FLPD Message Board Here To Stay!

I appolgize if there was some confusion. My comment is not in anyway directed at the Tampa Officer that hosts this website. I think Jack's efforts to go after him personally was uncalled for and unprofessional. My comment is directed at the person or persons (lIkely FLPD employee(s)) that are editing and censoring blog postings. Who are they to edit or censor what someone else writes. Who are you to take down posting from other people, that don't violate the terms of use. Who are they to control what people speak about. Who are you to decide what people can inquiry about. Who are they to decide what threads get locked down because they don't like the content. It is obvious, the Staff Moderator is trying to cover things up. To create spin through un-american censorship. Voltaire once said "I may no believe in what you say-- but I will defend to my death your right to say it." (If you are not educated enough to know who Voltaire is -- you may want to look it up.)

[chipdeblock]

I appolgize if there was some confusion. My comment is not in anyway directed at the Tampa Officer that hosts this website. I think Jack's efforts to go after him personally was uncalled for and unprofessional. My comment is directed at the person or persons (lIkely FLPD employee(s)) that are editing and censoring blog postings. Who are they to edit or censor what someone else writes. Who are you to take down posting from other people, that don't violate the terms of use. Who are they to control what people speak about. Who are you to decide what people can inquiry about. Who are they to decide what threads get locked down because they don't like the content. It is obvious, the Staff Moderator is trying to cover things up. To create spin through un-american censorship. Voltaire once said "I may no believe in what you say-- but I will defend to my death your right to say it." (If you are not educated enough to know who Voltaire is -- you may want to look it up.)

I read your post and appreciate everyone's support for both me and this website. As a matter of fact, I just got back from Ft. Lauderdale this past Sunday and you guys have a beautiful city.

As for the moderation (a.k.a. censorship) issue, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject. Yes, you are correct in that we do not have to moderate any content on the Message Boards. In fact, as a Content Provider, we are protected by The Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent Telecommunications Act of 1996. This federal legislation protects LEOAFFAIRS.COM, its Users and other Content Providers by providing immunity from liability of publishing information provided by others.

Most people might take that protection and run with it, deciding not to spend the time, money and resources to implement a system of moderation for over 500 agency message boards. I, however, feel differently. Although I was motivated to start this site because of an experience I went through, I didn't want to do it unless we could effect change. Let's face it, cops have plenty of gripes and issues to talk about, but I didn't see the benefit of creating a forum like that (other than perhaps therapeutic) unless it could be used to change things. There are other sites like that, they have a horrible reputation, nothing gets accomplished and even good content on them is not considered credible. Thus, we have Mod 1, Staff Moderators and 400 or so Moderators to get the job done. It's a huge operation. To stay on point with your question and/or complaint about controlling content, I can easily explain. I don't want anyone to get investigated by IA because of something someone wrote in here, whether the accused officer did something wrong or not. That's not the purpose of this website, as we are an Officer Rights website first. Also, if a poster libels someone they can be held civilly or criminally liable for what they wrote. LEOAFFAIRS.COM may be protected as a Content Provider, but posters are responsible for what they write (even if its true). So, deleting inappropriate content helps keep us credible and also protects our users. If a topic is started that will not be productive or will lead to libeling people, it might be removed or locked. Examples of areas of concern are postings about officers sleeping with each other or having affairs and talking about open IA investigations. If an officer starts a post about who the hottest females cops are, it would be allowed to stay...but a string about who the ugliest were would be removed. Talking about officers who have been investigated, disciplined, fired, etc. can get some air time, especially if its been covered in the media, but it doesn't need to be beat to death. For example, a supervisor who gets arrested for DUI and demoted or fired has paid his price and hopefully learned from it. The same with others who have been investigated. Bringing up this baggage over time and making them re-live it is not something I want this site to be associated with...mainly because I don't view it as constructive and I don't see what good can come from it. None of us are perfect and we ALL make mistakes, let's learn from them and move on.

Anyhow, hopefully you'll have a new appreciation for how we do things and why. It's one of the main reasons why we've been in The Washington Post, on MSNBC and on television, newspapers and radio across the country. If we did not have that kind of media coverage, we would never be able to effect change the way we have. Of course, most of this is not possible without Moderators and our users helping out by reporting bad posts.

Thanks for your support!

Translation: Keep those advertising dollars rolling in!!!

I appolgize if there was some confusion. My comment is not in anyway directed at the Tampa Officer that hosts this website. I think Jack's efforts to go after him personally was uncalled for and unprofessional. My comment is directed at the person or persons (lIkely FLPD employee(s)) that are editing and censoring blog postings. Who are they to edit or censor what someone else writes. Who are you to take down posting from other people, that don't violate the terms of use. Who are they to control what people speak about. Who are you to decide what people can inquiry about. Who are they to decide what threads get locked down because they don't like the content. It is obvious, the Staff Moderator is trying to cover things up. To create spin through un-american censorship. Voltaire once said "I may no believe in what you say-- but I will defend to my death your right to say it." (If you are not educated enough to know who Voltaire is -- you may want to look it up.)

I read your post and appreciate everyone's support for both me and this website. As a matter of fact, I just got back from Ft. Lauderdale this past Sunday and you guys have a beautiful city.

As for the moderation (a.k.a. censorship) issue, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject. Yes, you are correct in that we do not have to moderate any content on the Message Boards. In fact, as a Content Provider, we are protected by The Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent Telecommunications Act of 1996. This federal legislation protects LEOAFFAIRS.COM, its Users and other Content Providers by providing immunity from liability of publishing information provided by others.

Most people might take that protection and run with it, deciding not to spend the time, money and resources to implement a system of moderation for over 500 agency message boards. I, however, feel differently. Although I was motivated to start this site because of an experience I went through, I didn't want to do it unless we could effect change. Let's face it, cops have plenty of gripes and issues to talk about, but I didn't see the benefit of creating a forum like that (other than perhaps therapeutic) unless it could be used to change things. There are other sites like that, they have a horrible reputation, nothing gets accomplished and even good content on them is not considered credible. Thus, we have Mod 1, Staff Moderators and 400 or so Moderators to get the job done. It's a huge operation. To stay on point with your question and/or complaint about controlling content, I can easily explain. I don't want anyone to get investigated by IA because of something someone wrote in here, whether the accused officer did something wrong or not. That's not the purpose of this website, as we are an Officer Rights website first. Also, if a poster libels someone they can be held civilly or criminally liable for what they wrote. LEOAFFAIRS.COM may be protected as a Content Provider, but posters are responsible for what they write (even if its true). So, deleting inappropriate content helps keep us credible and also protects our users. If a topic is started that will not be productive or will lead to libeling people, it might be removed or locked. Examples of areas of concern are postings about officers sleeping with each other or having affairs and talking about open IA investigations. If an officer starts a post about who the hottest females cops are, it would be allowed to stay...but a string about who the ugliest were would be removed. Talking about officers who have been investigated, disciplined, fired, etc. can get some air time, especially if its been covered in the media, but it doesn't need to be beat to death. For example, a supervisor who gets arrested for DUI and demoted or fired has paid his price and hopefully learned from it. The same with others who have been investigated. Bringing up this baggage over time and making them re-live it is not something I want this site to be associated with...mainly because I don't view it as constructive and I don't see what good can come from it. None of us are perfect and we ALL make mistakes, let's learn from them and move on.

Anyhow, hopefully you'll have a new appreciation for how we do things and why. It's one of the main reasons why we've been in The Washington Post, on MSNBC and on television, newspapers and radio across the country. If we did not have that kind of media coverage, we would never be able to effect change the way we have. Of course, most of this is not possible without Moderators and our users helping out by reporting bad posts.

Thanks for your support!

Translation: Keep those advertising dollars rolling in!!!

I find it amazing that there are some naive souls out there like the poster RC who find fault with the owners of this site making a profit. What on earth is wrong with that? They had the idea, they implemented it, it had never been done before and they are obviously doing something right because it appears to be very successful. There is no charge to access this site, so it's FREE to everyone, and they seem to pay for it with advertising money. Have you even read RC how large this site is or noticed, say, how many moderators there are? Do you think it's cheap to run the site or that everyone should volunteer their time to do so? 20, 30 or 40 hours a week maybe? Stick with your day job RC because you wouldn't stand a chance of running a business.

If someone cries freedom of speech then delets posts that they personally dont like but are in no way a violation of the terms of use (your own terms at that) are they the pot or the kettle?

If someone cries freedom of speech then delets posts that they personally dont like but are in no way a violation of the terms of use (your own terms at that) are they the pot or the kettle?

When you delete this one dont forget to get the one off the Tampa site as well. Just a hunch.

Is this our board or do you and this guy need a room ?

If someone cries freedom of speech then delets posts that they personally dont like but are in no way a violation of the terms of use (your own terms at that) are they the pot or the kettle?

so wich was it...pot or kettle? or just delete posts because you cant handle the truth

wow!!!

wow is right but true

wow!!!