Stop Censorship on Current!

OK: I've followed your link and read what's at the end; I've googled for "google presidential debate" and read most of what comes up, and after all that all I have to say is:

zzzz....

Call me when you have something important/interesting to post.

Other than that, Current has asked you not to post something that is *nothing* other than promotional.

There's no informative content in what you've posted.

Perhaps you should listen to what Current's saying, or get banned and start over with a new login.

Either way, zzzz.....

- b_p

Current has no freedom of expression? I strongly disagree Current probably has too much freedom of expression.

I agree with current.

Take it to the streets dude.

i support Joefac3 as much as i can.. current has a point and that is that Joefac3 doesnt add information and make it an article....... that maybe but honest to god not everything needs to have a flashy article with a dramatic title and picture b/c thats what passes in current as far leaderboards go.. the invitation of third-party candidates is the most valid and democratically-accurate thing to do here... if current is pissed of him posting it everywhere well honestly thats too bad...Current is in fact stifling a part of democracy......... America has been run by dems and republicans for a while now and America is slowing in progresss.... and independent candidate is your best bet and Current should accept that and even PROMOTE that.. you should be making pods or articles or w.e it is that you do... Current makes amazing stuff on problems across the world and maybe should make an attempt to preserve actual democracy in the UNITED STATES B/C it is CURRENT............

I think that it is very helpful to whatever we are supporting to include a little more information than two or three words, unless we are simply speaking kudos to someone for an excellent piece of work. But if we are posting something and want people to react to it and speak about it and care about it, the post needs to have more substance; especially if its going into news and politics. There are exceptions but they are few.

Joefac, you have some really important things to say. I have often enjoyed reading something you have posted and even recommended you on occasion. I think you should take some constructive criticism from beta boy and spice it up a little, turn your petition into an article; tell us why we should care.

Thanks Joefac

I take the constructive viewpoints and admit that I may have been overzealous in posting this morning.
I also agree that a few more words of description may appeal to more of you to sign. This happens to be a topic I am very passionate about and have extreme focus right now trying to get signatures before closing the petition and sending it to Google. But I refuse to be censored, I do not take the first amendment lightly and have a long history of fighting censorship and standing up for our collective human rights. Those of you who wish may do some investigative reporting as to my identity, by seeking the creator of the petition, then google.

I will now do some humble editing...thanks beta boy kewal- jubal

hey joe..hope you have a good alibi for that art ;) really cool....

Who knows the politics of Current? I'm sure it's quite varied, as much different as all the people involved with this format. It's not unusual that censorship is common and those invoking these types of policies have agendas and like all power moves, it can be quite annoying. I have trouble thinking that it was a self promotion site, but control is a factor that seems odd on Current.com. I could see that if he was trying to sell products on current, but c'mon, open debates! This is what this site is all about!

from the fac page at current.com,....

Who owns Current?
Current is one of the few independent media companies with national cable and satellite TV distribution. It is financed by private investors and individuals.

so, i'm having trouble seeing the problem with someone complaining about censorship by a media company financed by private investors and individuals and which produces feeds to cable companies, for which money probably changes hands, too...

if it's a private company, so long as they obey all current [sorry...] applicable laws and regulations, they should be able to do whatever they want, including banning or shunning any or all of us for any reason they choose.

i've felt VERY fortunate in that MY views, often to always anti-Gore and anti-Warmites, have been allowed to persist both by the folks running the show and by the many readers and posters here, MANY of whom ardently disagree with me, as often i disagree with them.

i flag things which i believe are WAY off topic or spam or phishing or just plain overly "crude and rude," but all in all, i've REALLY appreciated the platform and opportunity to trade tirades and exchange views with all of the people here. i consider myself VERY lucky...

as i say to friends and acquaintances, "current.com has, over the past half year or so, provided me with some of the best fun i've had since sex at college."

i hope it gets to stay around for a LONG time....

thanks, again, ALL... inside and outside current.com

Great post Plusaf. Thanks.

I agree with joefac3. Either current.com has to put their money where their mouth is in terms of allowing people to say what they want (We like to call that freedom of speech) or they are no better then Fox news.

read my post, above, @NoGodsNoMasters....

it's basically a private company, and they can do whatever the hell they want.

we get to blog and flame here at their pleasure, just the same as you can't use the dugout at your favorite baseball stadium at your whim, either.

build a bridge and get over it.

it's still freedom of speech.... you, as I HAVE can buy your own website name, get it hosted and say anything you want, THERE.

but current owns this space. if they have an agenda [gee, Al Gore, do YOU have an agenda?!?!?!?!]... they can do whatever the hell they want.

and should. and do.

You know plusaf, you're right. Every company has the right to do whatever they want with what they own.

Malls can implement race standards, after all, a private company owns it.

Comcast has every right to control whatever content they want, it is their "pipes" as one member of congress said.

While we are at it, we really should apologize to Wal-Mart for all the lawsuits they lost to the women who sued them for not giving them equal pay. It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If these women want equal and fair pay they can start their own companies.

Many libraries are privately owned so they can censor books as they see fit. Why are we yelling at Sarah Palin for attempting to do this very thing? She was governor of Alaska. She was in control of the government and therefore anything they pay for is up to restrictions.

And honestly, it's time to get off of China's case for oppressing decent. If these protesters really wanted to be free they shouldn't have been born on Chinese property.

America: Land of the Free until someone buys it and implements their own rules.

Thanks plusaf for helping me build that bridge. Now get the hell off of it, I own it!

@NoGods.....

if you owned the bridge, i'd certainly avoid using it... :))))

and there are vast differences between malls which may be privately owned but are "open to the public" ... for shopping.... yet they also retain rights to toss people out on their butts if they're rowdy or destructive, too.

no, you can gather to state your grievances, as with Wal-Mart's protesters, and WalMart can decide to go along or pursue the cases through the legal system, too... deciding for themselves, as a corporation, whether it's in their best interest to agree or fight.

ditto, china... i have NO respect for the chinese government for their actions either, but i don't run their country. i can shun them, not buy their goods or rip them up and down on MY website, and they can't do anything to stop me.

if sarah palin wants to ban books, fine. if it's a public library, can people who don't want the books banned withdraw their tax monies from the libraries' support? if the answer is yes... fine.... if the answer is no, then you're forcing them to pay the library to NOT let them have books they want on the shelves.

that's coercion, and apparently, that's ok with you if you agree with the side that's coercing, eh?

do you purposely go barefoot and shirtless into "no shoes, no shirt, no service" restaurants because you have the right to not wear them?

you just sound like you're anti-business and private enterprise. because you don't like the idea that THEY own the businesses and YOU don't?

i didn't help you build THAT bridge... you put that set of opinions and beliefs together all by yourself, and you're more than welcome to them. people will probably remember you for those beliefs, too.

and i felt resentful FOR current when you accused the other replies to be "machine generated."
such a thoughtless insult.

the old adage, "you can attract more bees with honey than vinegar" might have been lost on you.

sorry....

I'm gonna be honest with you......I have no rebuttal on anything you just said really except for a couple of things:

1. Yes, I tend to be the guy who goes shirtless without shoes if I see that kind of sign. Do you always do what you are told? If you do, I feel sorry for you.

2. Your comment: "and i felt resentful FOR current when you accused the other replies to be "machine generated." such a thoughtless insult."

Yeah, that wasn't an insult. I thought she was a bot that was designed to leave messages when certain topics arose so calm down. I've actually been talking to her through messages about currents community standards.

3. Save your old adages........them and a dime gets me jack shit.

4. "sorry...." You're forgiven =) (See, I can make smiley faces too)

Well, I guess they can hear all sides on the issue. A good debate brings out the bad blood and thing eventually mellow out! But even in debates different organizations have guidelines. But the silver lining and the great ideas come out of expressive ideas that jogs the mind. I think the current site is about as open and liberal minded as any site on the internet and different thoughts and ideas do mingle. Ideas are retreived from them, and we thereby have a learning experience. It does seem a bit intimidating when someone from current decides and informs someone what should be posted or not, but if they didn't place restriction the purpose of the site may be jeopardized. The item concerned seems to be a judgement call, but the subject matter is clearly controversial and in my opinion, deserved some debate!

For me it comes down to the fact Current is privately owned just like a newspaper. They are somewhat responsible for what they accept to put on the net. If you are a reporter your boss tells you what is allowed and not allowed. If you write something that goes against their guidlines they don't have to print it.