Free speech and the internet.

[JoJo]

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

 

[Baneat]

Its the owners site. They can pick any set of rules they like.
If they decide no one is allowed to use the letter "E" anymor thn you had bttr start gtting usd to it ls you will nd up gtting banhammrd.

"Freedom of speech" is not a right. It is a privilege.

Freedom of speech is a right.. expand it out - Freedom of speech on collectively owned property (Any public place is owned by the government which is owned by the people)

And on your own property

I don't own a site and everything's owned by someone else, so freedom of speech as a right is rarely useful, doesn't mean it's not there.

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.

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

 

[Stammer]

Free speech exists on the internet, but only as a kind of illusion. Could you imagine if suddenly Google prevented people from looking up positive things related to rationalism and negative things related to creationism? I don't think it's something we'd ever have to worry about, but it is something that COULD possibly happen.

If suddenly Google starts publishing all sorts of web sites saying "President Obama says that China is nothing but a bloated country of morons" then it could actually have some major effects on the world as a whole.

The internet CAN limit what we say, but it doesn't really ever seem to.

 

[UbarElite]

I guess it's like this. When you post on a site like this, it's sort of like saying something in a private business. While no law can prevent me from my free speech, supposedly, barging into KFC and shouting at the top of my lungs some form of racist comment related to black people and fried chicken can get me thrown out. They may lose business, but it is a private enterprise and they can serve who they want. They throw me out because they are sure that allowing me to stay will lose them more business than kicking me in the face. Overall, this is a good thing, as it allows social change to enforce itself.

Online, it is similar. Posting certain things on this site can get me put on probation or even banned. This is their choice, and rightfully so. To answer the question of "How much free speech should one have online?" I think it's good to model it after how we do in the real world: While certain private places can limit my speech as they so choose, I should not be prevented from actually engaging in free speech somewhere (especially in my own private place, like a site I owned, for example).

PS. I speak as an American, thus, when I allude to a right to free speech, I refer to my own, granted by my constitution (While I believe this should be universal, such protections do not exist everywhere). I apologize if this offended or confused anyone.

 

[Baneat]

Its the owners site. They can pick any set of rules they like.
If they decide no one is allowed to use the letter "E" anymor thn you had bttr start gtting usd to it ls you will nd up gtting banhammrd.

"Freedom of speech" is not a right. It is a privilege.

Freedom of speech is a right.. expand it out - Freedom of speech on collectively owned property (Any public place is owned by the government which is owned by the people)

And on your own property

I don't own a site and everything's owned by someone else, so freedom of speech as a right is rarely useful, doesn't mean it's not there.

If it can be taken away then it is not a right. Its a privilege. Privileges that they allow us to have.
As he states in the video (paraphrased) "If you wanna know about your rights, look up "japanese americans 1942" and you will learn all about your "rights""

"If it can be taken away" So basically rights don't exist as it's always possible to take it away?

 

[kurupt87]

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

As am I my good man. And yes, it means that we can punish those whom our society decides are being insufferable arseholes. It does require a level of trust in government though, seeing as the mechanism is already there to take away speech. When one has a government that nobody voted for that makes sweeping cuts and ideological changes whilst dictating research into "The Big Society" that Universities have to do in order to protect their funding, well; there's breaking point.

Snip

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

Well, we don't have free speech; this is a fact. We do not have a constituion in fact, we have a constantly evolving way of ruling that is sometimes called a "de facto constitution". (Edit: I can't remember what it is called and this is pretty much the first line from wiki.)

As for example, I assume you mean someway in which our speech has been curtailed? Well, you can't really swear in public, especially in front of or at a Police Constable; to do so risks being arrested under the Public Order Act.

As for a more recent high profile example, the WBC has been banned in the UK. I don't know if that fell under Religious Hatred or under a some type of Sexuality Hatred Law, they moan about gays mostly, but they got banned not soon after they tried to come to Britain.

 

[Zaik]

If you're on someone's web site you're in a publicly owned area, and subject to their rules. Beyond that, it should be totally free.

Fortunately the rules don't ALWAYS detract from free speech, and there are unregulated places if you just need to scream profanity at a brick wall, like youtube.

 

[Baneat]

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

As am I my good man. And yes, it means that we can punish those whom our society decides are being insufferable arseholes. It does require a level of trust in government though, seeing as the mechanism is already there to take away speech. When one has a government that nobody voted for that makes sweeping cuts and ideological changes whilst dictating research into "The Big Society" that Universities have to do in order to protect their funding, well; there's breaking point.

Snip

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

Well, we don't have free speech; this is a fact. We do not have a constituion in fact, we have a constantly evolving way of ruling that is sometimes called a "de facto constitution". (Edit: I can't remember what it is called and this is pretty much the first line from wiki.)

As for example, I assume you mean someway in which our speech has been curtailed? Well, you can't really swear in public, especially in front of or at a Police Constable; to do so risks being arrested under the Public Order Act.

As for a more recent high profile example, the WBC has been banned in the UK. I don't know if that fell under Religious Hatred or under a some type of Sexuality Hatred Law, they moan about gays mostly, but they got banned not soon after they tried to come to Britain.

I want to move to america now

 

[kurupt87]

Spoiler

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

As am I my good man. And yes, it means that we can punish those whom our society decides are being insufferable arseholes. It does require a level of trust in government though, seeing as the mechanism is already there to take away speech. When one has a government that nobody voted for that makes sweeping cuts and ideological changes whilst dictating research into "The Big Society" that Universities have to do in order to protect their funding, well; there's breaking point.

Snip

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

Well, we don't have free speech; this is a fact. We do not have a constituion in fact, we have a constantly evolving way of ruling that is sometimes called a "de facto constitution". (Edit: I can't remember what it is called and this is pretty much the first line from wiki.)

As for example, I assume you mean someway in which our speech has been curtailed? Well, you can't really swear in public, especially in front of or at a Police Constable; to do so risks being arrested under the Public Order Act.

As for a more recent high profile example, the WBC has been banned in the UK. I don't know if that fell under Religious Hatred or under a some type of Sexuality Hatred Law, they moan about gays mostly, but they got banned not soon after they tried to come to Britain.

I want to move to america now

Well, I don't know about that! They've got their own problems too you know, one of which is the WBC.

Again though, it comes down to trust. We have to trust the Police Officers to judge when and when not to enforce things like the Public Order Act. Most of them do a good job, it's just sometimes there are arsehole cops or ones that woke up on the wrong side of bed that morning.

Same with the government, we have to trust it to make the right decisions for us. They do, broadly speaking. If they don't we can protest [sub]and then get kettled and happily ignored, but I'll stop this is getting way too political[/sub] and they should listen to us.

 

[gbemery]

Its the owners site. They can pick any set of rules they like.
If they decide no one is allowed to use the letter "E" anymor thn you had bttr start gtting usd to it ls you will nd up gtting banhammrd.

"Freedom of speech" is not a right. It is a privilege.

ha..i see what you did there, clever clever. I don't agree though with freedom of speech being a privilege. I feel one should not have to earn their right to speak their mind. But of course there will always be certain things that should be controlled, such as yelling fire in a crowded building etc. OP: I agree though its up to the site's owner. Think of websites as online stores. If you were at an actual store and said anything the manager didn't like they could throw you out because it is their store, same goes for websites. They pay for the space they can choose how it is used. As for speaking of illegal things. It isn't illegal to talk about illegal things, it may make people upset and fearful and in that case it still isn't really "illegal" in a sense but you may be questioned about it. (such as saying you are going to blow something up etc). Plus it isn't really smart to go blabbing about how you did something illegal whether or not you got away with it or caught.

 

[Baneat]

Spoiler

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

As am I my good man. And yes, it means that we can punish those whom our society decides are being insufferable arseholes. It does require a level of trust in government though, seeing as the mechanism is already there to take away speech. When one has a government that nobody voted for that makes sweeping cuts and ideological changes whilst dictating research into "The Big Society" that Universities have to do in order to protect their funding, well; there's breaking point.

Snip

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

Well, we don't have free speech; this is a fact. We do not have a constituion in fact, we have a constantly evolving way of ruling that is sometimes called a "de facto constitution". (Edit: I can't remember what it is called and this is pretty much the first line from wiki.)

As for example, I assume you mean someway in which our speech has been curtailed? Well, you can't really swear in public, especially in front of or at a Police Constable; to do so risks being arrested under the Public Order Act.

As for a more recent high profile example, the WBC has been banned in the UK. I don't know if that fell under Religious Hatred or under a some type of Sexuality Hatred Law, they moan about gays mostly, but they got banned not soon after they tried to come to Britain.

I want to move to america now

Well, I don't know about that! They've got their own problems too you know, one of which is the WBC.

Again though, it comes down to trust. We have to trust the Police Officers to judge when and when not to enforce things like the Public Order Act. Most of them do a good job, it's just sometimes there are arsehole cops or ones that woke up on the wrong side of bed that morning.

Same with the government, we have to trust it to make the right decisions for us. They do, broadly speaking. If they don't we can protest [sub]and then get kettled and happily ignored, but I'll stop this is getting way too political[/sub] and they should listen to us.

I'm a deontologist, mostly, though, I don't care for consequences so much as the principle, and I'm willing to take the bad (to me) consequences if free speech is what's given in return.

 

[kurupt87]

Spoiler

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

As am I my good man. And yes, it means that we can punish those whom our society decides are being insufferable arseholes. It does require a level of trust in government though, seeing as the mechanism is already there to take away speech. When one has a government that nobody voted for that makes sweeping cuts and ideological changes whilst dictating research into "The Big Society" that Universities have to do in order to protect their funding, well; there's breaking point.

Snip

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

Well, we don't have free speech; this is a fact. We do not have a constituion in fact, we have a constantly evolving way of ruling that is sometimes called a "de facto constitution". (Edit: I can't remember what it is called and this is pretty much the first line from wiki.)

As for example, I assume you mean someway in which our speech has been curtailed? Well, you can't really swear in public, especially in front of or at a Police Constable; to do so risks being arrested under the Public Order Act.

As for a more recent high profile example, the WBC has been banned in the UK. I don't know if that fell under Religious Hatred or under a some type of Sexuality Hatred Law, they moan about gays mostly, but they got banned not soon after they tried to come to Britain.

I want to move to america now

Well, I don't know about that! They've got their own problems too you know, one of which is the WBC.

Again though, it comes down to trust. We have to trust the Police Officers to judge when and when not to enforce things like the Public Order Act. Most of them do a good job, it's just sometimes there are arsehole cops or ones that woke up on the wrong side of bed that morning.

Same with the government, we have to trust it to make the right decisions for us. They do, broadly speaking. If they don't we can protest [sub]and then get kettled and happily ignored, but I'll stop this is getting way too political[/sub] and they should listen to us.

I'm a deontologist, mostly, though, I don't care for consequences so much as the principle, and I'm willing to take the bad (to me) consequences if free speech is what's given in return.

Fair cop, that's one of the major reasons Christopher Hitchens moved over there; the principle of the thing. If it's a good enough reason for him then I sure as hell won't disagree.

Perhaps captcha is urging me to jump ship also?
captcha: American oiDRega

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Freedom of speech exists on the internet, but there are rules created for specific discussion areas on the internet. Example of course being the Escapist; it's a website owned by a group of people, and it's hosted on a server that's also owned by them. Essentially the Escapist is their virtual property, and their rules apply because they have absolute control of said property. If I were to buy a server, connect it to the internet and host a website on it, I would be able to allow whatever I wanted to happen on that website. Freedom of speech included.

 

[Baneat]

Spoiler

snip

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.

I am British, which is why I know UK law, and I personally feel we do have free speech to the right extent, just not to be a hateful racist or religionist, a mass-murdering terror plotter, or a wannabe child rapist, which is fair enough. Means we honest folk can express ourselves how we want, whereas the bad guys have to keep a sock in it.

As am I my good man. And yes, it means that we can punish those whom our society decides are being insufferable arseholes. It does require a level of trust in government though, seeing as the mechanism is already there to take away speech. When one has a government that nobody voted for that makes sweeping cuts and ideological changes whilst dictating research into "The Big Society" that Universities have to do in order to protect their funding, well; there's breaking point.

Snip

Oh? Examples please, and recent ones, so nothing from like the 70's -This isn't me being snarky or deliberately contradictory, I just assumed there was free speech-

Well, we don't have free speech; this is a fact. We do not have a constituion in fact, we have a constantly evolving way of ruling that is sometimes called a "de facto constitution". (Edit: I can't remember what it is called and this is pretty much the first line from wiki.)

As for example, I assume you mean someway in which our speech has been curtailed? Well, you can't really swear in public, especially in front of or at a Police Constable; to do so risks being arrested under the Public Order Act.

As for a more recent high profile example, the WBC has been banned in the UK. I don't know if that fell under Religious Hatred or under a some type of Sexuality Hatred Law, they moan about gays mostly, but they got banned not soon after they tried to come to Britain.

I want to move to america now

Well, I don't know about that! They've got their own problems too you know, one of which is the WBC.

Again though, it comes down to trust. We have to trust the Police Officers to judge when and when not to enforce things like the Public Order Act. Most of them do a good job, it's just sometimes there are arsehole cops or ones that woke up on the wrong side of bed that morning.

Same with the government, we have to trust it to make the right decisions for us. They do, broadly speaking. If they don't we can protest [sub]and then get kettled and happily ignored, but I'll stop this is getting way too political[/sub] and they should listen to us.

I'm a deontologist, mostly, though, I don't care for consequences so much as the principle, and I'm willing to take the bad (to me) consequences if free speech is what's given in return.

Fair cop, that's one of the major reasons Christopher Hitchens moved over there; the principle of the thing. If it's a good enough reason for him then I sure as hell won't disagree.

Perhaps captcha is urging me to jump ship also?
captcha: American oiDRega

A happy coincidence *at least it isn't asking you to perform integral calculus like I got*