Again

[[Sh...]]

4 hours ago, [[B...] said:

11 months. It'll be twelve on April 10th, when i took my last benzo dose, a few days after starting NAD+. Most NAD+ people feel great by month 5, I was feeling good even earlier, massive window, only to get caught by a wave. I know from others posts on here, that last big wave is what takes place before recovery. So I think that where I am, A lot of cycling of symptoms. 

Yes lottie! U are so close. I can feel it. Sending u a huge hug honey x u got this ❤️

[[Sh...]]

Just to be clear, I am 100 percent anti big pharma along with all their subsidiaries. 
I am also to a degree anti establishment even tho I am literally in the process of joining the establishment. Why? 
To change it. 

everyone’s voice matters. Decs is my friend here and has been for a long time. I don’t want to see anyone upset on my post, even tho we might disagree on some things said here, let’s not have any bad feelings ok x 

I appreciate all the posts here tho. I am actually enjoying the interaction. Plus I have spoken to some people here I’ve never spoken to before so I love that. 
And I love to laugh so let’s do more of that. We sure need it x 

justin u sure do know ur stuff mate. Sheesh nothing wrong with ur brain. 💪🏾
 

[[Ju...]]

1 hour ago, [[S...] said:

Just to be clear, I am 100 percent anti big pharma along with all their subsidiaries. 
I am also to a degree anti establishment even tho I am literally in the process of joining the establishment. Why? 
To change it. 

everyone’s voice matters. Decs is my friend here and has been for a long time. I don’t want to see anyone upset on my post, even tho we might disagree on some things said here, let’s not have any bad feelings ok x 

I appreciate all the posts here tho. I am actually enjoying the interaction. Plus I have spoken to some people here I’ve never spoken to before so I love that. 
And I love to laugh so let’s do more of that. We sure need it x 

justin u sure do know ur stuff mate. Sheesh nothing wrong with ur brain. 💪🏾
 

Thank you, I've always enjoyed speaking with people from Australia and other countries. Us Americans laugh at how the Australians party hard like us and go all out with burnouts on cars and get wild and wrestle crocodiles like we do alligators in america, all that kind of stuff. I used to live in florida, it's similar to Australia in a lot of ways, as is Seattle. We are big varied countries, with deserts and coastlines and mountains. We've got all different types of people in both, and I can appreciate that.

Anyways, yeah I'm sure the moderator is a good person, but I felt like I was attacked for having a valid opinion. I know my legal stuff really well, I file lawsuits all the time. We Americans like to file lawsuits, we're all about bucking the system and taking it to the man. I guess the way I speak sometimes, makes others interpret that I'm anti-government. And I'm also to a degree anti-government, but that's in my own personal life. On this website, I'm respecting their interests and policies as best I can.

Here's what I think the actual dilemma is for this website, and I'm sure everybody can agree: when you have rules such as not allowing anti-government or allowing anti-doctor posts, that essentially means you're not allowed to have opinions of anything in the world. Everything is related to government, everything is related to Medical care, and there's always going to be disagreements about the way things are carried out in the world. With that being said, everything is to an extent anti-government or anti-doctor. Ask an old lady, she'll say apple a day keeps the doctor away. Ask a republican what they think of a democrat, they will say screw that liberal. Ask the left wing what they think of the conservatives, they'll say they're destroying the world. Are they all anti-government? In a sense yes, while also being part of the government.

Ask someone about Eastern medicine what they think of Western medicine doctors, they'll tell you that they don't know anything. And do Vice versa, Western doctors will say that Eastern doctors aren't correct. Does that mean they're both anti doctor? You see, we can't get into these types of either black or white moderations, because everything is a gray area in life. Nothing is a one-sided argument, everything has two sides to it. It's best to just accept others opinions and hear them out, without criticizing.

Like I said earlier, I live in Seattle Washington where we are extremely vocal to our government. We even shut down the police station a couple years back, destroyed a lot of government buildings and smashed out the windows and flipped cop cars and set them on fire. We were all over the news around the world. Riots and protests, defunding police. All that stuff, but does that mean we don't respect that we still need a government? Of course not, we still know that we need some kind of order. But we're progressive, we're trying to make a better version of it. Does that mean we're anti-government because we're progressively trying to make things better for the world? This is where you have to use your common sense.

My Hope Is that the moderators can see multiple perspectives from different regions around the world. Not just the simple yes or no black or white government or no government doctors are right or they're not right arguments. It's much more complicated than that, it's called life.

[[WU...]]

10 hours ago, [[d...] said:

You may not be aware of this, but you have hijacked a thread in a way that has taken it way off course.

I don't even know what the topic was.   Was there a topic?

Edited March 17 by [WU...]

[[Ju...]]

7 minutes ago, [[W...] said:

I don't even know what the topic was.   Was there a topic?

Not really, she was asking for support because of her sleep. She was saying it's crazy how she's still going through this at almost 3 years, so we all started talking about our struggles. We were having a great conversation, everybody was speaking to one another and validating the other's experience. That's what she wanted, was support. We gave her support, we were all supporting each other I thought.

But since you mentioned topics, the other day I got shut down on my own post and my own topic, the moderator told me I was off topic. How can you be off topic on your own topic? This is where I get confused with the moderator rules sometimes.

[[Co...]]

10 hours ago, [[J...] said:

Tenor? Hijacked? Maybe it's due to a difference in where we live, but I live in the United States where we have freedom of speech. We don't base things on tenor or vibes or interpretations. We base things on fact, either we did something wrong or we didn't. It's not about people's opinions and perspective on the matter, unless it's going in front of a judge and he's ruling on an opinion.

I have to say, this is a very common misunderstanding of the US's 1st Amendment. The 1A in its entirety:

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.^[4]

1A applies only to government. It does not apply to privately controlled spaces. So, householders, businesses, newspapers, and websites (including BB), etc., are (pretty much) free to draw whatever editorial lines or restrictions upon expression they wish within the spaces they operate.

I think it is worth pointing out how BB differs in the content we allow compared to the other (now defunct) benzodiazepine withdrawal support platforms. One was free-for-all, where pretty much anything was acceptable (the forum imploded in utter chaos, but not before causing damage at other forums). Another operated in a very top-down manner, where all support was provided from moderator to member - it imploded under its own weight. Some have been very/over heavy with moderation, with heavy-handed unsuitable moderators - the members drifted away and the forums closed. A couple were created for truly nefarious purposes, by people with abusive agendas to get back at people with which they disagreed or felt had somehow wronged them - BB outed the forums and the people operating them and they too closed. BB is the only independent withdrawal support platform left - why is this?

Unlike many of the other support forums, BB is organised as a peer support forum. Team members are not 'withdrawal experts'. They are not held up as 'Gods'. And where a team member seriously digresses, they are removed (very rare, but it has happened). Although our team are often experienced in benzodiazepine withdrawal, this is not necessary so. As their titles imply, moderators (and admins) are here to provide a safe discussion space for members. This requires that we enact some sensible rules, and try our best to maintain civility. This is our primary function.

We do allow for as much 'free speech' as possible (we are all grown ups after all). But we also need to maintain a safe and respectful support environment. These two objectives are sometimes in conflict with each other. There is no perfect answer - it requires (sensible) compromise. I do not suppose that we always get it right. But I would suggest that we have consistently got it more right than all the other supports which have closed over the past 20 years.

[[Co...]]

8 hours ago, [[J...] said:

The FACT of this matter, is there was nothing violated, no profanity, no direct Dr bashing, no conspiracies, and we only went in the direction of the original poster, so it was not hijacked. It was the poster who decided on this conversation, and we were making friendly conversation and all enjoying each other. How is it that a friendly post where everybody is having a good time and smiling and enjoying each other and laughing, gets decided on by a third party who says we're out of line? Have you ever heard of authoritarianism?

Keeping topics/threads on (roughly) on track is mundane forum moderation stuff. I do not know how familiar you are with other message boards, but BB offers far more leeway in topic drift than the vast majority of other forums out there.

[[Co...]]

9 hours ago, [[J...] said:

I said above that I wasn't doctor bashing, I was close to it but not quite. I was following the rules on this website I thought. I even made a point that we need doctors for certain things, but that my opinion was psychiatric medications were harmful. I don't see how that's doctor bashing.

The general demeanour of this thread has been anti-doctor, which is against our guidelines. However particular phrasing might be parsed in a particular post, or whatever attempt there is made to disclaim comments, the general tone remains. The guideline and linked detailed document on this matter:

Quote

You are not permitted to use this community as a platform to spread general anti-doctor, anti-psychiatry and/or anti-health care professional propaganda. Nor should you name those involved in your healthcare. For more about this policy, please read our Anti-doctor, Anti-psychiatrist, and Anti-medicine Content notice.

Members need their doctors. many of them need their psychiatrists. Irrespective of particular negative interactions you are other members might have experienced with your doctor(s), they should not be used to spread general mistrust. Medicine, by its very nature, is inexact. Some negative experiences are inevitable, even when medical professionals have behaved impeccably.

What we require from members in this matter is to refrain form projecting their personal experiences to the more general. But we do allow for factual reporting of personal experiences. And we generally allow for some small amount of venting to go unchallenged (we appreciate why some members might experience anger about their treatment and/or is a symptom of benzodiazepine withdrawal). But there are judgement calls for moderators to make on limits. I had not read earlier pages in this thread, and I have not properly read the past few pages over the past couple of days. But my own (skimmed) perspective was that the thread had drifted way off topic and many comments had gone overboard in general criticism of medicine and doctors.

So, if you all would wind it in is a little, and attempt to return more to the topic a hand, this would be appreciated. If you would like to continue to discuss off-topic matters raised in this thread (whilst remaining within posting guidelines), please start another thread (on a suitable forum) - and you may even link back to this thread for reference.

And I do not mean to single out you, @[Ju...]. I have still not read all the comments and just happened to read yours first. My comments here do not just apply to only you.

Thanks.

[[Co...]]

I will try to properly catch up with this thread later.

[[An...]]

1 hour ago, [[C...] said:

I have to say, this is a very common misunderstanding of the US's 1st Amendment. The 1A in its entirety:

1A applies only to government. It does not apply to privately controlled spaces. So, householders, businesses, newspapers, and websites (including BB), etc., are (pretty much) free to draw whatever editorial lines or restrictions upon expression they wish within the spaces they operate.

I think it is worth pointing out how BB differs in the content we allow compared to the other (now defunct) benzodiazepine withdrawal support platforms. One was free-for-all, where pretty much anything was acceptable (the forum imploded in utter chaos, but not before causing damage at other forums). Another operated in a very top-down manner, where all support was provided from moderator to member - it imploded under its own weight. Some have been very/over heavy with moderation, with heavy-handed unsuitable moderators - the members drifted away and the forums closed. A couple were created for truly nefarious purposes, by people with abusive agendas to get back at people with which they disagreed or felt had somehow wronged them - BB outed the forums and the people operating them and they too closed. BB is the only independent withdrawal support platform left - why is this?

Unlike many of the other support forums, BB is organised as a peer support forum. Team members are not 'withdrawal experts'. They are not help up as 'Gods'. And where a team member seriously digresses, they are removed (very rare, but it has happened). Although our team are often experienced in benzodiazepines withdrawal, they do not have to be. As their titles imply, moderators (and admins) are here to provide a safe discussion space for members. This requires that we enact some sensible rules, and try our best to maintain civility. That is our primary function.

We do allow for as much 'free speech' as possible (we are all grown ups after all). But we also need to maintain a safe and respectful support environment. These two objectives are sometimes in conflict with each other. There is no perfect answer - it requires (sensible) compromise. I do not suppose that we always get it right. But I would suggest that we have consistently got it more right than all the other supports which have closed over the past 20 years.

I agree. I have been a part of all these forums over the years. In fact before benzobuddies ever existed, I was an original member of Geraldine Burn's benzo support group, the 1st ever on the internet. This was during the late 90s I believe. I watched from the sidelines mostly when benzowithdrawal.com imploded. That was a real mess at the end. Kudos to Colin and his team for not letting the same thing happen to benzobuddies. I hate all the facebook groups. Many are over-moderated IMO + topics being discussed are really hard to follow. I do like all the youTube stuff you can watch.

Happy Sunday to all my benzobuddies. 

 

[[Ju...]]

Colin,

I just got done reading your perspectives, and you're entitled to them. That doesn't mean I agree with them, and I still feel that your site is way over moderated and that you are lacking knowledge on the first amendment in full.

For example you say we're not entitled to free speech in housing and private business, that's not accurate. I actually just got done filing a lawsuit over civil rights for housing matters a few months ago, relating to free speech and coercion under Section 804 and 818 of the fair housing act, you should do more research on that. The First Amendment isn't the whole constitution, there's many other additions such as the Ada and FHA acts and many others, you need to fully understand it before making your own interpretations.

With all that being said, even if I was allowed to say everything and anything I want, I would still respect your website regardless. It's yours, you can do as you wish, you can make it paid, you can add advertisements, you can make it into a porn site if you want. Everybody else does what they want with their website, so why shouldn't you? With that being said, don't try to make it sound like it's not over moderated or that we don't have free speech in America, because that's unrelated and inaccurate.

I'm sure you've been watching the news, even Donald Trump has been on trial for free speech. Even after police officers dying, even after Insurrection attempts, he's not going to jail over it. Like I said before, even in Seattle, even after destroying Federal buildings and police cars and shutting down police stations over free speech, it's still free speech. Does that mean everybody likes it? Of course not, both sides of the political parties got pissed at both. Trump supporters got pissed at Seattle, Seattle supporters got pissed at Trump. See how these perspectives start to play out?

You say things like other people need their psychiatrists and not everybody's had a bad experience with medicine. Yeah well there's also people that have had bad experiences with psychiatrists, and others that don't need medicine. What's your point? Sounds like another biased opinion. There's both sides of the story again, you're only telling one of them again.

Or like above, you said that just because "I stated I'm not Dr bashing, doesn't mean that the tone wasn't", etc. Basically you implied that I WAS Dr bashing, even though I didn't specifically say it. But then right after that, you say "I'm not singling you out Justin", but actually you did. My name was the only one in the link, on multiple posts. You were only addressing me in particular, so maybe the tone was that you were singling me out, correct? Maybe it's actually you that was specifically singling me out, even though implying that you weren't. Kind of similar right?

This is exactly why I brought up the court stuff earlier. Please review all the court comments I made, so you can understand why. You didn't even attempt to read the whole post, imagine this as a court case where you didn't even review the evidence. You came in hot handed, already had a prejudged opinion, already implied certain defendants were guilty, did not give a fair trial, and proceeded to criminalize one of the defendants and accused them of crimes they didn't commit essentially. You would not be a good judge in other words.

Now of course we're not in court, we're just hanging out on the internet. I could care less about the other benzo websites, I don't even use social media. I've been kicked off of this one several times, and I've also quit myself voluntarily several times for several months. I feel like it's similar to being in the Holocaust, controlled by Nazis, as my family has Jewish ancestry. What's the point of participating in something that's going to be controlling and descending and try to limit your speech on important matters that you've experienced in life? That's what I have to constantly make up my mind with on this website. Sometimes I feel it's better not to log in at all. Other times, I feel it's beneficial to communicate with other people going through similar situations around the globe.

I guess you could say my conclusion of this website is that it's over moderated, the moderators don't understand America as good as they "perceive", and benzo buddies can be both good and bad, like any other website. Pornography is extremely graphic and rude to some people, does that mean we should get rid of it? Of course not. Some people despise Tick Tock and Facebook, so should we start Banning everything like the government is trying? Of course not. In my opinion, you should just lay off and let the members have a good conversation where they're helping each other. Ask anyone on this post, where we having a fun time or not? Were we supporting each other or not? Yes, we were all supporting each other and we all agree on it.

[[de...]]

@[Ju...] In order to remain true to its mission, every organization has to have guidelines.  Benzo Buddies is no different.  If you are uncomfortable with how this forum is moderated or the mission of Benzo Buddies, there are a plethora of other websites where you can express yourself and enjoy conversations with like minded people.   I hope you are able to find a space that is a good fit for you!  All the best!  

[[Co...]]

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

Colin,

I just got done reading your perspectives, and you're entitled to them. That doesn't mean I agree with them, and I still feel that your site is way over moderated and that you are lacking knowledge on the first amendment in full.

Does the First Amendment even apply to a British-owed website? The site is hosted in the US, so I guess it might, but seems moot given the scope of the Amendment.

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

For example you say we're not entitled to free speech in housing and private business, that's not accurate. I actually just got done filing a lawsuit over civil rights for housing matters a few months ago, relating to free speech and coercion under Section 804 and 818 of the fair housing act, you should do more research on that. The First Amendment isn't the whole constitution, there's many other additions such as the Ada and FHA acts and many others, you need to fully understand it before making your own interpretations.

The restrictions of the Amendment do not generally apply to what you require in your own home or to businesses. You decide upon the rules in your own house; and businesses are (mostly) free to determine what restrictions they might apply to the space they control. I was not talking about 'fair housing' - presumably, you are writing about restrictions upon tenants - surely, a different (complicated) matter since the home is owned/operated by a business or state.

The point being, individuals and businesses are 'pretty much' (I used the same phrase in my original post) free to place restrictions upon free speech in the spaces they control. (I cannot go to your home and expect to say whatever I want without being turfed out - I cannot expect to shout what I want at a business and they simply must tolerate it - I cannot demand that the local press publish my letter to the editor. It is the same at any privately-held website.)

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

With all that being said, even if I was allowed to say everything and anything I want, I would still respect your website regardless. It's yours, you can do as you wish, you can make it paid, you can add advertisements, you can make it into a porn site if you want. Everybody else does what they want with their website, so why shouldn't you? With that being said, don't try to make it sound like it's not over moderated or that we don't have free speech in America, because that's unrelated and inaccurate.

In first part, we are in agreement; in the second - I think you have misunderstood my post - or maybe I was unclear. Free speech in the US is protected from impingement by Government. Private restrictions upon free speech are also generally protected. It is part of 'free speech' to decide what's allowable in the spaces you (as an individual) you control. But, generally speaking, this is not true if the space you control is through your role as a governmental employee (or elected official).

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

I'm sure you've been watching the news, even Donald Trump has been on trial for free speech. Even after police officers dying, even after Insurrection attempts, he's not going to jail over it. Like I said before, even in Seattle, even after destroying Federal buildings and police cars and shutting down police stations over free speech, it's still free speech. Does that mean everybody likes it? Of course not, both sides of the political parties got pissed at both. Trump supporters got pissed at Seattle, Seattle supporters got pissed at Trump. See how these perspectives start to play out?

Let's avoid politics - it causes too much argument these days. But Trump was found liable for libel and slander. The difference is well-trodden ground in US law, so I'll leave that there.

I don't understand your reference to Seattle and the criminal destruction of property. That's not free speech; it is not libel/slander.

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

You say things like other people need their psychiatrists and not everybody's had a bad experience with medicine. Yeah well there's also people that have had bad experiences with psychiatrists, and others that don't need medicine. What's your point? Sounds like another biased opinion. There's both sides of the story again, you're only telling one of them again.

BB is a support space for those wishing to withdraw from benzodiazepines. We make no value judgement as to whether or not an individual wishes to withdraw or continue with their use of benzos (or any other medication). 

The BB Mission Statement:

Quote

 

Mission Statement

BenzoBuddies is an inclusive, non-judgmental peer-support group for those wishing to withdraw from benzodiazepines or z-drugs.

Members of our community are encouraged to share experiences, information and ideas during the process of withdrawal and recovery.

Taking or quitting any medicine—including benzodiazepines—is a personal decision made in consultation with a suitably qualified medical practitioner.

We strive to help members achieve their goals.

 

There are a multitude of anti-psychiatry websites out there. BB is not one of them. Many of our members rely upon psychiatrists and psychiatric services. Some other members openly express that they are distrusting and will not use psychiatric services again. Members are not allowed to post in a manner (by design or neglect) which dissuades other members from seeking the medical care they feel they require. But neither are members allowed to post content which seeks to (or has the effect of) sabotaging the desire of other members to quit benzodiazepines. The position of BB is that patient/member autonomy should be respected. If an individual decides to quit or take benzodiazepines (or any other medication), this is for them to determine - they should not be put under undue (peer) pressure one way or the other.

Group think and people with agendas are real. This is why we control these things. You will note, though, nearly any topic might be discussed at BB - it is writing style which we generally codify. As I think @[An...] would probably tell you, it generally was (and is) not like this at the other benzodiazepine withdrawal support forums which have come and gone (or still exist).

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

Or like above, you said that just because "I stated I'm not Dr bashing, doesn't mean that the tone wasn't", etc. Basically you implied that I WAS Dr bashing, even though I didn't specifically say it. But then right after that, you say "I'm not singling you out Justin", but actually you did. My name was the only one in the link, on multiple posts. You were only addressing me in particular, so maybe the tone was that you were singling me out, correct? Maybe it's actually you that was specifically singling me out, even though implying that you weren't. Kind of similar right?

As I said - I had only skimmed part(s) of the thread. I know that you are not the only member involved in such comments. I made a point of stating this. But I read your post a bit more carefully than the others (it was the first one in response to @[de...]), and it was the one I was quoting. I might well have comments to add in response from other members once I have read them. Or, if they cover similar ground, I might not. My bandwidth is not limitless.

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

This is exactly why I brought up the court stuff earlier. Please review all the court comments I made, so you can understand why. You didn't even attempt to read the whole post, imagine this as a court case where you didn't even review the evidence. You came in hot handed, already had a prejudged opinion, already implied certain defendants were guilty, did not give a fair trial, and proceeded to criminalize one of the defendants and accused them of crimes they didn't commit essentially. You would not be a good judge in other words.

This is not a court. My time is limited. It is a discussion forum. I am only taking the opportunity to make a few things clear. A moderator attempted to steer the thread back on truck, and received unreasonable pushback for this.

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

Now of course we're not in court, we're just hanging out on the internet. I could care less about the other benzo websites, I don't even use social media. I've been kicked off of this one several times, and I've also quit myself voluntarily several times for several months. I feel like it's similar to being in the Holocaust, controlled by Nazis, as my family has Jewish ancestry. What's the point of participating in something that's going to be controlling and descending and try to limit your speech on important matters that you've experienced in life? That's what I have to constantly make up my mind with on this website. Sometimes I feel it's better not to log in at all. Other times, I feel it's beneficial to communicate with other people going through similar situations around the globe.

Again, you are generally free to discuss what you wish at BB. We do not allow politics because it has become too divisive and disruptive to our mission of providing a peer support space. Style more than substance is what we generally codify. And if you are relaying your personal experiences (the facts), these very unlikely to be he subject of moderation actions.

1 hour ago, [[J...] said:

I guess you could say my conclusion of this website is that it's over moderated, the moderators don't understand America as good as they "perceive", and benzo buddies can be both good and bad, like any other website. Pornography is extremely graphic and rude to some people, does that mean we should get rid of it? Of course not. Some people despise Tick Tock and Facebook, so should we start Banning everything like the government is trying? Of course not. In my opinion, you should just lay off and let the members have a good conversation where they're helping each other. Ask anyone on this post, where we having a fun time or not? Were we supporting each other or not? Yes, we were all supporting each other and we all agree on it.

Most of our admins and moderators are from the US. And (for personal reasons) I have a much better understanding of the US than most Europeans.

Has anyone seriously suggested 'banning' Facebook? TikTok is not being threatened with being 'banned' for some trivial reason. Rather, due to legitimate security concerns (such as, by law, data held by ByteDance (TIkTok's parent company) being shared with the Chinese state), there is a bill which might require ByteDance to sell TikTok to an entity outside of Chinese control. Else, TikTok will be banned from the US. (It is already banned from government issued cell phones in the US and beyond. And TikTok is already banned in some other counties.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok

But, again, let's avoid politics.

[[Ma...]]

@[Ju...] if you want to see what moderation of a benzo support site is, go check out Beating Benzos on Facebook.  I got kicked out of the group with no explanation after getting lectured that I was giving medical advice (I wasn’t).  This site is very open and tame by comparison.  

[[Ne...]]

13 minutes ago, [[C...] said:

Does the First Amendment even apply to a British-owed website? The site is hosted in the US, so I guess it might, but seems moot given the scope of the Amendment.

The restrictions of the Amendment do not generally apply to what you require in your own home or to businesses. You decide upon the rules in your own house; and businesses are (mostly) free to determine what restrictions they might apply to the space they control. I was not talking about 'fair housing' - presumably, you are writing about restrictions upon tenants - surely, a different (complicated) matter since the home is owned/operated by a business or state.

The point being, individuals and businesses are 'pretty much' (I used the same phrase in my original post) free to place restrictions upon free speech in the spaces they control. (I cannot go to your home and expect to say whatever I want without being turfed out - I cannot expect to shout what I want within a business's premises and they simply must tolerate it - I cannot demand that the local press publish my letter to the editor. It is the same at any privately-held website.)

In first part, we are in agreement; in the second - I think you have misunderstood my post - or maybe I was unclear. Free speech in the US is protected from impingement by Government. Private restrictions upon free speech are also generally protected. It is part of 'free speech' to decide what's allowable in the spaces you (as an individual) you control. But, generally speaking, this is not true if the space you control is through your role as a governmental employee (or elected official).

Let's avoid politics - it causes too much argument these days. But Trump was found liable for libel and slander. The difference is well-trodden ground in US law, so I'll leave that there.

I don't understand your reference to Seattle and the criminal destruction of property. That's not free speech; it is libel/slander.

BB is a support space for those wishing to withdraw from benzodiazepines. We make no value judgement as to whether or not an individual wishes to withdraw or continue with their use of benzos (or any other medication). 

The BB Mission Statement:

There are multitude of anti-psychiatry websites out there. BB is not one of them. Many of our members rely upon psychiatrists and psychiatric services. Some other members are express that they are distrusting and will not use psychiatric services again. Members are not allowed to post in manner(by design or neglect) which dissuades other members from seeking the medical care they feel they need. But neither are members allowed to post content which seeks to (or has the effect of) sabotaging the desire of other members to quit benzodiazepines. The position of BB is that patient/member autonomy should be respected. If they decide to quit or take benzodiazepines (or any other medication), this is for them to determine - they should not be put under undue (peer) pressure one way or the other.

Group think and people with agendas are real. This is why we control these things. You will note, though, nearly any topic might be discussed at BBB - it is writing style we generally codify. As I think @[An...] would probably tell you, it generally was (and is) not like this at the other benzodiazepine withdrawal support forums which have come and gone (or still exist).

As I said - I had only skimmed part(s) of the thread. I know that you are not the only member involved in such comments. I made a point of stating this. But I read your post a bit more carefully, and it was the one I was quoting. I might well have comments I wish to add in response from other members. Or, if they cover similar ground, I might not. My bandwidth is not limitless.

This is not a court. My time is limited. It is discussion forum. I am only taking the opportunity to make a few things clear. A moderator attempted to steer the thread back on truck, and received unreasonable pushback for this.

Again, you are generally free to discuss what you wish at BB. We do not allow politics because it has become too divisive and disruptive to our mission of providing a peer support space. Again, style more than substance is what we generally what we codify. And if you are relying your personal experiences (the facts), these very unlikely to be he subject of moderation actions.

Most of our admins and moderators are from the US. And (for personal reasons) I have a much better understanding of the US than most Europeans.

Has anyone seriously suggested 'banning' Facebook? TikTok is not being threatened with being 'banned'. for some trivial reason. Rather, due to legitimate security concerns (such as, by law, data held by ByteDance (TIkTok's parent company) being shared with the Chinese state), there is a bill which might require ByteDance to sell TikTok to an entity outside of Chinese control. Else, TikTok will be banned from the US. (It is already banned from government issued cell phones in the US and beyond. And TikTok is already banned in some other counties.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok

But, again, let's avoid politics.

Thanks Colin.  I detected political bias from a few of the posts and we get enough of that in the daily news of which can be stressful in itself.  I come here for support and reassurance and came on this particular thread as the topic was on insomnia for individuals that have been in recovery for some time.

[[Co...]]

I corrected a few typos and added some small clarifications to my last post.

[[Ju...]]

Again Colin, I understand your perspective, that doesn't mean I agree with it. We are grown adults, we are free to have our own opinions in life.

Everything has consequences in life. Some people live in Liberal areas to avoid consequences. Some people live in conservative areas to avoid consequences. You say not to get into politics, yet you're trying to school me on First Amendment rights. Again, you simply don't understand the First Amendment and the other constitutional add-ons. It's not cut and simple like you're making it, it's not black or white. This is why attorneys have been fighting over the amendments for centuries now.

You can't honestly tell me that you have more knowledge than a plethora of bar certified attorneys that have been fighting these constitutional acts for centuries do you? And if so, please tell me how you are far superior to all the remaining attorneys in the United States that constantly find tooth the Constitutional acts with combs. My intelligence says you are not Superior to them, you should really stop trying to make your points. Laws are open for interpretation and perspectives, that's why the judge makes opinions, hence the name opinion.

You just referenced housing laws and business laws in america, saying that they're free to allow whatever speech they want. That's not accurate at all, everybody still has civil rights to speak and think what they want. Just as the homeowner has rights to tell people that they are trespassing if they won't leave. The owner can tell them to leave if they don't like the conversation. Either way, the guests still has civil rights to speak what they want. This is why if you're told to leave, you have to leave otherwise it's trespassing. But if you go to somebody's house and say something they don't like, that doesn't mean you're violating their rights.

It seems kind of counterproductive to me to even have this conversation in the first place. Originally it was just a group of people supporting each other and having a good time. And then look what happened, the dictator Nazi moderators came in and started criticizing everybody and made this into a negative situation. Now everybody feels like they're under the gun, now everybody's wasting their whole day making lawyer arguments like they're in court. Now we're talking about politics, now we're talking about Dr bashing, when previously we weren't.

And of course I'm allowed to go to other websites Decatur, I'm not a kindergartener and I understand this. You guys are preaching to the choir, it's like talking to a wall. It's obvious you're trying to start a fight, maybe you're trying to ban me again for the millionth time. Maybe that's your agenda, like Pam.

That's okay, I like a good argument from time to time. Ban away, silence the enemy, hide your fears, do as you do. It's your site, click away, delete away. I don't know who you're fooling, but I still have civil rights to speak my mind and utilize my first amendment regardless if you like it or not, whether you delete me or not.

Now if I'm going to be professional and respectful, which I was originally, I would say back off, and quit singling me out and trying to make this into something it's not. Originally it was a good faith post and nothing was moot about it, and now you're acting like a mental health counselor or a defense lawyer by trying to manipulate the story. Lay off, get over it.

[[Ju...]]

10 minutes ago, [[M...] said:

@[Ju...] if you want to see what moderation of a benzo support site is, go check out Beating Benzos on Facebook.  I got kicked out of the group with no explanation after getting lectured that I was giving medical advice (I wasn’t).  This site is very open and tame by comparison.  

I appreciate your opinion, but I've been kicked off of this website multiple times as well. I'm fully aware of what moderation looks like, Pamster and Colin are good at it. But like I said above, it's their website and they can do whatever they want with it. That doesn't mean I'm going to conform to their Nazi values.

[[Ju...]]

I see another repeat of extreme moderation tactics on this website. This has been going on for the 5 years I've been visiting, it doesn't change. Even when I'm not doing anything against the rules, I get singled out among the other crowds. It's a repetitive thing, they have an agenda on here.

They're kind of like corrupt police officers, they try to lure you in with bait. They try to piss you off so you'll say something back, and then they try to take action next. And then they say you did it to yourself, like a false arrest.

In the process of trying to make their false arrest, they even try to convince you that you don't have First Amendment rights. They tried to manipulate the laws, they try to use their American Psychiatric association trained manipulation tactics to brainwash you. That's what benzo buddies is at this point, manipulative medically connected moderators. They're connected to the medical teams, they try to promote Pro government Pro medical stuff on this website.

It's so obvious to the people who are intelligent, call me out if you wish, I know the truth. Just like you're going to delete these comments before the rest of the people can see them, you'll Place me on suspension, you'll delete my last comment, and then there won't be any evidence of the argument. Then you can say you won the argument. Go ahead, be my guest again, like you did the other million times over the last years. Take care.

[[Ju...]]

I could have just made the simple for the moderators. Don't single me out, I'm an American.

Americans value their freedom, and they will not be silenced or persuaded by Europeans who don't favor their freedom. Europeans are free to take any action they wish, but the Americans will not be silenced regardless.

If you feel that your European website is better without American values, or you wish to pick and choose which Americans to value and listen to, let that be known publicly, that is your agenda. Feel free to take your next move. Take care if we don't speak again.

[[Ma...]]

9 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

I appreciate your opinion, but I've been kicked off of this website multiple times as well. I'm fully aware of what moderation looks like, Pamster and Colin are good at it. But like I said above, it's their website and they can do whatever they want with it. That doesn't mean I'm going to conform to their Nazi values.

 

9 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

I'm fully aware of what moderation looks like, Pamster and Colin are good at it.

They are very good moderators.  You need good moderators to make the site work.   I guess my point is that I’ve had numerous legitimate debates/discussions/disagreements on here with various members without ever getting kicked to the curb or even worse, getting tossed off.  There are some truly awful, awful benzo support sites and moderators out there, but not on this site, in my opinion.  If someone doesn’t feel like they are getting anything out of a support group, the best thing to do is usually to just walk away.  

[[Co...]]

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

Again Colin, I understand your perspective, that doesn't mean I agree with it. We are grown adults, we are free to have our own opinions in life.

Everything has consequences in life. Some people live in Liberal areas to avoid consequences. Some people live in conservative areas to avoid consequences. You say not to get into politics, yet you're trying to school me on First Amendment rights. Again, you simply don't understand the First Amendment and the other constitutional add-ons. It's not cut and simple like you're making it, it's not black or white. This is why attorneys have been fighting over the amendments for centuries now.

I genuinely do not understand what it is you are trying to argue. You say that you understand and agree it is for me to determine, what content I will allow at the website I own. But on the other, you seemingly suggest that my position is somehow at odds with your First Amendment rights.

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

You can't honestly tell me that you have more knowledge than a plethora of bar certified attorneys that have been fighting these constitutional acts for centuries do you? And if so, please tell me how you are far superior to all the remaining attorneys in the United States that constantly find tooth the Constitutional acts with combs. My intelligence says you are not Superior to them, you should really stop trying to make your points. Laws are open for interpretation and perspectives, that's why the judge makes opinions, hence the name opinion.

It is very well established US law that private entities (such as a website) control what content is allowable within the space they control. There are some edge arguments around common carriers, but no serious person could expect the internet (as it presently operates in the US) to continue if - for example - Section 230 was repealed and First Amended changed so as to require private spaces like BB to be considered a common carrier. In this highly unlikely situation, BB and and just about any other (non-US owned*) website which makes use of UGC (User Generated Content) to relocate to a webhost outside of the US.

* And I suspect many of those larger companies would use legal devices to shift ownership abroad and move to non-US hosting too.

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

You just referenced housing laws and business laws in america, saying that they're free to allow whatever speech they want. That's not accurate at all, everybody still has civil rights to speak and think what they want. Just as the homeowner has rights to tell people that they are trespassing if they won't leave. The owner can tell them to leave if they don't like the conversation. Either way, the guests still has civil rights to speak what they want. This is why if you're told to leave, you have to leave otherwise it's trespassing. But if you go to somebody's house and say something they don't like, that doesn't mean you're violating their rights.

That's not what I wrote. Please reread my post.

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

It seems kind of counterproductive to me to even have this conversation in the first place. Originally it was just a group of people supporting each other and having a good time. And then look what happened, the dictator Nazi moderators came in and started criticizing everybody and made this into a negative situation. Now everybody feels like they're under the gun, now everybody's wasting their whole day making lawyer arguments like they're in court. Now we're talking about politics, now we're talking about Dr bashing, when previously we weren't.

OK. You've done this twice now. I invoke Godwin's Law.

More seriously, please do not use 'Nazi' in response to comments or actions you do not like. I will stop responding.

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

And of course I'm allowed to go to other websites Decatur, I'm not a kindergartener and I understand this. You guys are preaching to the choir, it's like talking to a wall. It's obvious you're trying to start a fight, maybe you're trying to ban me again for the millionth time. Maybe that's your agenda, like Pam.

I think @[de...] was just meaning to imply a reasonable question along the lines of: why are you hear if you not like it? To be clear, I am not suggesting that you leave. But is a slightly odd thing to do: complain bitterly about the rules at a website which (I think) you understand is completely within their rights to apply the rules they wish, and which you use completely voluntarily. There are a number of forums I use, and I disagree with their rules. I have even, on occasion, made mention of disagreeing. But I do not make a song and dance about it.

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

That's okay, I like a good argument from time to time. Ban away, silence the enemy, hide your fears, do as you do. It's your site, click away, delete away. I don't know who you're fooling, but I still have civil rights to speak my mind and utilize my first amendment regardless if you like it or not, whether you delete me or not.

I appreciate a good argument too. Apart from the cut and thrust of it, it can afford me the opportunity to better explain more how we do things around here and why.

No mention has been made (nor private discussion) about banning your account.

3 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

Now if I'm going to be professional and respectful, which I was originally, I would say back off, and quit singling me out and trying to make this into something it's not. Originally it was a good faith post and nothing was moot about it, and now you're acting like a mental health counselor or a defense lawyer by trying to manipulate the story. Lay off, get over it.

@[Ju...] I have already explained, yours was the first post I read in response to @[de...]. I might, if appropriate, respond to comments by other members - if I should get the opportunity to read them, that is!

[[Ju...]]

Just now, [[M...] said:

They are very good moderators.  You need good moderators to make the site work.   I guess my point is that I’ve had numerous legitimate debates/discussions/disagreements on here with various members without ever getting kicked to the curb or even worse, getting tossed off.  There are some truly awful, awful benzo support sites and moderators out there, but not on this site, in my opinion.  If someone doesn’t feel like they are getting anything out of a support group, the best thing to do is usually to just walk away.  

Exactly, so why don't you walk away if you don't like it? Me and the members on this post we're having a good favorable positive conversation, before all you guys started chiming in.

We were all talking about our disgust of the psychiatric pills we were prescribed, and talking about how the government has gone in a negative path recently. And then look what happened, the moderators got involved and made the whole entire post negative.

Maybe it's a moderator problem and not a members posting problem.

[[Co...]]

19 minutes ago, [[J...] said:

I appreciate your opinion, but I've been kicked off of this website multiple times as well. I'm fully aware of what moderation looks like, Pamster and Colin are good at it. But like I said above, it's their website and they can do whatever they want with it. That doesn't mean I'm going to conform to their Nazi values.

As I recall, your account was suspended for a period - perhaps more than once. But you were not 'banned', else you would not be here now. Again, please stop with the 'Nazi' stuff. It is a terrible rhetorical device.

[[Ju...]]

Hey Colin, without getting into politics, it looks like it's an old monarchy battle again between the Europeans and the Americans. I'm valuing my freedom, escaping the monarchy from Europe.

And look, you're over in Europe valuing the monarchy and trying to silence my freedom from America. Looks like things haven't changed over the years, huh?