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

[Deleted]

So Freedom of speech should be allowed so that the government that allows it has no right to interfere?

the fuck

The legislature shall pass no law abridging it in any forum.

[ImEveryCliche]

No, once you join a private forum you are subject to the rules therein.

[LilSaihah]

Yes-ish.

The legal principle/constitutional right of free speech? No.

The soul of free speech? Yes.

[Deleted]

If you don't want there to be public outcry against you for something you said in public, you're free to not say it. You don't get to pretend that you're standing up for freedom of speech while trying to silence everyone who disagrees with you. Public outcry condemning you and your views is exactly what freedom of speech is about, and protects.

That is precisely what the protesters at Berkely et all are facing.
If they don't want the public outcry for the stupidity they profess. They're free to not profess it.

[Daymanmb]

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

Man so many people struggle with what the Constitution is and how its applied...

[Teleros]

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

Talking about the 1st Amendment, no it doesn't apply because of the whole private entity thing, however I do think it should, at least under certain conditions...

If you choose to host a forum on a particular subject (say, the paladin class forum here), then keeping out non-paladin stuff should be fine. Similarly, if you want to make a rival to YouTube dedicated to lolcats, removing non-lolcat stuff should be fine.

However, if you choose to host a forum or create something to enable speech that isn't particularly specific, then no, you shouldn't be able to censor or manipulate legal content. That means Twitter can't ban alt-right trolls, a conservative forum can't ban SJWs, and Google can't massage its search results to favour sites that its employees like but its algorithms don't. Obviously you would still be able to clamp down on libel, slander, and illegal content - if nothing else, you'd need to have court orders etc ordering website owners to take down such-and-such content within __ days.

So to take MMO-C for example, the staff would have to choose between:

1. General Off-Topic being purged of all politics, culture war stuff, news, etc.
2. Allowing the 1488, Daily Stormer fans to post here.
3. No General Off-Topic at all, just stick to gaming stuff etc.

Me, I'd go with option 2, because I'd rather ignore trolls and argue with people I disagree with than cry to a mod about mean words or hurt feelings.

= + =

The reason I advocate for this is because freedom of speech is too important to be left in the hands of big companies, big foundations - big anything, basically. Let's suppose I end up in charge of Facebook or Google, and decide to push a strong alt-right message. Oops, your Antifa group page is gone, and your account banned. And you can't find mention of it when you search online. And then I buy up your ISP and block access to your Antifa homepage because it's "not consistent with our social and corporate values". Breitbart gets tons of good coverage whenever you try to find a news article, whilst Salon disappears to page 29 of the results or something. And looking back at the 2016 election, GL trying to find any pro-Clinton or anti-Trump news at all. That stuff's getting disappeared faster than you can type "SEO".

You see the problem? We already have laws to prevent utilities companies abusing their monopoly (or oligopoly), such as by utterly screwing railway passengers or people who want a gas supply to their home. The same has to be done for the most important freedom we have.

[Machismo]

Talking about the 1st Amendment, no it doesn't apply because of the whole private entity thing, however I do think it should, at least under certain conditions...

If you choose to host a forum on a particular subject (say, the paladin class forum here), then keeping out non-paladin stuff should be fine. Similarly, if you want to make a rival to YouTube dedicated to lolcats, removing non-lolcat stuff should be fine.

However, if you choose to host a forum or create something to enable speech that isn't particularly specific, then no, you shouldn't be able to censor or manipulate legal content. That means Twitter can't ban alt-right trolls, a conservative forum can't ban SJWs, and Google can't massage its search results to favour sites that its employees like but its algorithms don't. Obviously you would still be able to clamp down on libel, slander, and illegal content - if nothing else, you'd need to have court orders etc ordering website owners to take down such-and-such content within __ days.

So to take MMO-C for example, the staff would have to choose between:

1. General Off-Topic being purged of all politics, culture war stuff, news, etc.
2. Allowing the 1488, Daily Stormer fans to post here.
3. No General Off-Topic at all, just stick to gaming stuff etc.

Me, I'd go with option 2, because I'd rather ignore trolls and argue with people I disagree with than cry to a mod about mean words or hurt feelings.

= + =

The reason I advocate for this is because freedom of speech is too important to be left in the hands of big companies, big foundations - big anything, basically. Let's suppose I end up in charge of Facebook or Google, and decide to push a strong alt-right message. Oops, your Antifa group page is gone, and your account banned. And you can't find mention of it when you search online. And then I buy up your ISP and block access to your Antifa homepage because it's "not consistent with our social and corporate values". Breitbart gets tons of good coverage whenever you try to find a news article, whilst Salon disappears to page 29 of the results or something. And looking back at the 2016 election, GL trying to find any pro-Clinton or anti-Trump news at all. That stuff's getting disappeared faster than you can type "SEO".

You see the problem? We already have laws to prevent utilities companies abusing their monopoly (or oligopoly), such as by utterly screwing railway passengers or people who want a gas supply to their home. The same has to be done for the most important freedom we have.

You are saying that because freedom of speech is so important, it should be restricted? That is a ridiculous concept.

[Deleted]

Yes, otherwise forums/companies/coporations could enforce restricted speech. And that is not ok. What is the difference between a company restricting free speech and the government doing so? What if a company owns a city and restricts free speech in it?

[Mormolyce]

It does. The government can't come in here and throw you in jail for what you say on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

The question is like asking whether somebody who siezes a piece of land and declares it his own country should be allowed to murder whoever he wants on that land.

It's... kind of not like that at all.

[Machismo]

Demanding that a company host and tolerate your speech would be an infringement upon their freedoms. If you don't like that Facebook or MMO-C censors people, then don't use those sites. They are not holding a gun to your head.

[Mistame]

It was more a point of his overall argument where he supports freedom of speech and has a flawed view of what censorship is. He thinks kicking someone out of your home for speech you don't like is censorship when that is not correct.

The person you quoted countered someone who called it censorship. Hence my wondering if you'd perhaps quoted the wrong person.

[Stacyrect]

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

In the case of a generic private membership forum, no. When you start looking at private entities like google, the lines get a little blurry.

[Deleted]

No, definitely not.

[Theodarzna]

In principle yes. After all it is a value people should generally agree upon.

[Deleted]

People confuse freedom of speech with immunity from the consequences thereof.

[Endus]

Yes, otherwise forums/companies/coporations could enforce restricted speech. And that is not ok. What is the difference between a company restricting free speech and the government doing so? What if a company owns a city and restricts free speech in it?

Forums/companies/corporations fundamentally can't "restrict speech". All they can do is tell people to get off their property. Where those people are then free to continue saying exactly what they were saying, just in the public spaces outside.

It isn't a restriction of speech, it's a restriction of access to their private property. Which is their right, tied up in that "private property" concept.

By way of example, picture a local restaurant. If you're in the restaurant, and you start loudly exclaiming that the food and service are terrible, the owner can kick you out. Where you can stand on the street outside and continue to talk about how terrible the food and service are. Your right to speak hasn't been infringed; you're still saying exactly what you were saying inside. All that you've been denied is access to a particular private location, which is the owner's right. Conflating this with speech is just . . . wrong.

[Kujako]

Ok... lets try this one more time. Telling a person or company that they HAVE to carry content / speech that they don't want to, is the same as saying they CAN'T carry content / speak. Both are censorship. You can not logically claim that a company should be forced to let anyone post anything they want on their (the companies) private servers in the name of free speech, because by definition it wouldn't be.

[Theodarzna]

Forums/companies/corporations fundamentally can't "restrict speech". All they can do is tell people to get off their property. Where those people are then free to continue saying exactly what they were saying, just in the public spaces outside.

It isn't a restriction of speech, it's a restriction of access to their private property. Which is their right, tied up in that "private property" concept.

Those people are actually restricting speech and not holding Freedom of Speech as a personal value they hold. They simply go for a legalistic interpretation of "If it is legal it is thus moral." I can see why that interpretation is appealing to Might Makes Right thinkers.

[Endus]

Those people are actually restricting speech and not holding Freedom of Speech as a personal value they hold. They simply go for a legalistic interpretation of "If it is legal it is thus moral." I can see why that interpretation is appealing to Might Makes Right thinkers.

Kicking someone off your property doesn't affect their free speech rights in any way whatsoever. It isn't related to free speech in any way.

The rest of your supposed justification is just wrongheaded nonsense you use to make yourself feel better. Nobody's arguing "if it's legal it's moral", nor anything like "might is right". Those are straw men.

[hrugner]

but false pretense is perfectly legal these days

Are you speaking practically? I'm pretty sure false pretense laws are still in place.