Well, clearly then he's of no use to any of us.

 

The inadmissibility of "hearsay" evidence has been suspended?

Just so long as I'm not viewed as "glorifying reckless driving" if I suggest that you shouldn't block the left lane. (The last thing you want is a reckless, road-raged driver two inches off your rear bumper.)

Roads aren't tracks. Nobody talks on cell phones on the track. People pay attention on the track.
Roads are scary.

 

No more "drive it like you stole it" advise then?

 

Soapbox mode: ON

I realize I am the new guy here, but I have to comment on this one. Recently, and not just on this site, there has been a lot of talk about the first amendment and how it's being violated everywhere. The problem, and in reality it isn’t a bad one, is people no longer remember the reason why we have the first amendment. First amendment rights are not about vulgarity, obscenity, or even flaunting how you broke the law yesterday in some spectacular or, depending on someone’s point of view, spectacularly stupid, way. The first amendment was written to secure one’s God given right to talk about the government without fear of reprisal. It’s that simple. Just look at the circumstances surrounding the separation from England, as well as the abuses of power displayed by other nations at the time and it becomes abundantly clear.

Soapbox mode: OFF

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

You mean we can't complain about drivers with the reflexes of a lamppost, but we can complain about the government giving them licenses?

 

In ACLU v. Reno, (929 F. Supp. at 837.) Judge Stewart Dalzell noted "Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar -- in a word, 'indecent' in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice." (Id. at 882)

Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." (Id. at 883)

 

I don't understand where this case makes a good arguement here. The owner of this site does not want people to talk about or encourage this kind of behavior on HIS site. So really I do not ee where the first admendment applies. There is also rules about improper language and nudity so is Larry Flint going to come on here and start crying his first admendment rights are violated? No he will go to a site or create one where he can say or post picture of whatever what he wants. I think we need this rule. This type of behavior does not need to be encouraged.

 

Ho, ho, ho, Good One!
_________________________

Retest for license every 5 yrs, on real roads, not parking lots.

 

Generally, I believe that admitting a crime either by writing about it or by submitting a video of it should be avoided. That's free advice to anyone who commits one, btw. However, the real question is whether the site is liable for things the posters post on it. If it is, then there is a legitimate reason to quash these kinds of posts. If it is not (and I ask how sites that enable much more serious crimes to be committed remain up - like the sites where Dateline's To Catch A Predator goes, for instance), then this seems to be a form of preventative censorship. I don't know if this site has an official policy regarding admissions of guilt. It would seem to me, though, that people are free to make these admissions against interest if they so choose without Fchat taking a position (either for or against). I would be surprised to hear that a court shut Fchat down because a few posters talk about speeding. And, of course, this policy should never be extended to meaningful discourses about speed limits. The whole point of free speech is to enable people to express their opinions about matters which concern us all without fear of being silenced or retaliated against. Admittedly, there are legal limits to free speech, though.

That said, some people may post videos of high speed runs that they did not execute. Some people may boast and make things up. It's very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. So, does this mean that ALL videos of cars driving above the speed limit on public roads are not tolerated? If so, how do Youtube, Liveleak, car-parazzi and the countless other sites remain in operation? Has Fchat been threatened by a shutdown? Have these other sites? I don't wish for the site to have legal difficulties as a result of a few "over-the-top" posts, but if those other sites can remain up without a policy against these types of posts, why can't Fchat?

Now, I accept that Fchat has rules, and I think most adhere to them. If you don't like them, you don't have to visit. Fair enough. But, it seems to me that we're putting a scarlet letter of sorts on speed and those who speed. I sincerely hope that people understand that posting an admission of guilt is a risky thing to do and one that could come back to bite them later on (in many ways, apparently). Moreover, I hope that this policy is genuinely not necessary or required. Perhaps it can, or will, be reconsidered.

I'm curious, btw, if there was any general discussion open to the community prior to the creation of this rule. Usually, when bodies formulate rules, there is a period for comments while the rule is being drafted. It may be re-drafted as a result of comments. The whole point, obviously, is that more heads are better than one in this pursuit. That said, I certainly hope this policy was carefully considered. I understand that a few bad apples can ruin it for the lot, but I don't feel Fchat has endorsed or glorified speeding in any way. The posts are the opinions of the posters, not Fchat, and the posts are not the offensive types one would normally associate with censorship. I sincerely hope that we can find a way to minimize any restrictions on what can be posted herein.

Best,

CW

 

Free speach..... Does that mean you can yell FIRE in a movie theatre? No. You'd get thrown in jail. Laws and rules... This is Robs forum, not your private property. You are a "guest" in his house and must abide by his rules.

 

Hmm, I like this new rule - but I can't see how you can implement it.

It's an international board, so how is it gonna be inforced when there is different laws in different countries. I can post a video of someone doing a highspeed run on the autobahn, where it's legal - but not someone doing the same speed in the same car on a US highway ? Or? I like the new rule, but some clarity would be nice