Page 2 of 33 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities. They have the right to "limit speech" on their sites, just as you have the right to not let me paint swastikas on the side of your house.
    its a simple concept that goes over the head of too many.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by The Penguin View Post
    Off the top of my head Facebook springs to mind. Yes it's a private company, but it's also so huge and widely used that it is a foregone staple of society at this point. When such things become staples of society, I think it behooves the Government to step in and require certain things of such private companies much as we have anti-Trust laws in the USA. Failure to provide basic things like free speech, excess moderation should result in punitive fines and correction of said issues.
    agreed but then such sites would just seek their hosting in less moral countries not to say ours is a pillar currently
    There is no Bad RNG just Bad LTP

  3. #23
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    I can get behind the idea that every person has a right to an opinion. But not that every person has a right to a podium, that gets messy quickly.
    also this....

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    its a simple concept that goes over the head of too many.
    shit house lawyers would like to agree with your false information
    There is no Bad RNG just Bad LTP

  5. #25
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    That attitude would essentially make "Freedom of Speech," moot and non-existent. More over, Freedom of Speech is an ethical principle, beyond just a piece of legalese.

    Your view would leave it conceptually vacant and empty, freedom to speak would then be left only to those with powerful mobs, lots of money or both.
    The issue here is that people are thinking that their individual freedom to speak their mind somehow entitles them to privately-owned platforms to broadcast that speech.

    Freedom of speech, whether right or ethical principle, carries no such entitlement. An attempt to exert such a right is an attempt to restrict the freedoms of the owners of that platform, forcing their speech, and abridging their property rights.

    And no; we wouldn't think differently if they were targeting "liberal" speech. First; hate speech isn't right-wing. It's just hate. It's apolitical. Second, there are media groups like Fox News which have been explicitly and deliberately biased, and nobody's demanded they give equal time to "both sides". We just acknowledge their bias and go on with our day. They still have their right to broadcast their speech however they like. That's what freedom of speech is.

    Not trying to force other private entities to carry your speech against their will. That's an assault on freedom of speech, not a protection of it.


  6. #26
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by ynnady View Post
    Ah the private company boys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
    Would it be good? They are private company.

    You could say, well people can switch to another search engine, but you would be one damned idiotic fucker who didnt make a good buck in his life.
    To think at a global scale that people will switch to another search engine in the span of a a year for example is beyond retarded.


    So think of what you are saying unless you are just a propaganda tool.
    Sure they are private companies, but they should stay in the spirit of freedom of speech when they have such manipulative power and address large portion of populations.

    And people should protest against them if they dont stay in that spirit(both left and right, if they trully have the peoples interest in mind).






    OT: The way some people think is... i didnt even think id live in such times.
    If Google started blocking anything not right wing, another search company would pop up to compete with it. Just like we have multiple news channels with various biases.

    Free speech only applies to the government making speech of various sorts illegal, not private companies deciding what content to display.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  7. #27
    Banned The Penguin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The Loyal Opposition
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by judgementofantonidas View Post
    agreed but then such sites would just seek their hosting in less moral countries not to say ours is a pillar currently
    Ah very true, but then you simply apply enough Tariffs that to leave would be punitive as well. This is how you keep businesses in the States. There are many ways where you can lean on a business or site to encourage them not to take such actions.

  8. #28
    Scarab Lord TwoNineMarine's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Man Cave Design School
    Posts
    4,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger382 View Post
    Well, Christianity is a vicious hate filled group of people that go around and blow children up. While the U.S sponsors terrorism and .....wait ..a ....minute.... did I get that wrong?
    Lol. According to some that is accurate.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis

  9. #29
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Yeah I think "free expression" better represents the idea that morally/ethically everyone should be able to express themselves without having to be silenced for disagreeing.
    You aren't silenced. You'll just have to find a different distribution channel for your message. Or create a distribution channel of your own.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    If Google started blocking anything not right wing, another search company would pop up to compete with it. Just like we have multiple news channels with various biases.

    Free speech only applies to the government making speech of various sorts illegal, not private companies deciding what content to display.
    One would hope; which is the primary reason I made this thread: to find out if anyone knew of a free speech version of facebook, youtube, twitter, etc. So far, it's looking like a no.

  11. #31
    Private Companies hold incredibly sway over our entire lives at this point.
    Companies should not be considered people.
    They should be considered private extensions of government.
    And should be bound by all constitutional laws including the first amendment.

    When the bill of rights was written there was no outlet for speech other than in real life.
    Now that the internet is a outlet for speech, in America we should still be guaranteed our right of free speech.

    I think a company should have to bring someone to court before they permanently ban an online account.
    But still believe they should be able to temporarily ban people for getting out of hand, aslong as no theft of property takes place.
    If you have gametime, and the gametime keeps running during your suspension, that is theft.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The issue here is that people are thinking that their individual freedom to speak their mind somehow entitles them to privately-owned platforms to broadcast that speech.

    Freedom of speech, whether right or ethical principle, carries no such entitlement. An attempt to exert such a right is an attempt to restrict the freedoms of the owners of that platform, forcing their speech, and abridging their property rights.

    And no; we wouldn't think differently if they were targeting "liberal" speech. First; hate speech isn't right-wing. It's just hate. It's apolitical. Second, there are media groups like Fox News which have been explicitly and deliberately biased, and nobody's demanded they give equal time to "both sides". We just acknowledge their bias and go on with our day. They still have their right to broadcast their speech however they like. That's what freedom of speech is.

    Not trying to force other private entities to carry your speech against their will. That's an assault on freedom of speech, not a protection of it.
    Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.

    The internet and discussion forums being a popular place for the common person to express themselves.
    There is no Bad RNG just Bad LTP

  13. #33
    The real issue that stands is companies under current American law have way to much power to both influence and block speech and even power to legally retaliate against anyone they dont like on their website or online property for any reason.

    For instance currently it is entirely legal if you go into WoW, say "Omg ElderScrolls Online best game evar" it is legally acceptable for blizzard to permanently ban you for saying that.

    I fear in the future companies will continue to abuse these laws more and more until there is public demand to fix it.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    You aren't silenced. You'll just have to find a different distribution channel for your message. Or create a distribution channel of your own.
    agree to dissagree having been on the receiving end of that silencing.
    There is no Bad RNG just Bad LTP

  15. #35
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by judgementofantonidas View Post
    Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.

    The internet and discussion forums being a popular place for the common person to express themselves.
    Yet if you want to broadcast any message you want, you also have to be the one to publish. Newspapers don't let anyone who wants to write articles in their paper without any sort of review or approval.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  16. #36
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by judgementofantonidas View Post
    Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.

    The internet and discussion forums being a popular place for the common person to express themselves.
    The freedom of the press does not oblige a particular press outlet to publish you message against their will, and it has never meant that. That is an attack on the freedom of the press.

    What it means is that, if you don't like what your newspaper is printing, you can start your own newspaper, and publish what you like. That's it. If you're not willing to do so, you have no right to force the existing papers (or TV stations, or Internet sites) to publish your stuff.


  17. #37
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The issue here is that people are thinking that their individual freedom to speak their mind somehow entitles them to privately-owned platforms to broadcast that speech.

    Freedom of speech, whether right or ethical principle, carries no such entitlement. An attempt to exert such a right is an attempt to restrict the freedoms of the owners of that platform, forcing their speech, and abridging their property rights.

    And no; we wouldn't think differently if they were targeting "liberal" speech. First; hate speech isn't right-wing. It's just hate. It's apolitical. Second, there are media groups like Fox News which have been explicitly and deliberately biased, and nobody's demanded they give equal time to "both sides". We just acknowledge their bias and go on with our day. They still have their right to broadcast their speech however they like. That's what freedom of speech is.

    Not trying to force other private entities to carry your speech against their will. That's an assault on freedom of speech, not a protection of it.
    The problem you are having is a strictly legalistic view of "Freedom of Speech," mainly because its an ethical principal you do not personally believe in.

    Plus here we have the EU, a Government using private platforms to enforce speech codes.

    So Endus If I became Queen of America and had a private meeting with the Moderator Staff here at MMO-C and said "I really just don't like that Skroe character, Ban him!" and you privately did so, are you not simply just acting as an arm of the State, even if its just a private entity doing it? Lets say you and I are drinking buddies and I just casually throw out "You know, me and Kalis just don't get along, I don't like him, can you do something about that?" and he vanishes from the forum, is that not effectively censorship?

    I find it odd you are suddenly completely ignorant of private modes of power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Daethz View Post
    If you have gametime, and the gametime keeps running during your suspension, that is theft.
    kind of have to agree with the final sentence.

    but it would not be worth the money you would need to spend in order to get your money back.
    and in most cases if the ban is justified through said court appearance you would be out both monies and possibly more depending on how far into your wallet the corporation you are trying to fight is willing to dig.
    There is no Bad RNG just Bad LTP

  19. #39
    europe needs a donald trump...

    we have ukip in the UK ... one can only hope tbh. hopefully farage gets some support (as he should do)

  20. #40
    Banned Beazy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,459
    Its their websites, they can legally censor whatever they want.

    Nothing you or I can do about it. . . But I will say ~ I sure will miss the Berta Lovejoy reddit troll on youtube.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •