do you think freedom of speech should apply to a private membership forum?

[Jtbrig7390]

Actually you cannot go anywhere and "yell fire", because that's intentional spreading of panic and possible endangering of others health (if people panic and run over each other).

Ya kinda my point.

[Spectral]

Obviously the legalistic version does not.

That said, I think it's a generally good thing to foster, with some reasonable limits based on time and place. Private forums have a vested interest in discussions not turning into complete shitshows and moderation achieves that end. Good moderation technically does limit some speech, but the net effect is (in my view) a better exchange of ideas where people try to meet some minimum standard of civility and reasonableness. To look at MMO-Champion specifically, there's plenty of shitposting, but the most egregious flamewars are typically stopped short of total derails of conversation. The result is often some decent discussion. Other forums that are more restrictive are sometimes even better at fostering good discussion via reasonable limits.

With all of these forums, the obvious answer is that if you don't like the rules, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

[Mistame]

Freedom of speech is between the government and its citizens, not private entities and other private entities, whether they be organizations or individuals.

/end-of-discussion

/sigh

Freedom of speech also means that government actively protects your right to speak freely, so that no individual can forcefully shut you up and prevent from speaking what you want to speak.

Wrong. "Freedom of Speech" is protection from government, only.

Any publicly accessible internet forum is no different than public street or public square.

Wrong. A "publicly accessible internet forum" hosted on a private server gets to make their own rules, as those servers are private property.

And you clearly don't understand what censorship means.

Apparently, neither do you. Facing the consequences of something you say on private property is not "censorship".

[xanzul]

as the title asks, do you think it applies or do you think it should apply if it doesnt already?

Jesus fucking christ. Really? Do schools no longer teach civics?

[callipygoustp]

No
{10char}

Edit:
This thread is in dire need of a poll.

[Fencers]

No. Would make no sense and not be enforceable to any degree. So it would merely be a pointless affectation. Utterly pointless.

Freedom of Speech is about the government. Not one's right to say questionable things without consequence.

[Osmeric]

Freedom of Speech is about the government. Not one's right to say questionable things without consequence.

More generally, it's about the power of the government. For example, the First Amendment invalidates laws that would allow one private citizen to sue another for speech except in carefully limited contexts.

[Dug]

Apparently, neither do you. Facing the consequences of something you say on private property is not "censorship".

Not sure who you think you're replying too but if it is me lrn2read.

[derpkitteh]

if it were up to me, i would enforce freedom of speech in all places. so yes, i do.

private business, homes, whatever. it would be entirely illegal to infringe on anyone's freedom of speech.

[Stelio Kontos]

if it were up to me, i would enforce freedom of speech in all places. so yes, i do.

private business, homes, whatever. it would be entirely illegal to infringe on anyone's freedom of speech.

Thank God we've got reasonable laws in place rather than you making the decisions.

[Kujako]

if it were up to me, i would enforce freedom of speech in all places. so yes, i do.

private business, homes, whatever. it would be entirely illegal to infringe on anyone's freedom of speech.

So you would force people to speak against their will, and declare it freedom?

[derpkitteh]

So you would force people to speak against their will, and declare it freedom?

no. i would force people to not stop people from speaking.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank God we've got reasonable laws in place rather than you making the decisions.

freedom of speech is more important than just about anything else. only a few other things rank along side it.

[Darththeo]

So you would force people to speak against their will, and declare it freedom?

Worse ... could you imagine having to be force to have people protest on your property and there is nothing you could do.

[Crissi]

if it were up to me, i would enforce freedom of speech in all places. so yes, i do.

private business, homes, whatever. it would be entirely illegal to infringe on anyone's freedom of speech.

That's about the quickest way to encourage violence, when people aren't allowed to boot others form their homes for stuff they dont want to hear. Private property rights > your opinions.

[Stelio Kontos]

freedom of speech is more important than just about anything else. only a few other things rank along side it.

Bollocks. You have the freedom to say what you want in public spaces. You have zero right to come on to my property and tell me I have to let every slackjaw with an opinion protest or scream whatever they want on my property.

- - - Updated - - -

That's about the quickest way to encourage violence, when people aren't allowed to boot others form their homes for stuff they dont want to hear. Private property rights > your opinions.

Better than I could have said it. Agree completely.

[Deleted]

This forum would have to be closed immediately if it came to that.

[Hotmail]

With all of these forums, the obvious answer is that if you don't like the rules, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

A heavy-handed application of the rules would destroy a forum almost as surely as a troll infestation would.

As a thought exercise, would you feel differently if you were the administrator of a forum that was not profitable enough to pay for itself? If you were in need of views and clicks, chances are that you would be willing to let a lot more cases of bad behavior fly under the radar. And, if so, it would be difficult to take this kind of absolutist stance with anything more than a grain of salt.


For my part, I don't think that Freedom of Speech is even a thing. You are always free to say whatever you want, but there will always be consequences for doing so. Living in a first world democratic country merely guarantees that the government can't send the gestapo after you for having an opinion. However, they could still employ other means to silence a problematic opinion; the same goes for a private enterprise.

[Kokolums]

the general idea is that the bill of rights and amendments to the constitution are all about safeguarding your freedoms from government. CIVIL RIGHTS is about government stepping in and telling private citizens or private groups what they can and cannot do. The civil rights act of 1964 is about government stepping in and telling the people they cant be racist.

YES you can create a new law where government protects free speech on privately run forums, but it would be another civil rights act, so it would be a new law passed by congress and signed by the president. It would also have to withstand any potential challenge in the court system. If the courts struck it down, then youd either need to win on appeal or pass a constitutional amendment to remove the obstacle placed by the courts.

[Mistame]

Not sure who you think you're replying too but if it is me lrn2read.

I mean, if you're going to claim someone doesn't know what censorship means, it usually helps if you point out how that is the case. Nothing in the post you quoted supports your claim and, in fact, the one mention of censorship in that post, which I addressed in my previous post, is accurate.

[Very Tired]

To many people want to abuse it, not using it for what the founding fathers intended as a right to protect differing political view points. Now people just want to cite it as a cheap method to justify them being a dick to others with impunity.