If we have freedom of speech then how come websites or apps can ban or blacklist or whiteout

[axelthefox]

Because the first ammendment applies to the government.

Private companies can do what they want.

No shirt no shoes no service, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. These are our policies. Follow them or bye.

They are companies?

I wonder though what would happen if someone who was banned demanded to speak with the manager or if someone pulled a Karen on the company.

You know the meme, a woman who feels entitled demands to speak to the manager.

I wonder if part of the problem is that many have gotten their way in brick and mortar stores and think they will get their way online.

I noticed many forum admins and moderators don't seem to understand CUSTOMER SERVICE,which is the "customer is always right" and that businesses have to bend their rules just to make a customer happy.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They are companies?

I wonder though what would happen if someone who was banned demanded to speak with the manager or if someone pulled a Karen on the company.

You know the meme, a woman who feels entitled demands to speak to the manager.

I wonder if part of the problem is that many have gotten their way in brick and mortar stores and think they will get their way online.

I noticed many forum admins and moderators don't seem to understand CUSTOMER SERVICE,which is the "customer is always right" and that businesses have to bend their rules just to make a customer happy.

Yes they are companies.

The customer isn't always right.

Try going into a restaurant barefooted and shirtless. Cuss the waitress out. See how quickly you get tossed out on your ass.

Forums are no different.

 

[mrjurrs]

Can multiple social media entities be considered monopolies? This opens a huge can of worms on the definition of the word and the English language!

Some of the tech bills currently in Congress address the issue. Break up big tech.

House Bills Seek to Break Up Amazon and Other Big Tech Companies

Lawmakers proposed a raft of bipartisan legislation aimed at reining in Big Tech, including a bill that seeks to make the e-commerce giant and others split into two companies or shed some of their products and services.

www.wsj.com

 

[KingLeo]

The 1st Amendment protects your speech from retribution from the government.
It DOES NOT protect your speech from opposing view points or from the rules and regulations of private companies which you agree to follow by joining their websites.
The 1st Amendment does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want and not face opposing views or public scrutiny.

 

[axelthefox]

Yes they are companies.

The customer isn't always right.

Try going into a restaurant barefooted and shirtless. Cuss the waitress out. See how quickly you get tossed out on your ass.

Forums are no different.

I wonder if you noticed some forums also allow some stuff while others don't?

Like one forum i remember i could talk about a game/virtual world called second life, while another i couldn't and got scolded for it.

I wonder if rules like those are killing forums.

I think if forums started being more lax on the rules, then they would get more people on the sites.

Also i found about where mods abuse their power.

When Forum Moderators Go Bad

What do you do if a forum moderator becomes hurtful to your forums rather than helpful? A WebmasterWorld thread asks this question based on negative actions performed by a moderator of his forum that

www.seroundtable.com

I wonder if we should start wanting to hold moderators accountable, cause i wonder how many just abuse their power just because they have power.

Like you seen how on the news like how police been abusing their power against POC?

 

[maquiscat]

I wonder if you noticed some forums also allow some stuff while others don't?

Like one forum i remember i could talk about a game/virtual world called second life, while another i couldn't and got scolded for it.

I wonder if rules like those are killing forums.

I think if forums started being more lax on the rules, then they would get more people on the sites.

Also i found about where mods abuse their power.

When Forum Moderators Go Bad

What do you do if a forum moderator becomes hurtful to your forums rather than helpful? A WebmasterWorld thread asks this question based on negative actions performed by a moderator of his forum that

www.seroundtable.com

I wonder if we should start wanting to hold moderators accountable, cause i wonder how many just abuse their power just because they have power.

Like you seen how on the news like how police been abusing their power against POC?

I don't think that is a good comparison. Law enforcement is supposed to be a part of the government. That's not a equal comparison to a private entity.

As to forums and their mods, that is a perfect example of the free market at work. And that is not a claim that the free market should be applied to all things. But if your goal is to serve a niche market, and you can survive, power to you. But if you want to survive then you have to appeal to enough people to keep you afloat.

Think about this. What is the purpose of this forum from the perspective of the owner? (who is the owner? Does anyone know?) Is it simply to provide a place for people to debate in such a way to entertain him/her/them? Is it a revenue source? A place for him and his cronies to put forth their views unimpeded? I'm on a forum that is about marriage. While there is a lot of debate on various aspects of beliefs of marriage, if they wanted to prevent any non-marriage discussions, that probably wouldn't hurt their participation. Thankfully they allow for off topic threads as well to a point. But the point is that there is a large variety of reasons for these forums to exist, and relaxing the rules is not always conductive towards those goals.

 

[bomberfox]

Give me my damned boots back!

I already chewed them up. Hope you like tattered boots.

 

[bomberfox]

I heart that meme.

 

[bomberfox]

In terms of cornering a market over profit, then certainly and it would not surprise me if such lawsuits were to occur in the near future.

I like this forum because it is the best for respecting speech. Sadly it can’t even begin to approach the audience of say Twitter or YouTube or Facebook. In the absence of criminal prosecution of freedom of expression in the states they act as effective surrogates.

I hope that these platforms start to be boycotted by free speech enthusiasts. All I can do is avoid them myself. I am shocked that Geert Wilders hasn’t been banned in any of these here.

On the other side politically, can you imagine the uproar if any of these were to ban Ilhan Omar or other heroes of the left?

You are not owed a platform period. Glad to help.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Monopolies of what? That is what first has to be determined. And even so, that right of theirs to limit speech on their platforms only does nothing to even de facto limit individual speech. We are still free to go out in the world's and say and print whatever we want. Freedom of speech does not come with a guarantee of platform for said speech.

But in the US you are NOT allowed to say and print whatever you want. For example if your speech is viewed as incitement to violence you may be arrested for this by government entities (the police) and then tried by other government entities (the courts).

The US constitution is often simply ignored by the US government. For example, freedom of assembly is not guaranteed if one chooses to exclude a particular group from say a business or a neighborhood.

The US Constitution also clearly states that neither slavery NOR involuntary servitude shall exist except as punishment for crime but that is flatly ignored as military drafts were common in US history.

So it seems that the US Constitution is cherry picked as it pleases the US government.

 

[maquiscat]

But in the US you are NOT allowed to say and print whatever you want. For example if your speech is viewed as incitement to violence you may be arrested for this by government entities (the police) and then tried by other government entities (the courts).

I think part of the problem here is that you are assuming that rights are unlimited. They are not. They never could be. You cannot use a right of yours to violate another's right. That is why the right of free speech does not extend to libel/slander nor to incitement to cause harm.

The US constitution is often simply ignored by the US government. For example, freedom of assembly is not guaranteed if one chooses to exclude a particular group from say a business or a neighborhood.

The business is a private entity, not a public one. The government cannot stop a group from assembling on private property, but the property owner can. When it comes to public property, as long as that gathering does not violate the rights of others, then again the government is limited. I am not sure where you get the idea of any group being excluded from a given neighborhood.

The US Constitution also clearly states that neither slavery NOR involuntary servitude shall exist except as punishment for crime but that is flatly ignored as military drafts were common in US history.

What section are you referring to? You may be misreading or reading too narrowly. I won't know for sure even if you are correct, unless I have the proper reference.

 

[Sagittarius83]

I think part of the problem here is that you are assuming that rights are unlimited. They are not. They never could be. You cannot use a right of yours to violate another's right. That is why the right of free speech does not extend to libel/slander nor to incitement to cause harm.



The business is a private entity, not a public one. The government cannot stop a group from assembling on private property, but the property owner can. When it comes to public property, as long as that gathering does not violate the rights of others, then again the government is limited. I am not sure where you get the idea of any group being excluded from a given neighborhood.



What section are you referring to? You may be misreading or reading too narrowly. I won't know for sure even if you are correct, unless I have the proper reference.

Libel and slander are torts and dealt with under civil and not criminal law.

Yes the business is private and not public and if anything the right to assemble should be even more protected.

The thirteenth amendment of the US constitution section 1:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

 

[maquiscat]

Libel and slander are torts and dealt with under civil and not criminal law.

They are still limits on free speech, and incitement to harm is still criminal and another legitimate limit to free speech, as it is a violation of the other's rights.

Yes the business is private and not public and if anything the right to assemble should be even more protected.

I do not understand your point here. Are you claiming that the right to assemble should trump private property rights?

The thirteenth amendment of the US constitution section 1:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

It has long been determined that because the Constitution provides the power to raise and support armies, that the draft itself is constitutional, and since those drafted are compensated, such is neither slavery nor servitude. Now that doesn't mean that there won't be a ruling later down the line if the proper arguments can be given to SCOTUS. But since SCOTUS is the authority on what is and isn't constitutional, AND the issue has arisen multiple times since the 13th and the draft was instituted, it is currently constitutional.

 

[Sagittarius83]

They are still limits on free speech, and incitement to harm is still criminal and another legitimate limit to free speech, as it is a violation of the other's rights.



I do not understand your point here. Are you claiming that the right to assemble should trump private property rights?



It has long been determined that because the Constitution provides the power to raise and support armies, that the draft itself is constitutional, and since those drafted are compensated, such is neither slavery nor servitude. Now that doesn't mean that there won't be a ruling later down the line if the proper arguments can be given to SCOTUS. But since SCOTUS is the authority on what is and isn't constitutional, AND the issue has arisen multiple times since the 13th and the draft was instituted, it is currently constitutional.

They are limits to free speech intended to compensate private individuals and not as a government edict as the government has no prosecutorial power. The government acts only as an arbitrator. These are always discretionary court cases.

The US government regularly trumps private property rights when it tells businesses who they can serve and gated communities who they should allow in.

So you agree that the US constitution rights are abrogated in the case of conscription and it is ok because it’s been decided it’s ok before. The US is a nation built on common law and sadly precedent makes a difference and this is an overarching flaw in the US legal system. Maintaining this is hostile to it’s own constitution.

And it appears that you are saying that involuntary servitude is ok if there is financial compensation so it is ok to press people into such service. against their will. Even slaves were given food and housing so they were “compensated” to a degree. Also review the pay of bottom level servicemen and service women. Presumably you would be ok being forced into involuntary service provided you were paid a pittance.

 

[maquiscat]

They are limits to free speech intended to compensate private individuals and not as a government edict as the government has no prosecutorial power. The government acts only as an arbitrator. These are always discretionary court cases.

I am only making the point that the right is limited, not under which parts of law, tort or criminal, those limits fall under.

The US government regularly trumps private property rights when it tells businesses who they can serve and gated communities who they should allow in.

You will have to show how the government is making the decision on who is and isn't allowed in a gated community. I am in agreement that when it comes to private business, discrimination laws are in violation of private property rights and freedom of association rights.

So you agree that the US constitution rights are abrogated in the case of conscription and it is ok because it’s been decided it’s ok before. The US is a nation built on common law and sadly precedent makes a difference and this is an overarching flaw in the US legal system. Maintaining this is hostile to it’s own constitution.

And it appears that you are saying that involuntary servitude is ok if there is financial compensation so it is ok to press people into such service. against their will. Even slaves were given food and housing so they were “compensated” to a degree. Also review the pay of bottom level servicemen and service women. Presumably you would be ok being forced into involuntary service provided you were paid a pittance.

You are conflating and assuming. I have made no argument as to whether or not it is right, only constitutional. When Prohibition was passed, having alcohol illegal was constitutional. That doesn't mean it was right. Furthermore I have not at all stated whether or not I agree with any given SCOTUS decision. But that does not change the fact that unless something is ruled unconstitutional by a court, with SCOTUS having final say, then it is constitutional (on an assumption of legal challenge)

 

[Juks]

Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.

I can also throw you out from my home, if I don't like what you are saying or how you are behaving, freedom of speech or not.

 

[Luce]

They are companies?

I wonder though what would happen if someone who was banned demanded to speak with the manager or if someone pulled a Karen on the company.

Far-right activist Laura Loomer cuffed herself to Twitter's NYC headquarters; police removed her

Twitter banned Loomer a week ago after she tweeted that Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar was anti-Jewish and pro-Sharia law.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Sagittarius83]

You will have to show how the government is making the decision on who is and isn't allowed in a gated community. I am in agreement that when it comes to private business, discrimination laws are in violation of private property rights and freedom of association rights.



You are conflating and assuming. I have made no argument as to whether or not it is right, only constitutional. When Prohibition was passed, having alcohol illegal was constitutional. That doesn't mean it was right. Furthermore I have not at all stated whether or not I agree with any given SCOTUS decision. But that does not change the fact that unless something is ruled unconstitutional by a court, with SCOTUS having final say, then it is constitutional (on an assumption of legal challenge)

I guess we could do this for days.
You are correct that the US constitution is defined by 9 people who are often swept up in the caprice of the moment which is why the death penalty was made unconstitutional for a few years in the 70’s and then the court simply changed it’s mind!?
Cruel and unusual punishment to the founders were things like drawing and quartering not executions in general. Prayer in public schools would never have been an issue and a nationwide income tax would have been unthinkable.
I was a strict constructionist when I was in the states but it seems some elements of the US think it is too hard to amend the constitution so they say it is the spirit of the constitution that matters (whatever that means). I disagreed.
Then there is the issue of the second amendment which is so badly written I think it needs to be revisited. It implies a general right then waffles on a militia which is never defined.
So anyway, you and I seem to be in general agreement but I worry about my remaining friends in the US who are living under an extremely vague period in US legislative history.
And I still think that common law is as dumb as holding onto the imperial system of measurements. Building law on precedent is like building a heavy structure on sand.

 

[axelthefox]

I don't think that is a good comparison. Law enforcement is supposed to be a part of the government. That's not a equal comparison to a private entity.

As to forums and their mods, that is a perfect example of the free market at work. And that is not a claim that the free market should be applied to all things. But if your goal is to serve a niche market, and you can survive, power to you. But if you want to survive then you have to appeal to enough people to keep you afloat.

Think about this. What is the purpose of this forum from the perspective of the owner? (who is the owner? Does anyone know?) Is it simply to provide a place for people to debate in such a way to entertain him/her/them? Is it a revenue source? A place for him and his cronies to put forth their views unimpeded? I'm on a forum that is about marriage. While there is a lot of debate on various aspects of beliefs of marriage, if they wanted to prevent any non-marriage discussions, that probably wouldn't hurt their participation. Thankfully they allow for off topic threads as well to a point. But the point is that there is a large variety of reasons for these forums to exist, and relaxing the rules is not always conductive towards those goals.

I have noticed at times that forums don't apply rules equally.

Like i seen on one admin site that furry content is banned,but yet violent extremist content wasn't removed.

 

[maquiscat]

I have noticed at times that forums don't apply rules equally.

Like i seen on one admin site that furry content is banned,but yet violent extremist content wasn't removed.

That's still on the owner(s). If a mod is not doing what they are supposed to as per what the owner sets down, then it's up to the owner to either deal with it or ignore it. If the owner wants violent extremist content but doesn't want furry content, then that is their right as the owner of the forum. No rights are violated.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.

Sorry, that's just too funny.