Stop censorship

[iangaming]

Stop censoring our games and our voices there is no such thing as hate speech hate speech doesn't violated the first amendment of the United States of America

[Crashed]

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Tito Shivan:

You can show the door to whoever don't want in your property or business.

Ask any pub onwer.

That is untrue. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has made it very clear that people CANNOT show the door to WHOEVER they want from their business. There are hard limits to that, and it's never been an American value that companies can do that freely.

Not that the gentleman you are arguing with has a better understanding of the matter, but this is a common mistake people make about business rights because civic education is very lousy these days.

Civil Rights Act only says one cannot ban someone solely for a discriminatory reason. Doesn't say you can't ban someone for their conduct.

[Haruspex]

You can spout off all the hateful crap you want in the US without getting arrested and charged, but you aren't owed a platform to do it. You aren't the only one with rights, and your rights end where others' begin. Steam and other private entities also have the right to ban your ass.

[William Shakesman]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Crashed:

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

That is untrue. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has made it very clear that people CANNOT show the door to WHOEVER they want from their business. There are hard limits to that, and it's never been an American value that companies can do that freely.

Not that the gentleman you are arguing with has a better understanding of the matter, but this is a common mistake people make about business rights because civic education is very lousy these days.

Civil Rights Act only says one cannot ban someone solely for a discriminatory reason. Doesn't say you can't ban someone for their conduct.

Technically true but the courts have held that banning for certain conducts constitutes a disparate impact against protected groups that then is functionally identical to a ban that would constitute a violation of the same act.

The principle point is that companies do NOT have absolute right to kick people out and have not had that right longer than anyone posting here has been alive. There are limitations that can always be expanded through further acts, and have been through the last decades, and the amount of marginalized groups subject to disparate impacts expand these days almost as fast as the laws. In fact, often 1-to-1 with the new laws.

[Crashed]

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Crashed:

Civil Rights Act only says one cannot ban someone solely for a discriminatory reason. Doesn't say you can't ban someone for their conduct.

Technically true but the courts have held that banning for certain conducts constitutes a disparate impact against protected groups that then is functionally identical to a ban that would constitute a violation of the same act.

The principle point is that companies do NOT have absolute right to kick people out and have not had that right longer than anyone posting here has been alive. There are limitations that can always be expanded through further acts, and have been through the last decades, and the amount of marginalized groups subject to disparate impacts expand these days almost as fast as the laws. In fact, often 1-to-1 with the new laws.

Political parties are not a protected group outside of elections. Demanding the allowance of hate speech could mean forcing them to discriminate against actual protected groups.

[Tito Shivan]

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

That is untrue. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has made it very clear that people CANNOT show the door to WHOEVER they want from their business. There are hard limits to that, and it's never been an American value that companies can do that freely.

You know we weren't discussing about such extremes.

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kiler_best1235_Denmark:

Correct, I live in Denmark, the oldest country in the world.

Oh boy do you have yourselves in high esteem.

[William Shakesman]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Tito Shivan:

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

That is untrue. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has made it very clear that people CANNOT show the door to WHOEVER they want from their business. There are hard limits to that, and it's never been an American value that companies can do that freely.

You know we weren't discussing about such extremes.

True, but it's the same sort of thing as "You have freedom of speech, EXCEPT..." It's a fairly big exception. Corporations do not have freedom of association any more than they are subject to the first amendment. America is not a country where they can claim that right. And that's a good thing. A lot of people fought for that. It's not a good thing to let people forget those lessons and that history by letting our word choice get sloppy.

[Crashed]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kiler_best1235_Denmark:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Tito Shivan:

Oh boy do you have yourselves in high esteem.

Oh I didn't see you there. Sorry my late response.

I see simple facts and truth hurts your feelings. I can just suggest you close your eyes.

Lying isn't the truth.

[Malfunctioning Robot]

Denmark isn't even the oldest country in Europe, let alone the world... lmao

[Brian9824]

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

The principle point is that companies do NOT have absolute right to kick people out and have not had that right longer than anyone posting here has been alive. There are limitations that can always be expanded through further acts, and have been through the last decades, and the amount of marginalized groups subject to disparate impacts expand these days almost as fast as the laws. In fact, often 1-to-1 with the new laws.

The only limitations is they cannot ban people based on race, religion, etc. Which is a non factor on the boards. There are no limitations for banning people for violating the rules whether they are part of a "protected" group or not.

You keep trying to compare steam banning people for breaking the rules, to a business say banning ♥♥♥ people. The two are not the same thing. A business for instance would be free to ban any number of people ♥♥♥ or straight who refuse to follow their rules.

Diposting pertama kali oleh William Shakesman:

True, but it's the same sort of thing as "You have freedom of speech, EXCEPT..." It's a fairly big exception.

It's not remotely the same thing. Corporations are free to ban anyone for breaking their rules. There is a hundred+ years of court rulings that side with them. No one is claiming Steam is banning only hispanic people, or jewish people, etc which would be against the rules.

Rulebreakers are not a protected class of users.

[Crashed]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Malfunctioning Robot:

Denmark isn't even the oldest country in Europe, let alone the world... lmao

And Denmark is also subject to EU law.

[CANCELCULTURE]

Section 230 shields websites, USA companies from the liability for certain online content created by their users. Including hate speech. (that may also be the reason UGC game ♥♥♥♥ content is here now behind filters, but games hubs not available for Germany?)

Some courts continue to identify exceptions to the Section 230 liability shield. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.

I hate VALVE.

Steam are allowed to create their own rules that are not laws, and that's fine, they even say don't violate applicable laws, but at times they seem not too diligent at removing illegal content. Fake reviews, threats, harassment, copyright infringements, ♥♥♥, phishing cyber crime, etc.

I see people here are banned imo not for breaking laws, but for petty rules, written by a company. Whereas other user report them, sometimes falsely or unjustly because, reports are based on user reports, not Valve actually policing UGC themselves.


I see Valve partners Akami net Acceptable Use Policy being broken by both Valve and it's users tbh. but that's another topic, of who is violating who's rules, not laws, censorship, Section 230, and 1st Amendment, and who is reporting.

[JamesF0790]

Diposting pertama kali oleh The First Amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

That is the protection of the US's first Amendment. That is it. It does not say that private companies can not have additional restrictions on top in their private spaces. It does not violate the law to have restrictions on what can be said as they are not congress and are not making a law.

[Crashed]

Diposting pertama kali oleh JamesF0790:

Diposting pertama kali oleh The First Amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

That is the protection of the US's first Amendment. That is it. It does not say that private companies can not have additional restrictions on top in their private spaces. It does not violate the law to have restrictions on what can be said as they are not congress and are not making a law.

Exactly; it's a restriction on Congress not on private property.

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Op probably thinks yelling fire in a crowded movie theater should be protected under free speech.

[Crashed]

Sexually harassing me on my profile is not going to help your case.

Diposting pertama kali oleh SnakeFist:

Op probably thinks yelling fire in a crowded movie theater should be protected under free speech.

This too.