Obsolescence...

[Trevor Meier]

I don't know, man, I've been there since Red One #182—and I was only that far down the list because it took an extra day after the announcement to get enough money cleared on my then-miniscule credit card. I never expected upgrades to be free, or for the camera to always remain inside the same body. I for one am incredibly glad the bodies have slowly evolved. The DSMC2 body is a work of art, nice and light, modular with 3rd-party tools, easy to mount stuff to and incredibly capable. It's a far cry from what the Red One would be even if it had new sensors and boards inside.

These are working cameras. They should be making money, and it costs money for Red to do what they do. It's fair for us to exchange some of the value the cameras make for us to Red for the work that they do. And we're talking, reasonably, a small fraction per upgrade of what every person here who works professionally makes in a year. So while I get it if you mis-read the signs, but not all of us thought the way you think. So to claim a deception or whatever isn't really fair.

Like... c'mon. Raven. It's $6K and far better than the Red One ever was. And that's in under a decade from Red even being a thing.

 

[Marc Thorpe]

Hey Trevor, I fully understand and agree with your points. I came into the R1 world from 3CCD, maybe that was my mistake, thinking it the be all, end all solution. My then fiance, now wife, held my hand as I allocated a sizeable chunk of our savings to that new chapter in my imaging career. It is what it was.

Never once have I suggested intentional deception. I believe it to have been a clear cut case of boardroom decisions taking precedence over prior marketing spin, I simply took the grammatical intention as gospel. It was probably the most expensive "My bad" in my personal history but hey, we live and learn. I harbour no ill will, life is way too short for that.

 

[Eric Lange]

I actually had a different thought when I read that... thinking that things change so fast these days that the current form factor will be--dare I say it--obsolete by twenty-twenty.

We come from different disciplines so that explains our different reaction to the same statement. It's just that I'm thinking the Light field/multi-lens cameras are close. Exponential advancement does not favor a 5 year form factor, IMO.

Well taking (for example) the form factor of the Hasselblad... "Victor" was tasked by the Swedish government to make kind of knock offs of captured German Ariel survey cameras during WWII. That layout of those cameras then influenced the first consumer Hasselblad's of the 1950s. So that layout and form factor has persisted for over 50 years and through the digital age. Similarly I don't really expect the DSMC concept to change that radically over the next ten or 15 years but the cameras that may come out in 2020 + may be sleeker variants or wider in certain dimensions (to accommodate different sensors) or have minor alterations to allow for different approaches to cooling etc. but the basic layout I would say will probably stay the same as they pretty much "Nailed it" IMO.

"Exponential advancement" (as you say @Elsie N) doesn't really screw with good design and form factor too much unless you have a radical change in the type of technology that you are using. So Automobiles are still basically four wheels, a box with windows and a steering wheel at the front (that's been the case for nearly a 100 years). In the case of aircraft the form factor and design have changed necessarily due to different power plants such as the jet engine. I don't equate Light field/multi lens cameras as the "Jet Engine" that will change Cinematography. These are not technologies that will alter the path of digital cinematics. RED on the other hand has had a significant "Hand" in that. So as far as "Form factor" goes I don't really imagine that RED would abandon their basic and core design philosophy (so I'm not worried as I am pretty sure we can accommodate whatever comes in the future from RED). But I would be happy to revisit this topic eight years from now to see where we all are

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Marc Thorpe]

But I would be happy to revisit this topic eight years from now to see where we all are

Probably on some deserted island somewhere shooting 16K Timelapse sequences with the GoPro Hero12.

 

[Brody_B]

Jarred: If you promise to keep making new better cameras, I promise to HAPPILY keep paying you for the upgrades and value they bring to my images. Maybe im misunderstanding some others gripe about not being Obsolecense Obsolete enough. But, no other camera company lets you trade in an old model for a significant credit on the new model, plus accessories credit right?!. Well I guess consider me content. Matter of fact, very fucking content, Helium here I come.

So take my money and others again and again to keep Red pushing the envelope. Please.

 

[Dan Kanes]

I've never once felt misled by the mantra of Obsolence Obsolete. That mantra simply means that Red is not content to rest on its laurels and that stuff will be so far out ahead that it will still be relevant where others might not have so much relevance. 4K footage from 2007 was like... What... 8 or 9 years ahead of the distribution curve for 4K material.

It's sometimes hard to justify staying in the cycle - but if you hustle, and you have the need for the latest tools, they will pay for themselves.

This ad is pretty comical though - see the tag line at the bottom...

 

[Erich Roland]

Jarred: If you promise to keep making new better cameras, I promise to HAPPILY keep paying you for the upgrades and value they bring to my images. Maybe im misunderstanding some others gripe about not being Obsolecense Obsolete enough. But, no other camera company lets you trade in an old model for a significant credit on the new model, plus accessories credit right?!. Well I guess consider me content. Matter of fact, very fucking content, Helium here I come.

So take my money and others again and again to keep Red pushing the envelope. Please.

what Brody said. Some people will just never be happy.

 

[Elsie N]

Well taking (for example) the form factor of the Hasselblad... "Victor" was tasked by the Swedish government to make kind of knock offs of captured German Ariel survey cameras during WWII. That layout of those cameras then influenced the first consumer Hasselblad's of the 1950s. So that layout and form factor has persisted for over 50 years and through the digital age. Similarly I don't really expect the DSMC concept to change that radically over the next ten or 15 years but the cameras that may come out in 2020 + may be sleeker variants or wider in certain dimensions (to accommodate different sensors) or have minor alterations to allow for different approaches to cooling etc. but the basic layout I would say will probably stay the same as they pretty much "Nailed it" IMO.

"Exponential advancement" (as you say @Elsie N) doesn't really screw with good design and form factor too much unless you have a radical change in the type of technology that you are using. So Automobiles are still basically four wheels, a box with windows and a steering wheel at the front (that's been the case for nearly a 100 years). In the case of aircraft the form factor and design have changed necessarily due to different power plants such as the jet engine. I don't equate Light field/multi lens cameras as the "Jet Engine" that will change Cinematography. These are not technologies that will alter the path of digital cinematics. RED on the other hand has had a significant "Hand" in that. So as far as "Form factor" goes I don't really imagine that RED would abandon their basic and core design philosophy (so I'm not worried as I am pretty sure we can accommodate whatever comes in the future from RED). But I would be happy to revisit this topic eight years from now to see where we all are

Cheers,

Eric

What's a Hasselblad? '-)

Well, of course I've heard of those old cameras, but they can't even do RAVEN 4k in motion mode. Just because some dying brand nostalgic camera that was once relevant stayed with the format doesn't argue well for RED doing the same.

What is it they say? Change or die?

Oh, and automobiles are self-driving now. No steering wheel or other means for human intervention (it's happening now) is a big change in form factor.

 

[Eric Lange]

What's a Hasselblad? '-)

Well, of course I've heard of those old cameras, but they can't even do RAVEN 4k in motion mode. Just because some dying brand nostalgic camera that was once relevant stayed with the format doesn't argue well for RED doing the same.

What is it they say? Change or die?

Oh, and automobiles are self-driving now. No steering wheel or other human intervention is a big change in form factor.

Well we in the real world actually have to design and build stuff... So RED does not have a medium format camera that shoots 80 MP per frame nor does it have a sensor that approaches 54 mm x 45 mm for sensor size. I will bet you a $10,000.00 that 98% of vehicles classed as an "Automobile" that are street legal will still have a steering wheel in the front 20 years from now. Yes there are "Wondrous" and interesting technological improvements and achievements and really interesting solutions to problems... BUT these more exotic solutions in a lot of cases DON"T become main stream products especially in the "Film Industry". I think reading through a lot of the threads in REDUSER that you get an impression that some folks are very naïve about technological solutions VS. what actually makes a good product. DESIGN has a lot to do with that. That's one of the things I like about RED and Jim's influence and approach to design as its VERY practical and he understands the markets he wants to create. He's not Willy Wonker.

8 Years... My friend.

 

[Elsie N]

Well we in the real world actually have to design and build stuff... So RED does not have a medium format camera that shoots 80 MP per frame nor does it have a sensor that approaches 54 mm x 45 mm for sensor size. I will bet you a $10,000.00 that 98% of vehicles classed as an "Automobile" that are street legal will still have a steering wheel in the front 20 years from now. Yes there are "Wondrous" and interesting technological improvements and achievements and really interesting solutions to problems... BUT these more exotic solutions in a lot of cases DON"T become main stream products especially in the "Film Industry". I think reading through a lot of the threads in REDUSER that you get an impression that some folks are very naïve about technological solutions VS. what actually makes a good product. DESIGN has a lot to do with that. That's one of the things I like about RED and Jim's influence and approach to design as its VERY practical and he understands the markets he wants to create. He's not Willy Wonker.

8 Years... My friend.

I don't know Eric.

When the head of Ford Motor Company says in an interview that Ford is gearing up for a future when people don't buy cars but buy rides instead, that tells me that big changes are coming in the automobile "form factor." It'll be an urban thing so yes, there will still be self-driving cars with steering wheels and enough electronics in the old four-wheel box design to go to Mars and back, just as current automobiles have the computing power to do a hundred Apollo missions... all at the same time.

And your pronounced assessment of what the "Film Industry" will look like in the future... well, just revisit what people thought about film vs digital just a decade or so ago... and that was way, way back in the exponential explosion we are now in. Sort of like the beginning of the big bang. '-)

And as to your point that people on REDuser are naive about how cameras are made, they are not naive about how cameras are used.

Your kudos to RED for what they have accomplished are well placed, but if they think they've arrived, then they better enjoy that feeling while they can... ____ ____ ____ (fill in the blanks with whatever you think will happen in the future which will turn out to either partially or totally wrong. '-)

As for an 80 MP Stills-only (for all practical purposes) camera? That's niche to put it as politely as I can.

 

[Dan Kanes]

The president of Ford is referring to "buying rides" from Uber or Lyft (sure those can/will be autonomous some day)... My last note on off topic subject matter here.

 

[Elsie N]

The president of Ford is referring to "buying rides" from Uber or Lyft (sure those can/will be autonomous some day)... My last note on off topic subject matter here.

Yes, thanks for confirming my post... and somewhere I recently read they are experimenting with these type of "autos" with no human interface. They will be used for automated deliveries as well, like for pizza delivery.

And since the title of the thread is "Obsolescence", I don't think you were off-topic at all. '-)

 

[Eric Lange]

I don't know Eric.

When the head of Ford Motor Company says in an interview that Ford is gearing up for a future when people don't buy cars but buy rides instead, that tells me that big changes are coming in the automobile "form factor." It'll be an urban thing so yes, there will still be self-driving cars with steering wheels and enough electronics in the old four-wheel box design to go to Mars and back, just as current automobiles have the computing power to do a hundred Apollo missions... all at the same time.

And your pronounced assessment of what the "Film Industry" will look like in the future... well, just revisit what people thought about film vs digital just a decade or so ago... and that was way, way back in the exponential explosion we are now in. Sort of like the beginning of the big bang. '-)

And as to your point that people on REDuser are naive about how cameras are made, they are not naive about how cameras are used.

Your kudos to RED for what they have accomplished are well placed, but if they think they've arrived, then they better enjoy that feeling while they can... ____ ____ ____ (fill in the blanks with whatever you think will happen in the future which will turn out to either partially or totally wrong. '-)

As for an 80 MP Stills-only (for all practical purposes) camera? That's niche to put it as politely as I can.

lunch time...

Funnily enough It's not to my advantage to disabuse you of any of the ideas you set out here in your post.

[I can't speak as to the "Future worthiness" of the "Head of Ford" motor company. Given that I actually drive a Diesel Power-stroke F-350 (Ford) pick up truck as I need low end torque and I have worked all my life with horses so I need something that can safely pull at least 6 horses... So from my perspective the "Head" of Ford motor company is smoking "Crack" in respect of their core markets and what they are actually good at and I wager that said "Head of Ford" probably won't hold that position for long if he or she chooses to abandon their core markets and core capabilities].

IMO and experience, the Film industry is actually very conservative and very cautious about adopting new technologies in a broad or large scale way.

@ElsieN There's a few things you have chosen to "re-frame"... that border on being almost manipulative (and I stress almost)

EN (writes) "And your pronounced assessment of what the "Film Industry" will look like in the future... "

No... I made no "pronouncement or assessment" of what the "Film Industry" will " look like in the future"... OK?


EN (writes) " well, just revisit what people thought about film vs digital just a decade or so ago... "

I am not or ever was a proponent of film over digital for all applications, never was and never have been... (so that's sort of a reframe there aswell) ; I have actually done some really pioneering work in the fields of and application of digital imaging and have always pushed for high resolution and high number of photosite area array sensors. However what is shocking to me is the number of professionals that have gone BACK to film... I would not have predicted that. The idea of digital acquisition for cinematics is nothing new (even back then) but Jim Jannard actually decided to get off his butt and really DO SOMETHING about it and solve the problem and set the goal posts at a useful distance. It's the "Doing" that really counts rather than talking about it.



EN (writes) " And as to your point that people on REDuser are naive about how cameras are made, they are not naive about how cameras are used. "

OK another "Re-frame"... I actually said "Some folks", I did not say "People on REDuser" ... In other words a minority of "posters" and I used the term "folks" deliberately to indicate a modicum of kindness and understanding as I don't necessarily exclude myself from that group. I said some folks were naïve about the application of technology ... I did NOT say that Redusers are naïve about how cameras are made (another "Re-frame")... I did not say anything about how I thought Redusers were using their cameras.



EN (writes): and that was way, way back in the exponential explosion we are now in. Sort of like the beginning of the big bang. '-)



Well I literally grew up in the film industry but I think I have a different perspective than some of how technology is adopted. Here's a link to my "Old man's" IMDB page... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0486127/

What may be of interest to you is that he was one of the principal production designers on 2001 a Space Odyssey... and was nominated for an Oscar for Empire Strikes Back (Art direction) as well as for 2001 (He won the British Academy award) ... etc etc etc. (blah blah blah), but what is interesting is that he originally worked at the Marshall Space Flight center (NASA) as head of "Future concepts" on the conceptual and artistic side and was also personal friends with Arthur C Clarke. So from my perspective there are a LOT of very excellent technologies that have existed for a very very very long time that have literally taken decades to end up in more main stream applications. Typically folks in the film industry are very aware of what the latest and greatest technologies are but it may take more than 20 years to see industry wide adoption of such technologies. And in some cases quite rightly so.



EN (Writes) "As for an 80 MP Stills-only (for all practical purposes) camera? That's niche to put it as politely as I can "

That made me laugh... I'm not like you ElsieN (perhaps) as I am not a "Connoisseur" of consumer electronics... Large format/Medium format imagery is mission critical to many real world applications that we all depend on for navigation and security, real life and death stuff. To you that maybe " Niche". So I put it to you Elsie N how many "Pixels" are too much now and in the future? And believe me everyone that really needs 80 to 120++ MP sensors (as a tool for real world applications) would LOVE to have dynamic imagery of that size. [RED certainly is not ignorant of that need and those types of applications].



So back on topic ... (fail)...

As far as "Obsolescence Obsolete" idea... Of course it's completely insane, BUT you know what, RED actually does an amazing job of that and "They" really DON"T have to do that; its a CHOICE they made to serve their user base (as best they can). There is no other reason to do that. How you achieve that practically is VERY difficult. IMO they have really gone WAY above and beyond the call of duty on that one... AND (as some have pointed out) it costs them a LOT of money to do that or attempt to provide for that "Idea"; which is what it is... An Idea, rather than something that "plumps up" the bottom line.



So Jared said (with regard to form factor) " At least" 2020 (in this industry and many others that's about as good as it gets).

 

[Mike Finegan]

why does no one ask the question what is motivating self driving cars?
Like suddenly one year in history and everyone is being sold on self driving cars
Anyway this is topic for another forum let alone this thread!

 

[Elsie N]

lunch time...

Funnily enough It's not to my advantage to disabuse you of any of the ideas you set out here in your post.

[I can't speak as to the "Future worthiness" of the "Head of Ford" motor company. Given that I actually drive a Diesel Power-stroke F-350 (Ford) pick up truck as I need low end torque and I have worked all my life with horses so I need something that can safely pull at least 6 horses... So from my perspective the "Head" of Ford motor company is smoking "Crack" in respect of their core markets and what they are actually good at and I wager that said "Head of Ford" probably won't hold that position for long if he or she chooses to abandon their core markets and core capabilities].

IMO and experience, the Film industry is actually very conservative and very cautious about adopting new technologies in a broad or large scale way.

@ElsieN There's a few things you have chosen to "re-frame"... that border on being almost manipulative (and I stress almost)

EN (writes) "And your pronounced assessment of what the "Film Industry" will look like in the future... "

No... I made no "pronouncement or assessment" of what the "Film Industry" will " look like in the future"... OK?


EN (writes) " well, just revisit what people thought about film vs digital just a decade or so ago... "

I am not or ever was a proponent of film over digital for all applications, never was and never have been... (so that's sort of a reframe there aswell) ; I have actually done some really pioneering work in the fields of and application of digital imaging and have always pushed for high resolution and high number of photosite area array sensors. However what is shocking to me is the number of professionals that have gone BACK to film... I would not have predicted that. The idea of digital acquisition for cinematics is nothing new (even back then) but Jim Jannard actually decided to get off his butt and really DO SOMETHING about it and solve the problem and set the goal posts at a useful distance. It's the "Doing" that really counts rather than talking about it.



EN (writes) " And as to your point that people on REDuser are naive about how cameras are made, they are not naive about how cameras are used. "

OK another "Re-frame"... I actually said "Some folks", I did not say "People on REDuser" ... In other words a minority of "posters" and I used the term "folks" deliberately to indicate a modicum of kindness and understanding as I don't necessarily exclude myself from that group. I said some folks were naïve about the application of technology ... I did NOT say that Redusers are naïve about how cameras are made (another "Re-frame")... I did not say anything about how I thought Redusers were using their cameras.



EN (writes): and that was way, way back in the exponential explosion we are now in. Sort of like the beginning of the big bang. '-)



Well I literally grew up in the film industry but I think I have a different perspective than some of how technology is adopted. Here's a link to my "Old man's" IMDB page... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0486127/

What may be of interest to you is that he was one of the principal production designers on 2001 a Space Odyssey... and was nominated for an Oscar for Empire Strikes Back (Art direction) as well as for 2001 (He won the British Academy award) ... etc etc etc. (blah blah blah), but what is interesting is that he originally worked at the Marshall Space Flight center (NASA) as head of "Future concepts" on the conceptual and artistic side and was also personal friends with Arthur C Clarke. So from my perspective there are a LOT of very excellent technologies that have existed for a very very very long time that have literally taken decades to end up in more main stream applications. Typically folks in the film industry are very aware of what the latest and greatest technologies are but it may take more than 20 years to see industry wide adoption of such technologies. And in some cases quite rightly so.



EN (Writes) "As for an 80 MP Stills-only (for all practical purposes) camera? That's niche to put it as politely as I can "

That made me laugh... I'm not like you ElsieN (perhaps) as I am not a "Connoisseur" of consumer electronics... Large format/Medium format imagery is mission critical to many real world applications that we all depend on for navigation and security, real life and death stuff. To you that maybe " Niche". So I put it to you Elsie N how many "Pixels" are too much now and in the future? And believe me everyone that really needs 80 to 120++ MP sensors (as a tool for real world applications) would LOVE to have dynamic imagery of that size. [RED certainly is not ignorant of that need and those types of applications].



So back on topic ... (fail)...

As far as "Obsolescence Obsolete" idea... Of course it's completely insane, BUT you know what, RED actually does an amazing job of that and "They" really DON"T have to do that; its a CHOICE they made to serve their user base (as best they can). There is no other reason to do that. How you achieve that practically is VERY difficult. IMO they have really gone WAY above and beyond the call of duty on that one... AND (as some have pointed out) it costs them a LOT of money to do that or attempt to provide for that "Idea"; which is what it is... An Idea, rather than something that "plumps up" the bottom line.



So Jared said (with regard to form factor) " At least" 2020 (in this industry and many others that's about as good as it gets).

O.K. I made it through reading for content... not going through that again for comprehension... (whew)

I highlighted the statements in green that told me you have taken my comments personally. Not my intention. My comments and "framing" was merely for the purpose of debate. .. Point/counterpoint if you will.

But I think I've made all my arguments so I'm pretty much done with this discussion.

Feel free to have the last word. '-)

 

[Eric Lange]

O.K. I made it through reading for content... not going through that again for comprehension... (whew)

I highlighted the statements in green that told me you have taken my comments personally. Not my intention. My comments and "framing" was merely for the purpose of debate. .. Point/counterpoint if you will.

But I think I've made all my arguments so I'm pretty much done with this discussion.

Feel free to have the last word. '-)

No I haven't taken what you said personally but I take VERY seriously those that seek to manipulate and twist the words that I wrote or write. [When you have to prosecute and defend your own IP you have to be very clear about what is said and what is meant]. If you wish to succeed in professional media you need to take that very seriously indeed. I have been "Away" from REDuser/ Forum for a number of years. I would like to regard THIS forum as a professional forum as careless sloppy and manipulative prose kinda plays into the hands of the "Others" and completely undermines what this "Channel" was set up originally to do. This is not 100% aimed at you Elsie N by any means but is more symptomatic of the Internet and Forums these days as things seem only to regress or be reduced to the lowest common denominator and increasingly I see things edge towards unhealthy/pathological or even narcissistic modes.

So I remember distinctly four or five years ago your (ElsieN) posts were a lot more careful, coherent and more carefully worded. But in any case sincerely good luck with your projects and hope that RED has provided the tools you need for your craft.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Wow, stopped reading ages ago (Recovering and got a lot to do). I agree, giving a reason for non really obvious post deletions is a courtesy, and might help improve deletion discretion a little. The interpretation of if something is actually wrong and backed up by the interpretation as to why, is a good starting point in writing and reading.

I don't believe in free speech so to speak, but in 'free right speech, and the right to free right speech' as my moderating standard, and try to stay on that side of the line in writing. Just because some semi sociopaths long long ago couldn't figure out what was right and people used free speech to stop it happening again, doesn't mean we should be lumbered with everything wrong.

But I'm curious how your constitution works? The consitutuion, I thought was the overarching legal document to all law in a country, and only legal interpretation in court (or a change to it) could modify it? This would mean that all law, and even all conduct where it crosses paths, is dictated by the constitution. I would have thought it's stipulations would apply to both public and private. Is this right, or is there something else? Of course whatever the case, it would have to be tested in court to have an interpretation on a matter against a non strict interpretation (as to a wider or a more narrow interpretation) applied as a standard. (frankily, I would just set a forum up in a jurisdiction whose laws suited, so maybe some Island in the Pacific, or somewhere, gets tens of thousands of forums, keeping its couple hundred people to tens of thousands in work).

 

[Ketch Rossi]

ill be the first to admit we arn't perfect... Nowhere near actually. But I assure you our intentions are always in the best interest of our customers even if you think we have failed and I am only here doing what I am doing because I have a genuine passion for the creative people in this industry and the products that we make for them .

And for that I thank you!!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Reading some of the last posts. There are advantageous reasons in the upgrade stratergy. An upgrade instead of a new camera, means one less secondhand camera on the market taking away from new sales. Profit is made from the upgrade. Modules as a way to keep uoto date, make money, where a all in one camera is likely cheaper to make.

Now, Elsie, like me, we are getting old, I might have something like dementia (just me), and things are not as exact like they were years ago. As to other people around the place, if people don't get adequate sleep (like 7-9 hours for normal people and 3 1/2 - 4 1/2 for the few that have the gene verification, you don't think as clearly or as fast, though you feel you do, and insist you do. That, and drugs, ego, etc, I think is cropping up around here, and the scarlet fixed level is still around here. Things here just went ballon burst at the time they turned up, as far as professionalism goes. I find it incredibly hard to say something professional, or professional that challenges peoples perception, without getting the same hawks turn up circling and disrupting. I used to try to reason, nearly without them ever getting things, but now realise they are just odd, and give up. I have a tendacy to think people are well reasoned and fair in the past. I am almost sorry for them, but ultimately they bring it on themselves as well as me, so I'm a bit compassionate maybe. However despite all of that, I think I have only two people on my ignore list, and I think only in the last 6 months or so, instead of several or 20. One of which I'm thinking of taking off because that person has been fairly good since. I frankily have a hard time remembering who did what, and should have been using that a lot more often. Now, being old, I discuss this publicly, rather than just discretely.

 

[Elsie N]

Wow, stopped reading ages ago (Recovering and got a lot to do). I agree, giving a reason for non really obvious post deletions is a courtesy, and might help improve deletion discretion a little. The interpretation of if something is actually wrong and backed up by the interpretation as to why, is a good starting point in writing and reading.

I don't believe in free speech so to speak, but in 'free right speech, and the right to free right speech' as my moderating standard, and try to stay on that side of the line in writing. Just because some semi sociopaths long long ago couldn't figure out what was right and people used free speech to stop it happening again, doesn't mean we should be lumbered with everything wrong.

But I'm curious how your constitution works? The consitutuion, I thought was the overarching legal document to all law in a country, and only legal interpretation in court (or a change to it) could modify it? This would mean that all law, and even all conduct where it crosses paths, is dictated by the constitution. I would have thought it's stipulations would apply to both public and private. Is this right, or is there something else? Of course whatever the case, it would have to be tested in court to have an interpretation on a matter against a non strict interpretation (as to a wider or a more narrow interpretation) applied as a standard. (frankily, I would just set a forum up in a jurisdiction whose laws suited, so maybe some Island in the Pacific, or somewhere, gets tens of thousands of forums, keeping its couple hundred people to tens of thousands in work).

Wayne, I have no idea how it differs but it does. This has been tested in the courts time and time again I would imagine.

A professor of mine once said Your rights end where another person's nose begins. '-)