Should QAnon be labeled as a terrorist organization?

[Machismo]

I am going to assume you meant can people post to those sites rather than host them?

Sorry your so confused about the topic its difficult to determine what points your trying to make.

I would argue yes they should just as they should be free to shout them down if it's a open forum.

I admit there are shades of gray to things like private forums that are not trying to be social platforms I see no harm in restricting accounts. The purpose of the platform matter as much as the function.

I'm not confused at all.

This isn't a gray area, you are overtly opposing the First Amendment... and still cannot bring those examples. Thanks for admitting you were lying about them.

- - - Updated - - -

Admitting what exactly... I already explicitly stated I think digital platforms should be regulated differently then physical..

You really are confused...

Your stance literally goes against the First Amendment... and it's in writing.

That was you admitting to it

You seem confused.

[Edge-]

It not being a legal distinction I would argue are lagging laws more then a positive point.

Except that such legal definitions are functionally impossible.

On Twitter I can set my account to private, limit responses to nobody at all or just my followers, and functionally have a private forum. How do you regulate Twitter now that it is both a "private forum" and a "social media network", legally?

What I am arguing would be sweeping protections on speech save for an extreme minority of a minority...

No, you're arguing for enforced speech under the threat of government penalty. Also known as antithetical to free speech.

[Krakan]

You're not free to send death threats on these forums.



Private Forums are Social Platforms.

For the first part yes... it was you specifically I talked about laws with so I'm not sure why woukd would bring it up.

As for private forums I feel it's based on how its presented. Something like facebook or Twitter for example I would argue for being nearly unregulated barring of course illegal or illicit material. Now something more akin to reddit with distinct categories I would expect to be self monitored.

[Machismo]

It not being a legal distinction I would argue are lagging laws more then a positive point.

What I am arguing would be sweeping protections on speech save for an extreme minority of a minority...

You are arguing against free speech, specifically free speech and free association of property owners.

- - - Updated - - -

For the first part yes... it was you specifically I talked about laws with so I'm not sure why woukd would bring it up.

As for private forums I feel it's based on how its presented. Something like facebook or Twitter for example I would argue for being nearly unregulated barring of course illegal or illicit material. Now something more akin to reddit with distinct categories I would expect to be self monitored.

Except you are calling for heavier government regulation against those companies...

[Krakan]

Except that such legal definitions are functionally impossible.

On Twitter I can set my account to private, limit responses to nobody at all or just my followers, and functionally have a private forum. How do you regulate Twitter now that it is both a "private forum" and a "social media network", legally?



No, you're arguing for enforced speech under the threat of government penalty. Also known as antithetical to free speech.

I'm unsure how your example would make it impossible to define... how would that change the site as a whole if a personal user limits themselves?

[Slant]

Why are you lot discussing the first amendment in conjunction with private entities again? Are you confused? The first amendment has zero impact on private to private relations. End of story. Full stop. Period. I've seen Endus around, so I'm sure he must have explained this to you.

[szechuan]

For the first part yes... it was you specifically I talked about laws with so I'm not sure why woukd would bring it up.

Because you're claiming that "Free Speech" should exist on this forum too

I would argue yes they should just as they should be free to shout them down if it's a open forum.

MMOCHAMP is a Private Open Forum.

admit there are shades of gray to things like private forums that are not trying to be social platforms I see no harm in restricting accounts. The purpose of the platform matter as much as the function.

Yet again Private Forums are Social Platforms.

As for private forums I feel it's based on how its presented. Something like facebook or Twitter for example I would argue for being nearly unregulated barring of course illegal or illicit material.

Unregulated Free Speech exists on the Internet.

[Machismo]

Why are you lot discussing the first amendment in conjunction with private entities again? Are you confused? The first amendment has zero to do with any private entity. End of story. Full stop. Period. I've seen Endus around, so I'm sure he must have explained this to you.

Simple, because some people still don't get it.

[Slant]

Simple, because some people still don't get it.

seems like it, I've tried to skim over it to see who's the instigator of this madness, but people are too deep in the discussion for me to tell who I should aim my scathing comment at... bugger.

[Krakan]

Because you're claiming that "Free Speech" should exist on this forum too


MMOCHAMP is a Private Open Forum.



Yet again Private Forums are Social Platforms.



Unregulated Free Speech exists on the Internet.

Right... it's how I would like to see things work not the state they currently operate.

[Machismo]

seems like it, I've tried to skim over it to see who's the instigator of this madness, but people are too deep in the discussion for me to tell who I should aim my scathing comment at... bugger.

It doesn't become a free speech issue, until someone wants to get the government involved. Now all we need to do, is see who wants the government involved.

I think we can all agree, this is Obama's fault.

- - - Updated - - -

Right... it's how I would like to see things work not the state they currently operate.

That stance goes directly against the First Amendment.

You want to force a private entity to platform you, and you want the government to do it.

[Slant]

For the first part yes... it was you specifically I talked about laws with so I'm not sure why woukd would bring it up.

As for private forums I feel it's based on how its presented. Something like facebook or Twitter for example I would argue for being nearly unregulated barring of course illegal or illicit material. Now something more akin to reddit with distinct categories I would expect to be self monitored.

I made this years ago for people like you that seem to be misinformed about free speech. Let me know if it helps you:

[szechuan]

Right... it's how I would like to see things work not the state they currently operate.

Yet again, Unregulated Free Speech exists on the internet.

[beanman12345]

Right... it's how I would like to see things work not the state they currently operate.

Makes me smile knowing you have no influence to make any change on this site.

[Specialka]

Says the person ignoring the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is not universal. It only exists in the USA, not in the whole world.

[Edge-]

The First Amendment is not universal. It only exists in the USA, not in the whole world.

And this is a discussion of American law and American rules. If other countries want to take different regulatory approaches, they're welcome to.

[Machismo]

The First Amendment is not universal. It only exists in the USA, not in the whole world.

Well, we're talking about the United States.

[Slant]

That stance goes directly against the First Amendment.

You want to force a private entity to platform you, and you want the government to do it.

Yep, exactly this.

And as Endus and I have argued for years on here on and off, getting the Government to "platform you", ie. force a private entity to tolerate you, is in itself a violation of the private entity's free speech, in this case Twitter or Reddit, I'm presuming? Both of these sites are private entities having private citizen CEOs that determine the direction the companies and their websites are going. Any infringement on their decisions from the Government is an automatic breach of THEIR first amendment rights, that supercede your first amendment right to speak on their sites, because frankly, it's their sites.

Your freedom ends where you infringe upon other people's freedoms. And this is where people like Krakan go wrong. They have a simplistic view of a situation and only see it from one side. They think freedom means unlimited freedom and don't see that in most cases your freedom is being pushed against by someone else's freedom. This is how a society works. This is normal. And questioning this system is questioning the entire legal basis for modern societies in the West.

[Machismo]

Yep, exactly this.

And as Endus and I have argued for years on here on and off, getting the Government to "platform you", ie. force a private entity to tolerate you, is in itself a violating of the private entity, in this case Twitter or Reddit, I'm presuming? Both of these sites are private entities having private citizen CEOs that determine the direction the companies and their websites are going. Any infringement on their decisions from the Government is an automatic breach of THEIR first amendment rights, that supercede your first amendment right to speak on their sites, because frankly, it's their sites.

Your freedom ends where you infringe upon other people's freedoms. And this is where people like Krakan go wrong. They have a simplistic view of a situation and only see it from one side. They think freedom means unlimited freedom and don't see that in most cases your freedom is being pushed against by someone else's freedom. This is how a society works. This is normal. And questioning this system is questioning the entire legal basis for modern societies in the West.

Precisely.

/10

[Slant]

The First Amendment is not universal. It only exists in the USA, not in the whole world.

Western democracies have the same concept. They call it differently, but the idea of protecting your opinion and your ability to voice that opinion is not limited to the US.

Btw, this is where people start thinking that Americans are drowning in their own exceptionalism. We talk about first amendments so Americans can follow the discussion, but we might as well be talking about the German Recht auf freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit or in France Article 11: "La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l'homme".

You're not unique.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is a discussion of American law and American rules. If other countries want to take different regulatory approaches, they're welcome to.

We don't. We generally followed your basic concepts, because they were and are good concepts. Our constitutions may be more modern with everything fleshed out a bit more, but you got the basics right and so we are all essentially arguing the same topic, with minor variations.