Town Square

Post a New Topic

Weekly Forum Terms Of Service:

Original post made by Ellen on Jul 25, 2009

Pleasnanton Weekly does track IP addresses just so YOU are aware of this!

I suggest YOU read the Term Of Service before posting!

Terms of Use

PleasantonWeekly.com provides an opportunity for community members to post opinions and other content directly onto the PleasantonWeekly.com Website. The Terms of Use outlined below are intended to govern and restrict your use of PleasantonWeekly.com, and your use of PleasantonWeekly.com constitutes a binding agreement to these terms between you and Embarcadero Publishing Company. If you do not wish to accept these terms, then do not post anything.

You agree to be respectful of others, be truthful and be solely responsible for all postings you make.
You agree not to use any profanity, nor post any information that is hateful, libelous or obscene, or that is threatening, abusive or offensive to any individual, group or class of person.
You agree not to post comments under multiple names. Postings within a single topic from the same IP address made under different names will be deleted.
You agree not to disclose personal information about another person, nor post anything that misleads others as to the source of the posting.
You grant to Embarcadero Publishing Company a nonexclusive license to republish in its newspapers or in other media formats, at its sole discretion, all or portions of the content you post on PleasantonWeekly.com.
You agree not to post anything on PleasantonWeekly.com that is not your original work, unless you know with certainty that it is legally in the public domain and permissible under U.S. copyright laws.

You agree not to make posts that are primarily intended to promote, or create links to another Website.
You agree not to make posts of a commercial nature that promote a business, product or service.
You agree not to republish in any form the posts that others make on PleasantonWeekly.com.
You acknowledge that although we do not have any obligation to review, monitor or screen the content that is posted on PleasantonWeekly.com, and that we do not own such content, we are the sole judge of whether the content you post meets these Terms of Use, and that we may edit, remove or lock content you post on PleasantonWeekly.com at our sole discretion for any reason, even if not specifically addressed in this Terms of Use.
You acknowledge that in spite of these Terms of Use, we make no assurances as to the accuracy or truthfulness of any content posted on PleasantonWeekly.com and are not responsible for content posted by others.
You agree that we may modify these Terms of Use at our sole discretion and that your right to use PleasantonWeekly.com is conditioned on your compliance with the then-current version of these Terms of Use, which you will always find on this site.
PleasantonWeekly.com is hosted on servers located in California and is intended to be viewed primarily by residents of California. In the event of any dispute arising out of or relating to this site, you agree that the exclusive venue for litigating disputes shall be in state or federal court in San Jose, California.

Should you believe there is content on PleasantonWeekly.com that violates any of the above Terms of Use, please report it immediately to Gina Allen, President, at Pleasanton Weekly, 5506 Sunol Blvd., Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566, phone 925-600-0840, fax 925-###-####, e-mail gallen@pleasantonweekly.com.

Comments (5)

Posted by Troy, a resident of Civic Square
on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:40 pm

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Efforts have been made to ban flag desecration, for example, though currently that act remains protected speech.


Posted by Allen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:42 pm

Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment. Despite the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the United States, legal systems have not treated freedom of speech as absolute. Among the more obvious restrictions on the freedom to say just what one likes where one likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. The liberal tradition has generally defended freedom of the sort of speech which does not violate others' rights or lead to predictable and avoidable harm, but it has been fierce in that defence because a free interchange of ideas is seen as an essential ingredient of democracy and resistance to tyranny, and as an important agent of improvement. The distinction between an action falling under the description of speech and one which does not is not clear cut, because many non-verbal actions can be seen as making a statement—for example, burning a flag or destroying a symbol. Again, valued freedom of speech embraces publication—writing, broadcasting, distributing recordings—as well as oral delivery of ideas.


Posted by Mary, a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:44 pm

The Supreme Court first began to develop a coherent doctrine of First Amendment liberties in a series of decisions arising out of federal legislation designed to stifle opposition to American participation in World War I. Although the Court upheld the convictions of political radicals under these statutes, the kernels of modern free speech doctrine were sown when Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis dissented in Abrams v. United States (1919), a decision upholding the convictions of socialists who opposed the dispatch of American troops to Russia to fight Bolsheviks. In one of his most stirring opinions, Holmes eloquently argued that a free society must be committed to the search for truth.

This need for a free people to test the truth is rooted in classical writings of Western civilization, such as John Milton's Aeropagitica and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. It is closely related to the concept that free speech is vital for a democratic system of government. Another rationale for free speech is that it reflects a social commitment to the value of individual freedom and personal autonomy.

After exercising increasing scrutiny of laws that infringed upon free speech, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established the doctrine that the government may restrain only speech that is likely to incite imminent unlawful action. The First Amendment therefore protects even speech that calls for overthrow of the government or lawless action.

The government may, however, impose reasonable limitations upon the time, place, and manner in which speech is exercised in order to protect public order and the smooth functioning of public administration. In imposing such restrictions, however, the state may not discriminate on the basis of the content of speech since such limitations would permit the state to favor one type of speech over another. Narrow exceptions are drawn for special categories of speech, particularly obscenity and so]called gfighting words,h which could lead to public disturbances. Even in these categories, the Court has gradually expanded the scope of judicial scrutiny. For example, hecklers are generally not permitted to exert a gvetoh over speech by creating a threat of violence and disorder; the state is obligated to protect, not stop, the controversial speaker.

Similarly, the Court has gradually extended the scope of protection for commercial speech, although commercial speech still receives less protection than political speech. In particular, the state may impose sanctions against false or misleading commercial speech or commercial speech that involves an unlawful activity.

Since the 1960s, the Court also has protected symbolic speech, in which political views are expressed without words. For example, the Court overturned state and federal statutes that prohibited the burning of the American flag in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. *Eichman (1990).

During recent years, the enactment of restrictions upon so]called hate speech has tested the limits of First Amendment doctrine. Proponents of such laws contend that hateful speech directed against women or various minorities fails to promote First Amendment values because it instigates violence, perpetuates discrimination, and interferes with the freedom of expression of its victims. In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court held that a city ordinance that prohibited words that insulted or provoked violence gon the basis of race, color, creed, religion or genderh was unconstitutional because it imposed a content]based discrimination. Lower courts have often overturned similar laws on the same grounds. In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), however, the Court sustained a law that permitted a state to enhance the sentence for a battery that was racially motivated.


Posted by To Allen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm

"blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred"

Blasphemy and expression of racial hatred are both recognized by the US supreme court as speech protected under the first amendment.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Not only does the Weekly track IP addresses, Jeb releases names and other identifying information as it suits his purpose. Witness the fiasco with Measure G postings. Their terms of service apply only as they choose to apply them, your privacy and your rights are NOT protected.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 1,019 views

Saving Water
By Roz Rogoff | 4 comments | 738 views