Free speech to be blocked under guise of stopping hate speech.

[KrazyK923]

Never ceases to amaze me to see the exact same 4-5 people come out and defend suppression of speech by making the most absurd leaps possible, like talking about swastikas or things of that nature, when the kind of speech that gets silenced is far more benign than that.

Especially lately, the speech getting attacked is the speech disagreeing with an ideology. Or criticizing an individual when they make an audacious claim.

But leave it to the exact same far-left individuals to pretend there is some great need to protect these special snowflakes from not having everyone agree with them 100% under the guise of protecting them from some nebulous giant group of harasses. The best part is that there are already laws on the books in most of the countries even involved in this discussion that has consequences for legitimate harassment and threats. Not some moron getting butthurt someone called them an asshole or cunt on the internet.

As always, the "threat" or idea of terrorist and/or dangerous organizations are the reason why sudden suppression of "hate speech" must be enacted. I wonder how long before people get permanently banned for using the word "retard" or "faggot" or "cunt," after all, those are all very triggering and hate speech.

It's pretty fucking pathetic to watch the same Regressives turn around and barf out some justification on cue whenever the reason for something happening is some kind of defense of some OTHER nebulous group of people being mass oppressed. When we all know this simply isn't happening in the first world. At least have the courage to state that you just don't want speech you disagree with seen on platforms you use. Then you'd have at least a modicum of integrity.

[Dareous]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ithin-24-hours

I saw this link on my facebook thread. It is, to me, a very scary thing and a very sad thing to see. I left the following comment: "all these authoritarians love to trample a persons free speech under the guise of stopping hate speech. but i wonder what the cheerleaders of these policies will say when they get accused of hate speech when the definition starts to expand..."

I understand these sites have the right to police themselves since you have to agree to their terms of servers. Fine, I say, I'll find a social media plateform that holds free speech as their primary concern. And this is primarily why I'm here; I need suggestions. Is there such a thing?

People get the whole Freedom of Speech thing wrong all the time.

Freedom of Speech allows you to say whatever you want (unless you are inciting treason) without the government coming after your ass and making you disappear. Freedom of Speech does not allow you to say whatever you want with consequences, if you say something and it pisses someone off they will more than likely do/say something you do not like in retaliation.

If a company, such as Facebook, does not want something on their site they have the right to not put it there or have it removed. This occurs everywhere, not just social media but television, written media, etc etc.

[Kujako]

europe needs a donald trump...

But Trump is against the 1st amendment and freedom of speech/press.... he wants to be able to shut down anyone who says mean things about him, even if they're true.

[Daethz]

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.

True, but i think america needs to improve its classification of news websites and forum websites.
News websites should have all the rights and protections of any news agency.
Forums such as this one right here, an extension of mmo champion, should be considered a expressive forum where freedom of speech should apply.
The front page where the news is posted, should have news agency style protection
thats how i think it should work anyway

[judgementofantonidas]

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.

gotta love that no matter what you put under this guys nose he can always turn it around to mean what it does not.

[Kujako]

True, but i think america needs to improve its classification of news websites and forum websites.
News websites should have all the rights and protections of any news agency.
Forums such as this one right here, an extension of mmo champion, should be considered a expressive forum where freedom of speech should apply.
The front page where the news is posted, should have news agency style protection

So you want the government to take over all web forums? That seems.... draconic?

[Reeve]

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.

If the queen of America were mandating the ban, that would be a free speech violation, since it was government mandated. The site choosing to ban Skroe on its own would obviously not be.

[PC2]

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.

That depends, if the distribution channel claims to be neutral on a topic, they do have a moral and ethical obligation to allow both sides to express themselves without being silenced.

[Dezerte]

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.

Sounds too much like Communism.

[Theodarzna]

If the queen of America were mandating the ban, that would be a free speech violation, since it was government mandated. The site choosing to ban Skroe on its own would obviously not be.

Mandating? Ah, no you see I am just talking to my buddy pal Endus about curtailing Hate Speech. I just happened to mention I don't like either of them.

[Daethz]

So you want the government to take over all web forums? That seems.... draconic?

No, but allow consumers to sue if they feel their right to freedom of speech has been violated.
That fear alone is a deterrent for companies to not abuse their powers.
Money > Keeping chats civil

You are allowing individual private companies to block and attack you for saying anything and everything. Thats draconic.
Atleast the government exists to serve the people, private companies do not.

[Endus]

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.

This is just straight-up incorrect in every way. I'm a strong proponent of free speech, and I was speaking of ethics, not just legalities. I even clearly stated that much.

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?

At the order of the government, so it's a government action.

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?

Not even remotely, no, assuming that "I" in this case is just you as an individual, rather than your Queen of America hypothetical. His membership in a private club has been cancelled. That's not "censorship", any more than it is if you get banned from your local gym. You're free to disagree with the reasons for that ban, but outside of a very few reasons, it's still totally legal. And none of it has anything to do with freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech, whether you're talking the legal right or the ethical principle, does not oblige private entities to grant you access to their broadcast networks against their will. Any such attempt directly attacks their freedom of speech.

[Reeve]

True, but i think america needs to improve its classification of news websites and forum websites.
News websites should have all the rights and protections of any news agency.
Forums such as this one right here, an extension of mmo champion, should be considered a expressive forum where freedom of speech should apply.
The front page where the news is posted, should have news agency style protection
thats how i think it should work anyway

Bullshit. I don't want a bunch of trolls coming into these forums I enjoy, mucking it up with a bunch of shitposting neonazi hate speech, and being protected from a ban under the law.

[Kujako]

No, but allow consumers to sue if they feel their right to freedom of speech has been violated.
That fear alone is a deterrent for companies to not abuse their powers.
Money > Keeping chats civil

Again, "freedom of speech" is ONLY applicable to the Government limiting speech. So for it to apply to web forums, the Government would need to control them. If it is a PRIVATE ENTITY, then you have no freedom of speech to be violated.

[Dezerte]

Mandating? Ah, no you see I am just talking to my buddy pal Endus about curtailing Hate Speech. I just happened to mention I don't like either of them.

Sounds like nepotism.

[Beazy]

People get the whole Freedom of Speech thing wrong all the time.

Or they simply get "Freedom" wrong all the time. If you own something, you can apply rules however you want. Want to buy a trampoline and not let people 10 years old use it? Legal. Want to buy a house and not allow anyone to bring tacos over for dinner? Legal. Want to make a website and not allow people to use certain words on it? 110% Legal. Want to be the owner of facebook and only allow Hillary Clinton a platform? Legal. Want to make crazy statements about building a great wall and making another country pay for it? Legal.

Man, I can do this all day!

[Reeve]

That depends, if the distribution channel claims to be neutral on a topic, they do have a moral and ethical obligation to allow both sides to express themselves without being silenced.

I'd agree they have an ethical obligation, but Free Speech is a legal obligation, not an ethical one.

[Daethz]

Bullshit. I don't want a bunch of trolls coming into these forums I enjoy, mucking it up with a bunch of shitposting neonazi hate speech, and being protected from a ban under the law.

Thats kinda why ignore lists where invented.
Do forums have one? i haven't checked.

They allow individual people to ignore other individual people they don't like for any and all reasons because a individual person is allowed to do that.
Companies should not be allowed to do that.

[Reeve]

Mandating? Ah, no you see I am just talking to my buddy pal Endus about curtailing Hate Speech. I just happened to mention I don't like either of them.

If you aren't mandating it, Endus can do what he pleases.

[PC2]

I'd agree they have an ethical obligation, but Free Speech is a legal obligation, not an ethical one.

Except if you follow our Reply chain back you would see that I never said free speech, I said free expression is about ethics and morals. Which is true. Legality is not the only issue.