Free speech and the internet.

[MasterOfWorlds]

Does free speech exist on the internet? Should it? To what extent?

I'm asking these questions because there are some things that we're not allowed to talk about online. Or rather, there are certain things that we're not allowed to talk about in certain places.

For example, you couldn't just randomly post some sex story up on any random site. Or, I suppose you could, but you'd get in trouble. Hell, there are even sites for the Klan and the Aryan Nation. There are sites about everything out there.

Coming back to the free speech thing though. To what extent are you allowed to talk about things online? Sure, some things just aren't appropriate for certain sites, but how do we come to those conclusions? One of the major rules on the Escapist, for example is the fact that you can't admit to a crime or plan on committing one. Now, this rule goes pretty much across the board as I understand it. But is talking about illegal things, actually illegal? Not unless you're talking about committing a crime.

Are there rules that restrict speech too much online? How much of your free speech are you willing to give up online? Should you be able to talk about anything online as long as it doesn't fall into the whole crime thing mentioned above?

What are your thoughts, my fellow Escapists?

 

[DefunctTheory]

There is no free speech on the internet, as every virtual square inch of it is owned by someone, and they have the right to silence anyone they please in there space.

They may allow you to say anything you want, but ultimately, you are at there mercy.

 

[loc978]

The level of freedom of speech on a given site is directly proportionate to the level of anonymity its users have.
Of course, there are also rules on individual sites, but those tend to be ignored on sites where people are anonymous... and more lax rules often aren't taken advantage of when users aren't anonymous.

 

[bevanoes]

I'd say, to a fair extent, one of the important things about the internet is that, bar few exceptions (which are generally accepted), most of its "unwritten laws" have emerged on their own. I suppose you could say that the free speech that you are allowed on the internet, is the free speech that the users themselves, of which you are one, have decided to allow themselves. This is perhaps part of some of the frustration that many of the users feel towards governments and companies when they "force" restrictions that the global digital community did decide on themselves.

 

[Outright Villainy]

You have as much free speech as you would have in anyone's home: entirely at the discretion of the owner, and they can throw your ass out if you piss them off.

 

[EllEzDee]

Pretty sure you can talk about how superior whites are to blacks on any part of 4chan without any kind of penalty.

 

[Vampire cat]

Your answer has already been given by the previous posters, but it is worth mentioning that "freedom of speech" shouldn't become a shield for those wishing to be rude or offensive for no reason. You'll see this on the street too, someone says or does something to anger another person, and after that person expresses his dismay he will be countered with a "it's a free country, I can say/do what I want". That's just stupid. Yes you CAN, legally, say or do those things, but there is nothing sane people hate more than someone using their rights as an excuse to be offensive, rude and cruel.

There are loads of loop holes, but individual forums with actual moderation is much more controllable that the real world, so those loop holes won't be abused anywhere near as frequently or at least stopped quickly when used.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Let?s assume American jurisprudence for this. The first amendment states ?Congress shall make no law? abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?. Under the 14 amendment, that would also apply to the states ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?.

Notice how I said Congress and the states. Congress cannot make any rule, but a forum owner can decide what goes on their site. If someone is shouting racist slurs in my business, I can demand they leave or shut up.

So no, the absolute right of ?Free speech? does not exist on the internet

 

[WolfEdge]

Let?s assume American jurisprudence for this. The first amendment states ?Congress shall make no law? abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?. Under the 14 amendment, that would also apply to the states ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?.

Notice how I said Congress and the states. Congress cannot make any rule, but a forum owner can decide what goes on their site. If someone is shouting racist slurs in my business, I can demand they leave or shut up.

So no, the absolute right of ?Free speech? does not exist on the internet

The only thing I can add to that is that you CAN have absolute free speech, you'd just have to pay for it via your own personal website/forum.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Let?s assume American jurisprudence for this. The first amendment states ?Congress shall make no law? abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?. Under the 14 amendment, that would also apply to the states ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?.

Notice how I said Congress and the states. Congress cannot make any rule, but a forum owner can decide what goes on their site. If someone is shouting racist slurs in my business, I can demand they leave or shut up.

So no, the absolute right of ?Free speech? does not exist on the internet

The only thing I can add to that is that you CAN have absolute free speech, you'd just have to pay for it via your own personal website/forum.

Ah, true. What I ment to say was that you cannot have absolute right of free speach everywhere on the internet. Pay for your own site, and you can say whatever the hell you want to.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Allow me to play devils' advocate here. I know the rules regarding free speech vary around the internet, but I've never understood the policy of "we can ban who we want for what we want". It just seems... counter-intuitive to set up a public forum that anyone can use, and then restrict them so much.

The policy most of the internet has toward commenting on videos puzzles me. Now I know these forums, among many others, have a "don't like, don't watch/read" policy which pretty much does not allow for any criticism, which just baffles me. You have this great tool for airing your work to the whole world, and allow anyone to comment on it, to help you learn and grow, and to take in new perspectives you may never have thought of, but what's the point if all you're going to do is disregard anyone who criticises you? Doesn't that defeat the point of internet content in the first place? If all you want is compliments, show it to your friends. I've never understood why, with so many people, asshattery and fanboyism is ok as long as it's in support of the content creator. I could comment on a video almost anywhere and say "GR8 VID. U HATERS GO TO HELL!" (or similar mindless praise) and not be touched, but posting "I thought this video sucked because..." will get you banned. I'm not talking about one place in particular here, but just saying "it's their site, let them do what the hell they want with their fans" as an excuse for Orwellian modding seems incredibly counter productive to me.

The difficulty comes in drawing a line, but it's not impossible.

 

[JoJo]

Let?s assume American jurisprudence for this. The first amendment states ?Congress shall make no law? abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?. Under the 14 amendment, that would also apply to the states ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?.

Notice how I said Congress and the states. Congress cannot make any rule, but a forum owner can decide what goes on their site. If someone is shouting racist slurs in my business, I can demand they leave or shut up.

So no, the absolute right of ?Free speech? does not exist on the internet

The only thing I can add to that is that you CAN have absolute free speech, you'd just have to pay for it via your own personal website/forum.

Ah, true. What I ment to say was that you cannot have absolute right of free speach everywhere on the internet. Pay for your own site, and you can say whatever the hell you want to.

Well interestingly, that might not be 100% true, I heard of a case in the UK a couple of years ago where a man was arrested and taken to court for "obsene material" or something after he wrote a sex story on his blog about the Spice girls being raped and murdered. Evidently not the most tasteful stuff in the world, but if I remember correctly he was eventually found not guilty. Also it's illegal in the UK (don't know about other countries) to incite racial or religious hatred, or aid, advocate or encourage terrorism, which includes speech on the internet, and I think writing about underage sex can be considered child pornography if the intention is to provide pleasure to readers (i.e. too much graphic detail), so therefore also illegal.

OT: While site owners do have the right to decide what content, including speech by others, to be on their sites, I believe users should have the right to express opinions freely assuming they aren't saying anything that would cause direct offense to a reasonable person, or giving intructions or encouraging a crime.

 

[ZephrC]

Dude. Free speech means the government can't do anything to you for what you say, as long as you keep it just to words. It doesn't mean you get to spew whatever filth your depraved mind can dredge up without ever having to worry about any kind of consequence. That would be stupid.

 

[ramboondiea]

no. its that simple, the internet exist across the world, and to apply freedom of speech to parts of the world were it does not apply would never happen. each person should be subject to the laws they have either infringed within their own country or if they have done something against the law in another

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Allow me to play devils' advocate here. I know the rules regarding free speech vary around the internet, but I've never understood the policy of "we can ban who we want for what we want". It just seems... counter-intuitive to set up a public forum that anyone can use, and then restrict them so much.

The policy most of the internet has toward commenting on videos puzzles me. Now I know these forums, among many others, have a "don't like, don't watch/read" policy which pretty much does not allow for any criticism, which just baffles me. You have this great tool for airing your work to the whole world, and allow anyone to comment on it, to help you learn and grow, and to take in new perspectives you may never have thought of, but what's the point if all you're going to do is disregard anyone who criticises you? Doesn't that defeat the point of internet content in the first place? If all you want is compliments, show it to your friends. I've never understood why, with so many people, asshattery and fanboyism is ok as long as it's in support of the content creator. I could comment on a video almost anywhere and say "GR8 VID. U HATERS GO TO HELL!" (or similar mindless praise) and not be touched, but posting "I thought this video sucked because..." will get you banned. I'm not talking about one place in particular here, but just saying "it's their site, let them do what the hell they want with their fans" as an excuse for Orwellian modding seems incredibly counter productive to me.

The difficulty comes in drawing a line, but it's not impossible.

Some sites are worse then here, I must say. My friend was banhammered from the Spoony Experiment forums for posting that he though the Dr. Insano Joke was overdone and took away from the humor of the sketch.

Look at it this way: if I ban anyone who criticizes me, my viewership will be lower, and I will presumably make less from ads. A balance must be drawn, and some sites either take the libertarian approach, or the Soviet full control approach. It just depends on what you need I suppose.

 

[AlexNora]

i think people should say what ever they want, why? because if the say it then at least you know there crazy thoughts. i feel ideals are more dangerous when there concealed like a concealed weapon.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Some sites are worse then here, I must say. My friend was banhammered from the Spoony Experiment forums for posting that he though the Dr. Insano Joke was overdone and took away from the humor of the sketch.

Look at it this way: if I ban anyone who criticizes me, my viewership will be lower, and I will presumably make less from ads. A balance must be drawn, and some sites either take the libertarian approach, or the Soviet full control approach. It just depends on what you need I suppose.

That's another, less hippyish reason for not doing it. I honestly just don't see the drawback in being a bit laid-back towards criticism and arguments besides a bruised ego though. Obviously when things devolve into name-calling action should be taken, but I think even heated debates can be cooled down and worked out.

I agree about the Spoony Experiment, anyway. Noah does have some ego problems and some of the mods there are... strange. I won't post too much because I use this username over there, it's kind of a dick move and I don't want to derail this thread, but I'll just say I generally stay well out of the content section.

 

[kurupt87]

Let?s assume American jurisprudence for this. The first amendment states ?Congress shall make no law? abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?. Under the 14 amendment, that would also apply to the states ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?.

Notice how I said Congress and the states. Congress cannot make any rule, but a forum owner can decide what goes on their site. If someone is shouting racist slurs in my business, I can demand they leave or shut up.

So no, the absolute right of ?Free speech? does not exist on the internet

The only thing I can add to that is that you CAN have absolute free speech, you'd just have to pay for it via your own personal website/forum.

Ah, true. What I ment to say was that you cannot have absolute right of free speach everywhere on the internet. Pay for your own site, and you can say whatever the hell you want to.

Well interestingly, that might not be 100% true, I heard of a case in the UK a couple of years ago where a man was arrested and taken to court for "obsene material" or something after he wrote a sex story on his blog about the Spice girls being raped and murdered. Evidently not the most tasteful stuff in the world, but if I remember correctly he was eventually found not guilty. Also it's illegal in the UK (don't know about other countries) to incite racial or religious hatred, or aid, advocate or encourage terrorism, which includes speech on the internet, and I think writing about underage sex can be considered child pornography if the intention is to provide pleasure to readers (i.e. too much graphic detail), so therefore also illegal.

OT: While site owners do have the right to decide what content, including speech by others, to be on their sites, I believe users should have the right to express opinions freely assuming they aren't saying anything that would cause direct offense to a reasonable person, or giving intructions or encouraging a crime.

Indeed, there are a great many Brits proclaiming that they have free speech; not only on the internet but in real life too. It's funny, and depressing on the inside, when you tell them that they don't.