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

[Queen of Hamsters]

Freedom of Speech =/= Entitlement to be able to spout whichever horrid bile you want on privately owned forums.

[Deleted]

Of course it should apply. Of course we all know the people are who can't handle others opinions.

[Deleted]

No, it would cause too many issues, for example me constantly spamming the same lorem ipsum text on your mom's Facebook wall. While free speech is important what we have right now is pretty much the best we'll get because there's no clear cut way to define an asshole as far as law is concerned.

[Zuben]

No. While I think the populace at large have forgotten the ideal behind free speech, it is entirely within the rights of privately maintained platforms to dictate their rules as they see fit.

[Endus]

And where does the property owner get his rights to that property from? You have stated yourself that people are incapable of imposing ethics upon other people, but is not the existence of property rights an imposition of a form of ethics upon other people? Namely the ethical position that there are 'property rights' which ought not to be violated?

Same place that people get freedom of speech from. That's where this started, remember, your presumption that free speech should trump said property rights?

Of course, if you imply that such rights are supported by a threat of force, then you are also making the statement that property rights don't actually exist, only the right to use force and how much of this right you possess is determined by how much force you are able to muster.

This is nonsense.

"Rights" can only exist in a practical sense because a government respects and protects them. Without that, they're imaginary. If you live in a country that doesn't respect freedom of speech, then you do not have any such right. That the right might exist elsewhere is irrelevant.

And yes, that means that force needs to be brought to bear. The same way that laws against murder and rape are supported by the threat of force. Without the threat of force, you'd be free to rape and murder to your heart's content. That does not mean the use of force is therefore "bad". Because the alternative is far worse.

All you're doing here is making a weak anarchistic complaint that governments exist, and it's boring and tiresome. Yes, laws get enforced. Congratulations for noticing that.

Without some form of universal ethics, then how can 'rights' exist? Endus claims that property rights exist, but he also makes the claim that he is not allowed to impose his own ethics upon others. What happens when Endus meets somebody who doesn't recognize these rights, Endus by his own reasoning would have no justification for insisting that this other person recognize those rights.

I wouldn't.

The concept of "human rights" exists pretty much entirely because the United Nations accepted the Declaration of Human Rights as a good idea, and enshrined almost all of it in a series of international treaty documents. Primarily the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both signed off in 1966. But there's reams of others, with varying levels of ratification in the international community.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...struments.aspx

If a country has ratified any particular document, then they're beholden to respect the rights it establishes, but if they haven't, then they don't necessarily do so. Which means that "right" doesn't exist in that country. Because rights are laws, and only exist within a legal context to begin with. They are explicitly not universal in any sense of the word. You just fail to grasp what rights are, and want to pretend they're something they are not.

[Jastall]

Then just replace 'airline' with 'social media platform' and you have the same situation, and suggesting 'well if you don't like having your opinions censored just build your own facebook' is as ridiculous as saying 'go build your own airplane'. Censorship allows for a greater centralization of power, and in how the world operates today it can alter the reality perceived by large groups of people through control of information. Individual speech is not nearly as dangerous as mass censorship on major social platforms, especially when that speech goes hand in hand with information disseminated by the government to create their own desired effect.

The scenario is just as ridiculous, unless you think there can be a situation where every single social media of note and every avenue of speech on the Internet, ever, is going to be owned by one entity that bans a particularly broad form of speech (say, conservatism). This won't happen for several reasons, both practical and economic. Facebook can't even stop shit like blatant racism and islamism from showing up on many pages, how in the blazes are they supposed to start enforcing a super-tight control over specific forms of speech?

And again with the word ''censorship''. This isn't censorship anymore than my neighbor not allowing me to play soccer on his terrain is banning soccer. In fact, I can't play soccer over most of the city I'm in. Doesn't mean I'm barred from playing it at all, but that I should go to the places meant for it, so that I don't infringe on anyone else's rights to not have my soccer-playing ass in their way or on their property. Speech is and should be freer than this, but the base principle is the same, your rights must stop where other's begins because your rights do not trump another person's.

Stick with the actual arguments put forth, trying to stretch a logic to an impossible extreme is annoying and intellectually dishonest as I see it, there cannot be any debate if everyone does it.

[GennGreymane]

I always enjoyed the irony of people claiming they are being silenced... while telling us why they are silenced....

Like that hot blonde conservative girl who is kinda annoying. Shes going around saying that she is being silenced, while on television, online, AKA very vocal and free to say so.

I don't think people know what silenced means.

I mean, I can tell Trump to go fuck himself, and I wont go to jail.

[Dug]

I always enjoyed the irony of people claiming they are being silenced... while telling us why they are silenced....

Like that hot blonde conservative girl who is kinda annoying. Shes going around saying that she is being silenced, while on television, online, AKA very vocal and free to say so.

I don't think people know what silenced means.

Even more funny is these people, The Always Banned brigade (no shots at you Genn ), keep being allowed to post here after their bans are up yet they have the gall to claim they're being censored lol. If that was the case you'd just be permabanned and that would be the end of it. No appeals just gone.

[GennGreymane]

Even more funny is these people, The Always Banned brigade (no shots at you Genn ), keep being allowed to post here after their bans are up yet they have the gall to claim they're being censored lol. If that was the case you'd just be permabanned and that would be the end of it. No appeals just gone.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Heck, unless its a picture or just lines of vulgarity, the post they got banned for stays up anyway.

[Ghostpanther]

My words flow freely everywhere. IF i get banned on a forum oh well.

If you are employed, you must have very tolerate bosses.

Freedom of speech does not entitle you to say whatever you want whenever you want. Try that in some companies and esp. the Military. Private clubs and forums have the right to limit what you can say when acting within their ground rules or environment. Such as here on MMO Champ. :P

[Theodarzna]

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.

Well yes, if one subscribes to a strictly legalistic Might Makes Right worldview, than yes my point would make no sense to such a person.

[ItachiZaku]

In places, sure, why not. As others have said, private forum means "my house" to the owner, so I suppose there are some that would encourage freedom of speech and freedom of consequence.

[zenkai]

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

No, but they should be open about any bias they have.

[truckboattruck]

they cant be forced to apply free speech, but if they hold themselves to any real standard they will apply them.

[Dug]

they cant be forced to apply free speech, but if they hold themselves to any real standard they will apply them.

Choosing not to give a platform to your speech is applying their own free speech. It's a two way street.

[Danner]

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

The principle of freedom of speech is that ideas should be allowed to flow unrestricted.
Basic "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
This is the golden rule of free speech.

But Danner, you didn't answer the question!

The principle of free speech also requires the idea of restricting free speech to be a valid idea.
Enforcing someone to uphold the principle of free speech against their will is not acceptable.
Surely nobody can be forced to carry ideas they absolutely do not want to carry.
So ultimately, if it is their forums, their rules. That's the end of the discussion right there.

Forum admins can censor anyone for any reason they want, for whatever arbitrary set of morals/ruleset they want to.
Doing so may be in violation of the principle of free speech, but it's still their right.

I personally happen to believe admins should try very hard not to stifle ideas.
Because a moderator more concerned with stifling ideas than hosting a debate is both an awful moderator and an impediment to the ideal of free flowing ideas.

Is banning people for whatever reason censorship?

Obviously. I don't even understand why some people argue otherwise.

A popular belief is that free speech is something between "the government" and individuals.
I strongly reject this idea as nonsense.
Censorship is about stopping certain ideas from flowing.
It can be in the form of a government edict yes, but also in the form of social pressure, forum posting rules, legal threats, or influence from someone in power.

"If you say bad things about Don Capone again you will find yourself in a river with some new cement shoes!"
is just as much censorship as
"If you say bad things about El Presidente again you will be arrested and shot!"

Censorship isn't necessarily bad. Some censorship can improve the flow of ideas.
F.ex banning forum posters who threaten others is a good thing. There are all kind of disruption that you don't want in a debate.
Moderation is all about improving the debate by removing disruption and distractions.

Addendum:

I also believe that once a forum gets big enough, it stops being a private membership forum, and starts being a public communication channel.
Facebook is a great example. Reddit borderline so as well.
They stop being private forums, and start being public infrastructure.

Banning ideas from public infrastructure is not a good thing, almost regardless.

[cuafpr]

nope, not a chance... its a private forum for a reason, dont like the rules make your own.

[Vash The Stampede]

As far as I'm concerned no private forum can ever be truly free speech. Private forums are a business and businesses look to make money. The moment you talk about something that hurts their bottom line, you will be censored. Reddit does this all the time, MMO-Champion does this all the time. Try to talk about private WoW servers on this forum and see what happens.

That doesn't mean that forums that don't have a sudo free speech won't find there's consequences to this. If I can't talk about a subject of interest here, I can do so in other places. Want to talk about ad blocker but can't at HardOCP? Go to reddit and talk shit about them. Can't talk about private servers here on MMO-Champion? Go to Reddit again.

Trying to limit what people can talk about on the Internet is like running in the special Olympics. Even if you win, they're still talking shit about you anyway.

[Xarkan]

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

Depends on the size of the private membership forum.. If the forum/media reaches a size and market penetration where it can effectively silence the means of communication or the exchange of ideas then probably freedom of speech should be made to apply in some way

If the forum is frequented by as few people as for example this forum then no, the impact of censorship in this site alone is negligible and the ability to talk elsewhere easily apparant

[truckboattruck]

Choosing not to give a platform to your speech is applying their own free speech. It's a two way street.

yea thats stupid and the view point of someone who doesnt like their views questioned

silencing dissent is evidence of a failing argument