These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should CCP Remove Fon Revedhort from the CSM Election?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#61 - 2013-03-29 01:48:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
duckmonster wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
I sure am glad that people want us to not presume that the guy who claims to be a neo **** is a neo **** until he's had a proper trial in SPACE COURT

No you accused him of committing horrible crimes, not that he is not a neo-****.

If you cannot see that that is exactly guilt by political association, you will never see that your opinion is not much different to his.


I'm not calling him a neo-**** by association. I'm taking his word for it.

And you are accusing him of murder and other crimes because he is a neo-nazi.

You are finding him guilty of horrible crimes without trial and people are stating that he should have no rights because of that association and his beliefs.

This is almost a text book case as to why we have human rights, so people are not sentenced to punishment because of their views.

Do I think his views are right, frankly NO I don't but so long as his views do not impede the rights of others he is entitled to them.

Because frankly I have seen more hate speech here from the Non-neo-nazis than the confessed neo-nazi.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Vampy bat
Prussia Group
#62 - 2013-03-29 01:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Vampy bat
You know that game called Simon Says? I used to play it as a kid, in my English classes and I really enjoyed it. So now let's play EULA Says and ToS Says:

EULA Says:
Quote:

6.A.5.)
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.


10.)
[...]User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not (i) violate any statute, rule, regulation or law; (ii) infringe or violate the intellectual property, proprietary, privacy or publicity rights of any third party; (iii) be defamatory, indecent, obscene, child pornographic or harmful to minors; or (iv) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, disabling code, worms, time bombs, "clear GIFs," cancelbots or other computer programming or routines that are intended to, or which in fact, damage, detrimentally interfere with, monitor, intercept or expropriate any data, information, packets or personal information.[...]


16.)
[...]The EULA, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be governed and construed by and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Iceland. The EULA shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.[...]




ToS Says:

Quote:

2.
You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)


3.
You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies


4.
You may not use “role-playing” as an excuse to violate these rules.


So all we are asking from CCP regarding this case with Fon is that CCP enforces the rules they created themselves.
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#63 - 2013-03-29 01:56:22 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

Ahem, article 30 is about saying that your words/actions cannot infringe the basic human rights of others (ie. the ones you also listed). This means that Fon's stances DO infringe on the basic human rights of others. This puts him in direct violation of universal human rights. According to article 30 he is forfeiting his other human rights as they are in direct confrontation with article 30.

His stances also violate article 13 (ie. immigrants) etc.

You cannot hold the moral high-ground of Human Rights if you do not understand its core concepts.

...Signature...
Frying Doom
#64 - 2013-03-29 01:56:38 UTC
Vampy bat wrote:
You know that game called Simon Says? I used to play it as a kid, in my English classes and I really enjoyed it. So now let's play EULA Says and ToS Says:

EULA Says:
Quote:

6.A.5.)
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.


10.)
[...]User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not (i) violate any statute, rule, regulation or law; (ii) infringe or violate the intellectual property, proprietary, privacy or publicity rights of any third party; (iii) be defamatory, indecent, obscene, child pornographic or harmful to minors; or (iv) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, disabling code, worms, time bombs, "clear GIFs," cancelbots or other computer programming or routines that are intended to, or which in fact, damage, detrimentally interfere with, monitor, intercept or expropriate any data, information, packets or personal information.[...]


16.)
[...]The EULA, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be governed and construed by and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Iceland. The EULA shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.[...]




ToS Says:

Quote:

2.
You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)


3.
You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies


4.
You may not use “role-playing” as an excuse to violate these rules.


So all we are asking from CCP regarding this case with Fon is that CCP enforces the rules they created themselves.

I completely agree with you if he breaks the EULA with something he says or does within EvE, these forums or a live event hosted by CCP and they ban him, he is not eligible to run.

That is completely fair.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#65 - 2013-03-29 02:01:23 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

Ahem, article 30 is about saying that your words/actions cannot infringe the basic human rights of others (ie. the ones you also listed). This means that Fon's stances DO infringe on the basic human rights of others. This puts him in direct violation of universal human rights. According to article 30 he is forfeiting his other human rights as they are in direct confrontation with article 30.

His stances also violate article 13 (ie. immigrants) etc.

You cannot hold the moral high-ground of Human Rights if you do not understand its core concepts.

I completely agree and removing someones rights because they believe something different is completely wrong but I have seen him do nothing that infringes on those rights of others but what has been suggested against him does.

His talking about the removal of peoples rights is not activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms.

But a movement to remove his rights because of his right to freedom of expression is.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#66 - 2013-03-29 02:05:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
But a movement to remove his rights because of his right to freedom of expression is.

The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?

...Signature...
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#67 - 2013-03-29 02:12:20 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
But a movement to remove his rights because of his right to freedom of expression is.

The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?


In the US you are
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-03-29 02:15:59 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.
Funny, you didn't need specificity when you said "My thought is that it was WRONG.". Why now?
Because I'm sensing a trap. :) So, ask specifically what you want to ask. I'm no Ernst Zundel expert.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#69 - 2013-03-29 02:19:49 UTC
I've removed a racist comment from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2013-03-29 02:20:25 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Because I'm sensing a trap. :) So, ask specifically what you want to ask. I'm no Ernst Zundel expert.


I actually wasn't looking for specifics, I was asking what you thought of his treatment in general, both from the 80's trials and his subsequent deportation in 2005 (when he hilariously tried to claim refugee status in the wake of a German arrest warrant). I just found it odd that you answered the question first and then asked what part I meant specifically.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#71 - 2013-03-29 02:23:13 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
But a movement to remove his rights because of his right to freedom of expression is.

The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?

Now you are talking about International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which article 20 states

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

But the actual laws vary greatly from country to country. So in essence if you are attempting to incite people then yes it is against that UN Covenant.

And as I have said yes it is completely fair if he loses the ability to sit on the CSM for something he says within these forums in the game or at a live event, not just because he is a neo-nazi.

But is not your denial of his rights because he is a neo-nazi also a hate speech?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-03-29 02:31:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Because I'm sensing a trap. :) So, ask specifically what you want to ask. I'm no Ernst Zundel expert.
I actually wasn't looking for specifics, I was asking what you thought of his treatment in general, both from the 80's trials and his subsequent deportation in 2005 (when he hilariously tried to claim refugee status in the wake of a German arrest warrant). I just found it odd that you answered the question first and then asked what part I meant specifically.
Like I said ... he wasn't a violent man, nor were his writings explicitly endorsing violence. He simply wrote some anti-Jew and anti-Holocaust literature.

I think, as a society, we can bear some ignoramuses, in favour of free speech of all forms.

As for his deportation, he did leave the country, and his immigrant status expired.

The only instance where I don't condone free speech is where it explicitly incites people towards violence. If Ernst had written a booked called "Kill All The Jews", then the government can step in to shut him the hell up. But he wasn't doing that.

By the same token, Fons isn't inciting violence. He's simply spewing ignorance from time to time.

Fons is certainly a racist. That is not a crime. As for him being a neo-Nazi ... I'm not so sure. He's a nationalist, for sure. He disagrees with Russia's immigration policies. He disagrees with Russia's multicultural policies. Those things I know for sure. And like I said, he'd be right at home in any U.S. State bordering Mexico

I've quoted Lenin in the past ... doesn't mean I'm a communist. By the same token, just because Fon quoted David Duke does not make him a neo-Nazi or a Clansman.

I find his viewpoints reprehensible ... but I do not think he's done anything inherently wrong, other than out himself as ignorant and petty and jealous. His life is likely terrible, and he finds it easier to blame everyone around him but himself.
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#73 - 2013-03-29 02:36:46 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Now you are talking about International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which article 20 states
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
...
But is not your denial of his rights because he is a neo-**** also a hate speech?

No, I am talking about Universal Human Rights according to the United Nations.

Article 30
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Hate-speech and racism are an act aimed at the destruction of several of the rights and freedoms listed by the United Nations (and not considered a "right" or "expression"). Therefor it is not against any of Fon's "rights" if he gets called out on it. He is purposefully and willingly stomping on human rights of others (which you have been defending today) and not entitled to any "right" whatsoever according to the United Nations.

As Vampy bat so wonderfully pointed out earlier, he is also in direct violation of CCP's EULA and ToS.
So not only have you been defending someone who violates universal human rights, EULA, ToS, you also agree with us that he should most likely be banned for such comments in the first place.

I am just trying to understand why you would support that?

...Signature...
Vampy bat
Prussia Group
#74 - 2013-03-29 02:49:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

I completely agree with you if he breaks the EULA with something he says or does within EvE, these forums or a live event hosted by CCP and they ban him, he is not eligible to run.

That is completely fair.


Listen to his interview where bits and pieces of his postings that CCP has now deleted are mentioned. Then real the EULA and ToS. Statistically, chances are that you're not a lawyer. But that's no reason not to formulate an opinion on it.

Xander Phoena wrote:
I\m sure most of you will have already heard my interview with Fon (Poetic really should have linked to it in his article, the cheeky wee minx that he is Blink) but I'm just going to link it here so any of you who haven't heard it can

http://c-z.me/csm8fonrevedhort
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#75 - 2013-03-29 02:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Frying Doom wrote:
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Exactly, he nor you have the right to perform any act or activity at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

If you cannot see that removing his rights because of what he says is against article 30 you need to read that again also you are also stepping on

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

and

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


He is entitled to his freedom of expression and he is entitled to be presumed innocent of any crime until he is found guilty of one.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.


Can you explain to me how people choosing to assume that Fon is human garbage based on the ideologies he's espoused is the equivalent of automatically assuming that someone charged with a penal offense is guilty? Because newsflash - it's not. Similarly, pointing out that many people who share his political ideology tend to be violent is not charging him with a criminal offense either - it's pointing out an association that may give one a reason for concern.

And can you explain to me how CCP going "You know what Fon old buddy, a lot of people don't really take very well to the ideologies you embrace, and from a business perspective, we've decided that we'd rather not have you as a community representative. Sorry!" is "destroying his rights"? Because newsflash - it's not. Were they to do so they'd have done exactly nothing to prevent him from expressing his beliefs - they'd have merely taken steps to distance themselves from them.

Likewise, Article 19 would be inapplicable for the same reason.

So, while your armchair laweyering is cute and everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it actually applies. Maybe you can explain that to me. Not that it's relevant at all anyway, of course, seeing as the UDHR is very much non-binding.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Vampy bat
Prussia Group
#76 - 2013-03-29 02:58:50 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
[...]By the same token, Fons isn't inciting violence. He's simply spewing ignorance from time to time.

Fons is certainly a racist. That is not a crime. As for him being a neo-**** ... I'm not so sure. He's a nationalist, for sure. He disagrees with Russia's immigration policies. He disagrees with Russia's multicultural policies. Those things I know for sure. And like I said, he'd be right at home in any U.S. State bordering Mexico


I'm not so sure about that. The problem is you only seem to know about the US and I only really know about Russia, that makes caparisons a bit challenging. But if you compare the available statistics on hate crimes in both countries, I think you will find a huge difference in the figures from Russia, that has less than half the population of the US and is a lot less transparent about the reporting of such crimes. If anything, hate crimes in today's Russia and the blind eye by the authorities is more like the US of the 50's and 60's.
Kirk Stane-Muller
KSM Shipping
#77 - 2013-03-29 04:08:09 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
My thought is that it was WRONG.
That what was wrong? Please be specific, this is going to be one of those enlightening moments I think.
You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.


Actually it was in the 90s - and he and his gang published hate speech, then terrorized those who opposed them, then of course there was the battle/riot at Sneeky Dee's when they thought it'd be "laughs" to track down and beat on of the girls.
Frying Doom
#78 - 2013-03-29 04:14:19 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Now you are talking about International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which article 20 states
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
...
But is not your denial of his rights because he is a neo-**** also a hate speech?

No, I am talking about Universal Human Rights according to the United Nations.

Article 30
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Hate-speech and racism are an act aimed at the destruction of several of the rights and freedoms listed by the United Nations (and not considered a "right" or "expression"). Therefor it is not against any of Fon's "rights" if he gets called out on it. He is purposefully and willingly stomping on human rights of others (which you have been defending today) and not entitled to any "right" whatsoever according to the United Nations.

As Vampy bat so wonderfully pointed out earlier, he is also in direct violation of CCP's EULA and ToS.
So not only have you been defending someone who violates universal human rights, EULA, ToS, you also agree with us that he should most likely be banned for such comments in the first place.

I am just trying to understand why you would support that?

Article 30 you will note actually says noting about hate speech, and yes they can toss him if he breaches the EULA or TOS


What I support is people human rights, all people not just those who I happen to agree with.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-03-29 04:19:00 UTC
Kirk Stane-Muller wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
My thought is that it was WRONG.
That what was wrong? Please be specific, this is going to be one of those enlightening moments I think.
You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.
Actually it was in the 90s - and he and his gang published hate speech, then terrorized those who opposed them, then of course there was the battle/riot at Sneeky Dee's when they thought it'd be "laughs" to track down and beat on of the girls.
What are you talking about? That had nothing to do with Zundel. Zundel's trials were 1985 and 1988.

I did more research ... and Zundel was eventually acquitted in 1992 by the Supreme Court. So good on the Supreme Court of Canada for upholding freedom of expression, even if such expression is abhorrent.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#80 - 2013-03-29 04:19:46 UTC
you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar