Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado una publicación como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Those articles do not dictate how a private company functions.
Otherwise, every social media would've been banned from any country within the UN.
The UN has no business on a private forum.
Try again.
Aspirationally, or with force of law?
No freedom of opinion and expression does not mean there aren't consequences. Everything has consequences. But banning Humans for expressing themselves is in fact illegal. What the UDHR literally states is that you are free to express yourself without interference. What that means is that the line is drawn at the point of inciting violence for example. Because in that case you aren't simply expressing yourself anymore; you are also calling on people to take action - which isn't covered in this article. On top of that, action that goes against other articles in the UDHR as well.
Dude? THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE FORUMS.
Good grief.
Governments locking you up in a cell for expressing your opinion, that's illegal. A company booting you from a forum is not.
Well, partially they do. As a free Human Being you can not simply enter someones private property. But if it is a professional service, space or company you do have the right to enter and use it and to negotiate on whatever is going on. And private company or not, you never have to give up your basic rights. Nothing excuses them from violating basic Human Rights.
That private company has a right to remove you from the property for breaking their rules. A store owner doesn't have to allow a disruptive customer stay on the property. A forum doesn't have to allow a disruptive user to continue to post.
That doesn't make sense. If everyone decides to ban you because they don't want to hear what you have to say, then can you express yourself?
People are interfering with your right to express yourself because pretty soon there aren't going to be any places left to express yourself...
At the end of the day, Censorship and a limit on Tolerance is absolutely necessary in order for a civilized society to exist. A "Free Society" does not mean or imply the freedom to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants to do it, wherever one wants to do it. There are still rules that should be followed, even in a public arena. Those who continually show the inability to act like a mature, productive member of society will be shown the door. And that has been, and always will remain, perfectly acceptable in a free society.
Censorship does exist in a Free Society in many forms, and is in fact necessary for that society thrive. The same for us as individuals.
Grown mature adults practice self-censorship all the time. We practice censorship within our family units. We as a society create rules, laws, and regulations all the time that either enforce censorship or support the ability for an entity to practice it.
A completely 100% free society actually cannot sustain itself. In order to thrive, a free society must put limits on that freedom, which includes censorship, and other rules. The rules aren't there to be suffered, they are there to ensure that chaos doesn't take hold as no society can actually survive chaos. Not to get to metaphysical, but we live in a chaotic universe, but even the universe has rules that it follows to prevent that chaos from tearing it apart. It's the Paradox of Tolerance. You can't have absolute Tolerance in a society, even a Tolerant society must engage in some form of Intolerance if it is to survive. Otherwise those who are of an anti-societal mindset would tear down that society and anarchy would ensue. So, ultimately, to be Tolerant is to ensure that those who value society over the Pure Self, and contribute to improving that society by being empathic to all members of that society, are welcomed. Those that value the Self above all else, at the expense of that society and the empathy for others cannot be tolerated, and by necessity are removed from that society, and every member of the UN understands that full well.
Me throwing you out of the house isn't interfering with your freedom of expression. You don't have a freedom of expression on my property to begin with.
As said, freedom of expression does not imply freedom of consequence. Private businesses, house owners, building owners, etc are allowed to show you the door.
The UN parts you quoted are meant with regards to authorities like governments, police, etc. They're not allowed to jail you for expressing simply your opinion in a decent way (ergo not breaking laws).
Period.
End of debate