water cooler :: What happened to "Freedom of Speech"



Quote (crusadingknight @ Sep. 22 2006,13:43)
Quote (AwPhuch @ Sep. 21 2006,10:58)
Freedom of speech only if you say what they want to hear

Actually, that's advocating hypocrisy, not freedom of speech. Following that, you defame Mexican government (which is an opinion), and the Mexican people (which is racism). Freedom comes with responsibility to be civil, express things in a civil manner, and especially not to troll in an inflammatory manner. They haven't violated any of your rights any more than a newspaper which didn't publish a letter from you would.

OK...where did I deflame Mexican people?
Quote
Freedom comes with responsibility to be civil, express things in a civil manner, and especially not to troll in an inflammatory manner.


Mmm.  Though you might believe in that personally as a sensible principle, it's actually arguable, especially in the US, where as I understand it the legal test of freedom of speech has been the "clear and present danger" test  - eg shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre creates a clear and present danger by causing panic and hence possible harm, therefore is not protected by the US Constitution.  The key point, as Humpty suggested, is whether or not the moderator and web site have any responsibility to publish and/or support the views of a poster.  If it's a private forum, then they probably do not (eg what do the conditions of membership say?).  People are free to censor their own publications (it's called editing).  If you write a letter to a newspaper you'll find they usually trim it down.  People are also free to disagree with you.  What's obnoxious is when the government restricts this freedom via regulatory means or otherwise prevents debate.

What Brian is free to do is find a different forum to vent his views where these are more welcome, and I don't see why he can't do so.  He's doing it here, for example.   So he is not being deprived of the capacity to air his views, hence I don't know that this is really a matter of "freedom of speech" or censorship at all.  What we have to all watch out for are the current shifts internationally towards real control of the internet.  There lies the possibility for genuine restriction of freedom of expression  ...

In the UK/EU the current situation is different - they have hate crime legislation (not sure what you have in the US?), which I am of two minds about, and at least one member country has a quite bizarre (I think dangerous) law about "offending" or ridiculing their nationality.

BTW Brian, I must be lacking in imagination lately - I've never once associated the handle "AwPhuch" with copulation. I did think it might have been something to do with "Aw, puke", but thought this unimportant.  My handle, as I recently discovered, is quite coincidentally the same name as an old MacIntosh virus, some Windows program, some "family" radio station, and probably many other things, none of which have anything to do with me whatsoever.
Opinions aside, website forum managers legally have the right to delete anything on their own website.  It isn't a question of free speech because the discourse is taking place in a privately held website.

I've been on both sides of the censor issue over the years and its no fun at either place.  AwPhuch, I wouldn't waist to much energy on it, just post at places where your opinion is more respected.  Vote with your eyes and mouse clicks.
Censorship, by definition, is deleting, blocking, or editing what someone says due to offensive content. Offensive, of course, from the perspective of whoever is doing the editing. So, what that board did is censorship. But, as John mentioned, it is not illegal to censor your own website.

You negatively referenced Mexicans coming up to America to commit crimes. However you intended it, or whatever facts you may have to back up your judgment, negatively referring to a broad group of people is often considered racist.

I didn't see anything in that post that warrants banning or deleting or even closing the post. It seems excessive to me. I hate it when that happens too.

For what it's worth, Dog is a Bail Bondsman. He helps unconvicted scumbags stay out on the street during their trial. If they don't go back for their trial, he doesn't get back the money that he loaned.

original here.