Log In | Register
Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
"Public" Online Spaces (like Newsvine) Don't Have To Respect Your Freedom of Speech
Seeded on Mon Jul 7, 2008 7:15 AM EDT
Article Source: Yahoo! News- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (89)
I've had this fight with folks on this columns as well because, honestly, I don't have to respect your freedom of speech either. Open discussion is part of what makes Newsvine such a great place, but it's more than that - it's open and civil and topical discussion and to some degree this vine needs pruning from time to time to ensure that we keep things sane, civil, and on topic.
- 40 votes
Ouch, ... but forever learning. The Newsvine self monitoring(required) and peer monitoring(invited) aspect still seems to work, most of the time.
- 6 votes
Many people fail to realize that by checking that "Accept terms of use" box they essentially agree that they can be censored on the site, which isn't always necessarily a bad thing. Some people don't believe in constructive conversation.
- 16 votes
There are those who seem motivated by hate. Their posts often contain inflammatory speech directed at various groups. Sometimes they can cross into speech that is better left unexpressed rather than with too much vigor. Others seem motivated by fear. This sort of post is trickier. Scapegoating groups or population segments often come down to
baiting or blaming a segment for the problem at hand.
- 4 votes
Great seed. I ran into this when I posted my article about boycotts. One person suggested to boycott msnbc seeds is akin to censorship. I said if you use that logic it's censorship to put someone on ignore - which is, of course, wrong and illogical.
Why is it that people act like sites like this must provide free speech? Maybe because much of the discussion centers around criticizing the government? But when's the last time you paid taxes to Newsvine?
- 8 votes
I've had this fight with folks on this columns as well because, honestly, I don't have to respect your freedom of speech either.
You are absolutely correct. Freedom of speech is about the Government inhibiting speech not private companies or individuals. Newsvine and other companies absolutely have the right to inhibit speech. We have the right not to use the site if we don't want to. It's surprising how many people do not understand this. Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean that you have the right to be free of the repercussions of your speech.
- 6 votes
We have the right not to use the site if we don't want to. It's surprising how many people do not understand this. Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean that you have the right to be free of the repercussions of your speech.
Two examples that come to mind immediately are stalkers and hate speech. And yes that leads into the murky territory of who defines what is and isnt hate.
But Newsvine absolutely should be able to remove people who are stalking others and expressing hate speech especially if that speech becomes a personal attack on another member.
- 4 votes
free speech has never included the soap box.
People forget that even in issues not concerning the net.
You hear it all the time when people exercise their rights by complainign about a tv commentator.
"CensorshiP" "this is america" etc
and I have to remind them.. the reporter isnt gettign arrested, he is simply having his soap box removed.
The first amendment promises you free speech it doesn't come with a free megaphone.
- 13 votes
"I don't have to respect your freedom of speech either"
Neither does the government of china have to respect it's citizens' freedom of speech. Neither does the US government either, if they can get away with it.
- 1 vote
The first amendment promises you free speech it doesn't come with a free megaphone.
Yeah it seems a lot of people don't get that one. Freedom of anything comes with responsibility. Not just flapping your gums and saying whatever pops up in your mind.
- 3 votes
free speech has never included the soap box.
People forget that even in issues not concerning the net.
You hear it all the time when people exercise their rights by complainign about a tv commentator.
"CensorshiP" "this is america" etc
and I have to remind them.. the reporter isnt gettign arrested, he is simply having his soap box removed.
The first amendment promises you free speech it doesn't come with a free megaphone.
It is rare that you and I agree, but this is definitely a case where that is so.
- 1 vote
Why is it that people act like sites like this must provide free speech?
I am constantly confounded by this as well. We get at least a few emails a week from people who claim that either Newsvine or a Newsvine user has violated their freedom of speech. A couple of times, comically, it's even been spelled "speach", illustrating all the more completely how little some people know about what "free speech" really is.
- 18 votes
"As night-fall does not come at once, neither
does oppression...It is in such twilight that
we all must be aware of change in the air
- however slight - lest we become victims of
the darkness."
Justice William O. Douglas
- 6 votes
The first amendment promises you free speech
The Constitution promises nothing. It is simply the foundation of the laws of the nation. Federal officials promise (oaths of office) to defend and support the Constitution.
Quiz: Name two rights granted to the people by the Constitution.
- 2 votes
"As night-fall does not come at once, neither
does economic depression...It is in such twilight that
we all must be aware of change in the air
- however slight - lest we become victims of
the darkness."
Justice William O. Douglas, updated for 2008
- 2 votes
Quiz: Name two rights granted to the people by the Constitution.
To keep and bear arms.
To be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects ... seized.
It was a trick question, which I suspect most people would fall for.
Answer: The Constitution does not grant any rights to the people.
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are natural rights identified by the framers that belong to every person simply by virtue of being born. The Constitution acknowledges them and prohibits any legislation or actions by the government that would infringe upon them.
The Constitution cannot grant us what we already have, but it does protect us from those in power who would seek to deprive us of these dear freedoms.
- 5 votes
It was a trick question, which I suspect most people would fall for.
I knew you were going for a trick question, I just thought you were going for a different one -- that the Bill of Rights isn't a part of the Constitution. (Which isn't true, of course.)So yeah, you're correct, and I look like a dumbass. However, it is worth noting that the rights protected by the Constitution are not the only rights that we have.
Hehe I was a dumbass once too.
However, it is worth noting that the rights protected by the Constitution are not the only rights that we have.
Aye. The Ninth Amendment acknowledges them.
- 2 votes
First time I gave much thought but thank you. I found while just voicing my opinion on a controversial topic was bombarded by negative feedback which overlapped to other topics. I utilized a tool on newsvine to ignore the radical person and comments.
- 8 votes
#2 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 8:22 AM EDTThe good folks at Newsvine's super-secret headquarters deep in the heart of a volcanic island somewhere off the coast of Seattle have provided such tools for exactly that purpose Rixar. I'm glad they suit your purposes.
- 4 votes
Newsvine's super-secret headquarters deep in the heart of a volcanic island somewhere off the coast of Seattle have
Wow. I had no idea.
:)
- 1 vote
Actually, it's the
VineCave
. Hidden under Freeway Park or something...
- 5 votes
Of course it doesn't. Newsvine (and just about every site) is owned by a private citizen or business. If the government opened up an internet forum, it would be required to honor freedom of speech -- and God help them if they do, that sounds like a train wreck. But since you can't walk into physical private property (i.e. the Newsvine offices) and say anything you want, you likewise can't do it here.
I tried explaining this tirelessly to people when I'd delete their comments or ban them for breaking the rules on a Web site I used to own. "Free speech!" was the default cry from them, implying horrible repression from The Man (TM). They never seemed to understand that, as the one paying for the hosting costs, I could limit the conversation however I wanted.
- 6 votes
#3 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:33 AM EDTOh we get it here too. Stick around some of my threads for a week or so and it'll come up. I'd almost guarantee it.
- 5 votes
Ha... if the government operated a forum it would be down more than Twitter!
- 2 votes
Steve Watts #3:
Freedom of speech does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for what you express, on the contrary, there are laws addressing limitations of use at certain environments and forums.
However, you can be held liable for what you express, and there.., lies the difference between a person expressing free speech and a person suppressing such speech without offer or explanation as to why....
Free speech is no longer limited to your immediate surroundings or just the area that your voice can cover. Free speech can now be monitored, recorded and evaluated by the multitudes that may witness. It is a "commodity" that is capitalized by every person who sees potential for using the "peoples" free speech. However, When a "fee" is paid to access privileged free speech, it does not grant privilege to suppress, control or mold speeches to satisfy personal opinions or convictions by the moderator or owner.
The arrogant attitude expressed by people in position that use your free speech to benefit their goals is repugnant and a threat to free speech. If the speech is free and "your" not liable for what the other guy says.., then, why do you feel it necessary to "trash" their input without reasonable explanation or address? Unbridled censorship.., nothing more!
With such censoring powers anyone with a site can mold and influence his library to portray a design that supports his -or others who pay, in one way or another- personal convictions, opinion, and direction. Such control and actions by people on the net are more of a threat to free speech than our claimed enemies threats....
One news site I was on, the moderator(s) were using the contributor's information and Moniker to impersonate, and make inflammatory antagonistic comments credited to the owners while they were off-line.... I caught them using mine and another's Moniker.., of which, I have evidence to show....
This is an example of the potential hazards of allowing "capitalist" to use you and your speech for attempted monetary gain,... and they could care less where you or your rights stand.., as long as they get their way.....!
You state: ..."rules on a Web site I used to own.".
Because of what you say below..; I say: "One less abuser....".
You state: "I could limit the conversation however I wanted.".
This says it all.., so much for respect, to expression of "free speech".., and reasonable "true" dialogue....
I would say that with the amount of occasional hateful and deceptive posts that pop into NV once in a while, I think free speech is fairly well represented here.
I still believe free speech is pretty intact in America. There have been times in our history when the government controlled the press a lot more than it does now, and the government was able to shut people up from time to time. Doesn't happen so much these days.
- 4 votes
Of course it doesn't. Newsvine (and just about every site) is owned by a private citizen or business.
Bingo. The article seems to conflate "publicly owned" with "publicly accessible".
The use of free speech is not granted without a license. That license is responsibility.
- 3 votes
Morwynd #3,6:
If the comments that are presented to net news-site owners, becomes the "property" of the owner to do what they please.., then responsibility for the content should fall on the "now" owner. Also, when the owner filters and molds the comments to reflect "their perspective" on the issue presented, then their is no need for attaching identity to the originator.., for it is of the owner's idealistic design.., and his responsibility, not the commenter, to defend what is presented, ...without liability to the submitter....
"Everybody" wants to use "somebody" for selfish benefit, and "nobody" cares beyond a whimper.., and "then" we question: " "How did we get to this state of affairs...?
We must be the laughing stock, to the "eternal watch"....
Zankee, interesting perspective, thanks.
If the comments that are presented to net news-site owners, becomes the "property" of the owner to do what they please.., then responsibility for the content should fall on the "now" owner.
Agreed, and we do indeed see this happen, Newsvine and other public forums have no qualms (nor should they, IMO, it's their site) about removing material deemed highly offensive and/or contrary to posted rules.
Also, when the owner filters and molds the comments to reflect "their perspective" on the issue presented, then their is no need for attaching identity to the originator.., for it is of the owner's idealistic design
Not sure I can completely agree with this in the general sense. Site operators filter offending comments by deleting them, not rewriting them. The overwhelming majority of content is left untouched. I think the identity of posters does have some value.
Now if sites were to actually rewrite comments, then yes, it would be improper to solely attribute that comment to the originator.
- 1 vote
sacrasm warning:
Killfile: Next you'll be telling us that you have the right to choose how to phrase your headlines.
And the right to moderate your column however you choose
sarcasm off.
Thought I'd just set up those softball questions for you to nip in the bud before your critics arrive.
- 1 vote
#4 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 11:28 AM EDTKillfile: Next you'll be telling us that you have the right to choose how to phrase your headlines.
And the right to moderate your column however you choose
Well sure, but Newsvine has the right to tell me if my content is and isn't welcome on their front page too. So there you are then.
Of course then we really get into the politics of it all, because the moderation and oversight system can be manipulated by a small group of ideologues. Where does that leave Newsvine and does that then mean that Newsvine is taking and in a sense endorsing the political opinions of anyone who can get a half-dozen friends to vote their way?
- 3 votes
I'm here!
From the article:
Community backlash can restrain service providers, but as Internet companies continue to consolidate and Internet users spend more time using vendor-controlled platforms such as mobile devices or social-networking sites, the community's power to demand free speech and other rights diminishes.
Weinstein, the veteran computer scientist, said that as people congregate at fewer places, "if you're knocked off one of those, in a lot of ways you don't exist."
While I agree that private venues are just that and may determine what is to be allowed. The slippery slope is when "private" becomes a relative term.
What I've seen happening here on NV is a little stretching of the CoH already. MSNBC experts are promoting themselves. Example from Daryl Cagle's article:
Daryl Cagle is a political cartoonist and blogger for MSNBC.com; he is a past president of the National Cartoonists Society and his cartoons are syndicated to more than 850 newspapers, including the paper you are reading. Daryl runs the most popular cartoon site on the Web at Cagle.msnbc.com. His book "The Best Political Cartoons of the Year, 2008 Edition," is available in bookstores now, and he has a new book coming out this fall, "The BIG Book of Campaign 2008 Cartoons." See Daryl's cartoons and columns at www.caglepost.com.
Where's Tedd when you need him?
- 2 votes
I'm here!
Not only is here but he brought his twin!
Killfile, thanks. I knew those weren't real contradictions but I figured it'd be easier to explain that before things get messy in here
- 1 vote
Not only is here but he brought his twin!
NV been weird today. Some comments haven't been posting, others twice.
@Allen Neal--
The Cagle stuff seems more like Bona Fides, rather than self-promotion. That isn't the whole content of the article, is it?
- 1 vote
The Cagle stuff seems more like Bona Fides, rather than self-promotion. That isn't the whole content of the article, is it?
No, it's not the whole article, just the last paragraph. It's advertising. Calvin says Cagle is doing what he told him to do. That must have been to advertise. Which ever way you slice it, the comment is weird, suggests a double standard and comes off as if Cagle is not a viner but something else.
- 1 vote
Sorry for the late response. NV didn't direct me back here. I came back following some new users out of curiosity. This place is getting weird. Cagle's article and the comments he and Calvin made are instructive to this thread. Cagle is here, participating, but reveals he doesn't really know how it works, but is following directives. While Calvin suggests all conversations about the CoH be directed to staff. Well that would take out at least 10 to 20% of all the conversations on this site. : )
If MSNBC wants to play here, they should follow the same standards we do. And staff should not try to protect them and censor input to them.
- 2 votes
Geez, it bothers me so much when people try to claim freedom of speech rights in a privately-owned forum. This article, at least the version in my print newspaper, talked about how people want legislation to guarantee free speech on the internet. Oh @!$%# no. Not only would that not work, because not all websites are based in the US, but it would also be an absurd trampling of the rights of the website owner.
- 1 vote
#6 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 11:58 AM EDTFreedom of speech does not mean that no one can regulate what you say. What it does mean, is that you cannot be prosecuted, or persecuted, for what you say. Within a privately owned forum, such as Newsvine, you should expect the rules to be stricter.
You are entitled to throw someone out of your house, for disagreeing with you for the same reason.
- 1 vote
#7 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 1:25 PM EDTDBM-
"Freedom of speech does not mean that no one can regulate what you say. What it does mean, is that you cannot be prosecuted, or persecuted, for what you say."
"Within a privately owned forum,....."
In theory, in the U.S. system of law the concept of 'Prior Restraint' prevents a government entity from taking any action to censor your speech beforehand......in most cases. After you have spoken or published, you can be held to account if you have violated a law by what you said. Which is opposite to your statement.
The only real difference within a "privately owned forum", is that the owner does retain the right to censor before you publish/speak. You are still legally accountable afterwards for what you publish.....but now they are as well, by the act of their publishing they become party to it, requiring them to be even more careful.
But that's the U.S. system, and under whose system should these decisions be decided?
- 1 vote
You are still legally accountable afterwards for what you publish.....but now they are as well, by the act of their publishing they become party to it, requiring them to be even more careful.
Not true at all. The DCMA protects owners of public forums like Newsvine as long as the owners do not edit content.
- 4 votes
I'm sure you guys have lawyers who are all over this sort of thing, Mike (you do have lawyers right?) but out of curiosity does the capacity to delete comments count as "editing?" If not why?
Here's some related information to this posting:
Imagine a website that allows people to post comments or content anonymously, to protect their privacy. Pretty common. Now imagine that the website assists the poster through an interactive online questionnaire seeking specific categories of information. Under a new ruling of the Ninth Circuit, the anonymous poster who provides the information may escape detection and liability, while the website operator may be held responsible.
Immunity of Website Operators for Content of Others Limited by Ninth Circuit
FTC staff issued a statement today proposing four "self-regulatory" principles to guide businesses engaged in online behavioral advertising.
FTC Staff Issues Proposed Self Regulatory Principles for Behavioral Advertising and Seeks Comment
In a case of first impression, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently considered the ability of a litigant to determine the identity of an anonymous Internet user.
Anonymous in Arizona? Maybe Not.
The bill would give the Attorney General very broad authority to enact rules requiring Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") to retain records so law enforcement could access their customers' online activities.
ISP Data Retention Legislation Introduced; ISPs and Privacy Advocates Fear Broad Mandates
The first link could mean Websites will be held responsible for postings.... which could (depending on interpretation) limit what you consider free speech.
- 3 votes
#8 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 1:31 PM EDTUm, last time I checked, I was typing, not speaking. I don't think the Constitution covers Freedom of Typing. Especially if your typing onto someone else's server. If you have to clear up server space, why not delete stuff you don't like?
#9 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 3:43 PM EDTUm, last time I checked, I was typing, not speaking. I don't think the Constitution covers Freedom of Typing.
For what it's worth, typing is a form of speech or expression.
- 7 votes
And even more precisely, simply *not* speaking is a form of expression protected by Freedom of Speech laws.
- 3 votes
I actually think Freedom of Speech is pretty good here on the Vine. But then again I've been on here for a couple years. A while ago it wasn't that bad, it was mostly debates and very little name calling. I have noticed lately that things have been changing, a more of "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG" thing. I don't want to blame it on just the newer people.
Sometimes I read this site and it feels like Bill O'Reilly personality of "I'm always right" have taken over. And I'm not pointing at the conservative people here, I'm just using O' as a well known figure head. Look at how the election has changed this.
Every 5 minutes, you get polarized arguments about the candidates. And now that it's down to Obama & McCain, I find it funny. both claim to be Bi Partisan candidates, and some say that is a big turn on. But yet, you'll see arguments. I'm an Obama supporter, and if someone is a McCain supporter. Great! It's awesome to see people interested in something so important. But you think that would draw us all closer to the purple area of politics to get stuff done that needs to be done.
- 3 votes
#10 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:18 PM EDTThe thing is, the people most likely to disagree with this, are least likely to show up.
At any rate, I've never heard the phrase "freedom of online anonymous jackassery" and that's what most of the people who shout "what about the freedom of speech" in comments on online forums (including Newsvine) really mean.
- 11 votes
#11 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:44 PM EDTI agree,Brian.I do not condone violence,so,don't take this literally.A lot of people talk a good fight.
killfile--
I think Newsvine is one of the better setups. I routinely use Newsvine for this reason.
The majority of users here seem more respectful and able to express themselves in fair debate wtihout nanecalling. That being said, why is it that there are some blogs (I won't name the one I'm referring to) that will let people just spew so much hate/obscenites/racial comments, etc. without seemingly any regulation at all? It's really pretty outrageous.
- 1 vote
#12 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 11:28 PM EDTSorry for the typos---sloppy of me--just was trying to get my post in before hitting the sack--
#13 - Mon Jul 7, 2008 11:34 PM EDTFreedom of Speech is a concept that only applies between you and your government. Not between you and another individual or company.
It is impossible for Yahoo or any company to violate your right to free speech. If you are on their "property" then they have the right to kick you off for any reason they choose. It is as simple as that.
Now, the only variation on this is if they violate a contract that you have with them. Then that is a separate matter, breach of contract.
This article mentions that "some advocacy groups believe the federal government needs to guarantee open access to speech." This is a contradiction in terms. The government has no right to force me to let you stand in my front yard and say whatever you feel like. Likewise, on my servers or website.
#14 - Tue Jul 8, 2008 4:50 AM EDTFreedom of expression on the Vine is a service and a privilege, not offered as a right. This privilege is offered in order to enhance the product and stay competitive. If we, the users, found that our expressions were limited beyond what we personally were able to accept, then we would leave. As a product, on-line fora are unique because the users are both "the product" and "the client". Newsvine owners provide the concept and the technical facilities to make this possible.
If we wanted our freedoms unimpeded we'd have to invent a new concept, that of a user owned site. A recipe for anarchy unless we made pretty much the same rules we already have here. Back to square one.
Capitalism is not about freedom, these things work together, but are separate concepts, though it may be hard to think of freedom without some level of capitalism. Any man or woman who works for someone else is not free to enjoy freedom of expression, This is to say that most of us are not free in the true meaning of this word most of our working lives.
- 5 votes
#15 - Tue Jul 8, 2008 6:10 AM EDTActually, Capitalism is the concept of freedom applied to economics. Capitalism is the only moral system of economics because it is the only one that by definition respects freedom of economic action.
I disagree with your statement "Any man or woman who works for someone else is not free to enjoy freedom of expression, This is to say that most of us are not free in the true meaning of this word most of our working lives."
The concept of freedom is about the relationship between you and the government, not between you and your employer. Just because you have a job does not mean that you are not free.
Yes I like your definition "freedom applied to capitalism" - but "capitalism" is not a person, it's an economic method.
The concept of freedom is about the relationship between you and the government, not between you and your employer. Just because you have a job does not mean that you are not free.
So freedom is being suspended while you are in someones employ. We have had cases where employers suspend the freedom of their employees even outside their place of work, such as forbidding them to smoke, even forbidding their families to smoke.
My perception of what freedom is, is at variance with yours. I don't see it as a legal term at all, though I do see it may be part of a metaphorical contract between government and citizen. I see freedom as personal perception, like a state of mind, a condition.
Freedom may be defined as the individual's right of choice, no matter at what
level, from choosing his brand of peanut butter to selecting the manner of his
death. An even broader definition may encompass all of his society and the
infrastructure this society has built for itself, a description of the way it
organizes its affairs and the level by which it is influenced by or protected from
outside forces. It is society that maintains the conditions needed to sustain
individual freedom.
- 1 vote
Freedom of speech,be it verbal,in print,or signing brings with it the responsibility to use a fair amount of common sense,i.e.,not shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater,or,any communication that could be detrimental to the well being of anyone,although I am well aware that there are people that do not care who they hurt,in whatever way,or,how seriously they hurt them.
#20 - Tue Jul 8, 2008 11:53 AM EDTInterestingly, the only posts I have EVER had deleted by the monitor were those that pointed up an obvious bias of the "news" organization that wrote the original article, or highlighted important areas of the subject that the journalist failed to touch on.
You can say bad words so long as you don't put a spotlight on the clearly right-leaning media's shortcomings.
#21 - Tue Jul 8, 2008 5:05 PM EDThedonist's like my self have no tolerance for such hegemony i wont stand for it...Sh I T tossing baby eating monkey grooming cleft faced rat mutant bastards dingo's should have eaten all your babies!!! sex drugs rock and uhhh drugs liquor yeah, and prostitutes, racketeering high profile bribes high profile assassinations @!$%#s with big dick syndrome honky's with little dick syndrome wet backs and their cheap labor and Mics with big nipples midgets with small hands and k'nucks with their high price of literature and frogs with homo erotica leaders with boners and children as sex slaves and boys as vestry toys and gals as evening pals and s H I t ing where i eat you mutant bastards!!! I'm sorry...long live the first and fourth amendment and god bless America and no one else pretty please...preferably if these heathens could rot and burn in fire and brimstone while i sit and sip mojito's. please and thanks.
p.s.
i hate to advocate drugs or liquor, violence, insanity to anyone. but in my case its worked.
p.s.s.
stomp on the Terra, long live The Nazz
#22 - Tue Jul 8, 2008 6:20 PM EDTFriend,your zombie is as dead as it can get.I rsepect your right to express your opinion,if that's what that was.
It's really a simple matter - Newsvine is an establishment. "No shoes, no shirt, no service." We can understand that at a restaurant or a tavern. No difference.
But the AP angle is ludicrous. If we don't use the same publishing power as they do to say what we want, that's good. If we do, that's evil. Hmm. Doesn't add up.
Publishing is publishing: it has consequences, and we get to live with them the way that AP does. It goes with the territory. If you don't mind, AP, I like being a publisher and I like having a community of trusted peers judge when I am over the line - instead of arbitrary self-proclaimed defenders of culture such as yourselves.
- 2 votes
#23 - Tue Jul 8, 2008 7:37 PM EDTMight I add that the internet is an international means of communication,
and as such it is very difficult to police.
Now since it's hard to enforce laws...
how the hell are you supposed to stick up for individual rights,
when access to the internet is controlled by your government,
phone company, or in some cases, your mom.
I'm fairly sure you can't invoke a domestic right on an international stage.
-Dave
- 5 votes
#25 - Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:42 PM EDTFor the months of the year I live in the P.R. of China, I can't get on the 'Vine, except by proxy. That's when I lose Java script functionality and can't take part in discussions.
- 1 vote
Give it time my friends. Soon it will be against the law to speak to yourself.
- 1 vote
#26 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:30 AM EDTThe time when it was lawful to speak to yourself is long at an end:
Note the sign that read "Quiet!" or the laws containing phrases like "public disturbance" do not exclude the sound of the human voice. Thus rule and lawmakers have been able to separate the actual volume of noise required to express an opinion from the opinion itself. There need be no lower limit to this restriction, the noise just has to be audible - this lower limit is typical in an auditorium or operating theatre. Inaudible expressions of opinion have also been pounced on, as in carrying a sign with text or wearing a special colour t-shirt.
But there are also great moments in the history of free speech. A man calling a Norwegian cop "drittsekk"* to his face, was not fined, since he was merely expressing an opinion, not using a racial or religious slur.
* the meaning is "bag ful of @!$%#".
- 2 votes
And thus have you proved my point. But please don't talk to yourself. I hear that's to be outlawed soon.
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
