What give SC the right... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/24/2005 10:01:41 AM · #26

4.5 DPChallenge.com in its sole discretion, without notice, may remove any Media at any time posted by a Registered User to the Website regardless of the guidelines set forth in this Agreement. DPChallenge.com does not control the content (including Media) posted on the Website and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such content. You understand that by using the Website, you may be exposed to content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will DPChallenge.com be liable in any way for any content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Website.

Edit to add my point which I forgot to type in :-P

I believe the first bold line gives them the right. I believe the second bold line warns you that you may be offended...

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 10:03:08.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/24/2005 10:02:08 AM · #27

Originally posted by hopper:

Shouldn't this be a conversation you should be having with Drew and/or Langdon? If you have a problem with the SC, perhaps you should talk to D&L.

Originally posted by notonline:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Yes, except...

"4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content that... (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group."

It's a pretty safe bet that you would have offended a religious group, and that IS a violation of the ToS.

So if I was a musslim (sorry if thats misspelled) and it offended me would that change the original post hat I was offened by??? You just answered me but didn't do anything that offened my religion??? is that fair???

Funny you should mention that. I have already been in contact with one in regards to this (without description) and I am awaiting a response.

Canon EOS-20D

08/24/2005 10:03:10 AM · #28

Originally posted by notonline:

Let this not spark a debate but show the injustice by SC.

Okay, but make sure to include how unfair it is that we disqualify entries since that's probably a violation of a person's right to participate in challenges.

08/24/2005 10:07:14 AM · #29

TooCool, so whats your point??? The point of this thread is that they are one sided and only edit what they want even tho they have a valid complaint. scalvert answered my question and got caught in the same statement. If its not fair for me to post my thoughts or opinions about a specific subject then what makes it right for the next guy. This isn't the first incident/thread its happened in. I'm not upset about todays thread but that they do it on a ONE sided basis.

08/24/2005 10:08:37 AM · #30

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by notonline:

Let this not spark a debate but show the injustice by SC.

Okay, but make sure to include how unfair it is that we disqualify entries since that's probably a violation of a person's right to participate in challenges.

But braking the rules in a challenge is totally different then being one sided as SC seems to be in regards to THIS issue.

KaDi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/24/2005 10:09:24 AM · #31

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

08/24/2005 10:09:54 AM · #32

Originally posted by KaDi:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

TooCool

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/24/2005 10:11:39 AM · #33

I don't know what sparked this little tirade, but I have been here long enough to know that the SC as a whole is very fair. You called out the whole SC and asked what gives them the right to remove/hide/edit your posts. I simply pointed that out to you. You have made it quite clear that you were offended by something. The Terms of Use clearly state that this may happen. I'm sorry but I don't see what this is going to accomplish except to make you look foolish in the long run...

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/24/2005 10:11:42 AM · #34

Originally posted by notonline:

they are one sided and only edit what they want

Drew and Langdon have given the site counsel the right to do exactly that - to make editing decisions. You just don't like this one.

colyla

Canon EOS-50D

08/24/2005 10:14:29 AM · #35

Originally posted by KaDi:

Mmmmmm popcorn :)

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/24/2005 10:15:04 AM · #36

More importantly:

"4.5 DPChallenge.com in its sole discretion, without notice, may remove any Media at any time posted by a Registered User to the Website regardless of the guidelines set forth in this Agreement. "

"Media" in this context is not given a specific defninition, but I am sure that its general use includes text. So by using DPC you agreed to DPC being able to remove posts.

If you wanted to be able to post material (I am intrigued now to know what!) in a place that could not choose to remove such material, you should have gone to another website that does not reserve that right, or set up your own website with a service provider who does not reserve that right to remove material on a whim.

There is nothing novel about a website forum reserving the right to remove any material on a whim: DPC must be able to do so, as it has a reputation to maintain (which you should not be allowed to diminish) and it has potential liability as the publisher of comments that could give rise to complaint in certain jurisdictions (eg the publisher of libellous comments is as liable as the maker of the comments). So if your "freedom of speech" were to be enforceable, forums as a whole probably could not exist.

As it is, your constitutional right to free speech is against the state preventing you from airing your opinion, not the commercial publisher you choose to solicit to publish comments on your behalf.

Edit: wish I could type faster... TooCool got there before me.

Edit 2: wish I could spell first time around

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 10:23:27.

conglett

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/24/2005 10:17:04 AM · #37

Originally posted by notonline:

Originally posted by mk:
I didn't see whatever sparked this thread so I have no idea about that but in answer to your general questions, no, you don't have a right to post anything here. This is not a public area. It's a privately owned site that's run to the satisfaction of its owners. Freedom of speech doesn't apply in cases like this. Sorry.

Actually it does. I am a paying member which makes it my right within the provisions of the ToA which I might add I have NOT broken. Therefore, it is also my right to post what I see fit based on the thread I am reading in response. Since Drew or Langdon haven't revoked my status and since I have NOT broken any TOA why isn't it my right???

No, it doesn't. As a paying member, you have the right to participate in discussions but that doesn't give you immunity to post at will. MK is right. This is a private paying site that SC has the responsibility to manage. If you disagree with how they do it your recourses are: 1. Get pissed and start another thread about the issue, 2. Walk away.

As you have chosen the first you can expect to vent frustration, but don't expect censorship policies to change much. They are very much within their right.

Frankly I see no injustice.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

08/24/2005 10:18:23 AM · #38

Originally posted by TooCool:

Your opinion of me matters not but as I said this isn't the first time its happened and I'm sure its not going to be the last. What matters is that they deleted MY post and did NOTHING about the other offensive post and even THAT was stated by scalvert.

Originally posted by hopper:

Drew and Langdon have given the site counsel the right to do exactly that - to make editing decisions. You just don't like this one.

It's not that I don't like this one, I just feel that they are being one sided about the whole situation. scalvert even admitted it in his last post. They have a valid complaint about something and rather then edit that persons "quote" they elected to delete mine which spawned THIS thread. Not only did it spawn this thread but it wasn't until I re-opened it that they allowed the first one to go thru.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

08/24/2005 10:19:16 AM · #39

Wow - Somebody had some clear foresight when they wrote section 4.5 that TooCool pointed out in his earlier post. Must be a firm precedent (sp?)...

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

08/24/2005 10:20:53 AM · #40

Just have to throw in my 2 cents.

I'm firmly against the editing of any posts whatsoever of anybody who's been a member for more than a few weeks (except adds/spam). I shake my head every time I see it happen.

Freedom of speech is a concept that was arrived at by people much more thoughtful and intelligent then Drew, Langdon, or anybody on the SC. I think it's positively shameful.

:-(

-edit:grammarf

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 10:25:13.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/24/2005 10:21:50 AM · #41

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

More importantly:

"4.5 DPChallenge.com in its sole discretion, without notice, may remove any Media at any time posted by a Registered User to the Website regardless of the guidelines set forth in this Agreement. "

"Media" in this context is not given a specific defninition, but I am sure that its general use includes text. So by using DPC you agreed to DPC being able to remove posts.

If you wanted to be able to post material (I am intrigued now to know what!) in a place that could not choose to remove such material, you should have gone to another website that does not reserve that right, or set up your own website with a service provider who does not reserve that right to remove material on a whim.

There is nothing novel about a website forum reserving the right to remove any material on a whim: DPC must be able to do so, as it has a reputation to maintain (which you should not be allowed to diminish) and it has potential liability as the publisher of comments that could give rise to complaint in certain jurisdictions (eg the publisher of libellous comments is as liable as the maker of the comments). So if your "freedom of speech" were to be enforceable, forums probably could not exist.

As it is, your constitutional right to free speech is against the state preventing you from airing your opinion, not the commercial publisher you choose to solicit to publish comments on your behalf.

Edit: wish I could type faster... TooCool got there before me.

Edit 2: wish I could spell first time around

and the kick in the a$$ is I'm canadian & american. (note the canadian first) I don't care that they editied MY post BUT they elected to only edit MY post and NOT the post that originally spawned this today.

Canon EOS-20D

08/24/2005 10:23:12 AM · #42

I don't see that Scalvert admitted anything. I think you're misunderstanding. Posts aren't deleted simply because one person doesn't like the content. I don't go around deleting all the posts complaining about how many cat photos there are and how cats are annoying, even though I looove cats. You simply not agreeing with another person's post is not reason to delete it.

Reason to delete it is when you denigrate an entire group of people, such as a religion, as it was in this case. Or, as I believe was the situation when you last brought this argument to the forums, when you post racists jokes. There's nothing one-sided about it.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

08/24/2005 10:24:27 AM · #43

Originally posted by notonline:

What matters is that they deleted MY post and did NOTHING about the other offensive post and even THAT was stated by scalvert.

It's not that I don't like this one, I just feel that they are being one sided about the whole situation. scalvert even admitted it in his last post.

Could you clarify that please? This was Scalvert's last post...don't see any statements/admissions that match what you are saying.

Originally posted by scalvert:

You're not a group. What offends you personally wouldn't necessarily be removed, but generally offensive or derogatory posts may be.

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

08/24/2005 10:24:54 AM · #44

Originally posted by conglett:

So its ok for one to post an offensive comment but not another??? Oh I'm sorry you didn't READ the post in question??? No worries. Thats the just of it.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

08/24/2005 10:25:36 AM · #45

OK, lemme have a go at explaining this...

The original post that started all this mentioned religion (a relevant bible quote, I think), but it was within the context of the thread. You took offence to this religious comment and posted as such. However, since your comment was offtopic (ie not about the thread's original subject), it was removed from the thread.

My advice would be for you to start a Rant thread discussing your complaint about others posting (on-topic) religious references.

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 10:26:05.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/24/2005 10:25:52 AM · #46

Originally posted by notonline:

Grounds for complaint - perhaps (not having seen the post, I have no idea) - but complaint from a "customer service" standpoint, not a "right to free speech" standpoint.

TooCool

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/24/2005 10:26:33 AM · #47

Originally posted by notonline:

Originally posted by TooCool:
I don't know what sparked this little tirade, but I have been here long enough to know that the SC as a whole is very fair. You called out the whole SC and asked what gives them the right to remove/hide/edit your posts. I simply pointed that out to you. You have made it quite clear that you were offended by something. The Terms of Use clearly state that this may happen. I'm sorry but I don't see what this is going to accomplish except to make you look foolish in the long run...

Your opinion of me matters not but as I said this isn't the first time its happened and I'm sure its not going to be the last. What matters is that they deleted MY post and did NOTHING about the other offensive post and even THAT was stated by scalvert.

Originally posted by hopper:
Drew and Langdon have given the site counsel the right to do exactly that - to make editing decisions. You just don't like this one.

It's not that I don't like this one, I just feel that they are being one sided about the whole situation. scalvert even admitted it in his last post. They have a valid complaint about something and rather then edit that persons "quote" they elected to delete mine which spawned THIS thread. Not only did it spawn this thread but it wasn't until I re-opened it that they allowed the first one to go thru.

No my opinion doesn't matter but you're not just doing this in front of me. You're doing this in front of the entire site. And yes they did reopen this thread when you posted:

Originally posted by notonline:

You can delete this post but I will keep posting it until my voice has been heard.

This is what I mean by looking foolish. I don't have a stake in this issue one bit, but when you decide to call out the entire SC in front of the entire site, I believe the cavalry is going to ride to the side of the SC...