There should be free speech on a public forum

[Lambros]

There should be free speech on a public forum

This is a public forum.

Furthermore I notice posts are getting deleted but even more deleted than before, to the point where you dont even see them in your own post history.

[76561198407601200]

Originally posted by Lambros:

There should be free speech on a public forum

This is a public forum.

Furthermore I notice posts are getting deleted but even more deleted than before, to the point where you dont even see them in your own post history. :cryptothink: :winter2019surprisedsnowman:

You do to a degree. If you are wanting more create your own platform to allow this.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by Iron Knights:

NOPE, they do have to Host your BS, otherwise it is against:
1) The 1st Amendment of USA, a country in which they operate.

You're already wrong on your first item...

[JamesF0790]

Originally posted by Iron Knights:

Originally posted by Lambros:

And thats why we have labels.

Loser and scumbags ban. But they dont do me a disservice as my time is better spent being mad and improving myself.

NOPE, they do have to Host your BS, otherwise it is against:
1) The 1st Amendment of USA, a country in which they operate.
2) Against the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
3) UCC 1-308 Code, a contract signed "without prejudice" aka without giving up any rights.
4) Discrimination based on Race, Age, Sex, or CREED is not allowed in USA based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Exception: Individuals interfering with the functionality of the forum, aka spam, porno spam, hacker tools use or worse, like attacks on the server.

Individuals will not be affected, as they have an INFINITE BLOCK LIST, and I will stand by any Corpo. that uses such, the simple text file may even reside on MY PC, as long as it is read and used. So you can customize your forum experience to your liking.

Could you paste the text of the first Amendment here for us?

[bluesky66621]

Originally posted by JamesF0790:

Originally posted by Iron Knights:

NOPE, they do have to Host your BS, otherwise it is against:
1) The 1st Amendment of USA, a country in which they operate.
2) Against the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
3) UCC 1-308 Code, a contract signed "without prejudice" aka without giving up any rights.
4) Discrimination based on Race, Age, Sex, or CREED is not allowed in USA based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Exception: Individuals interfering with the functionality of the forum, aka spam, porno spam, hacker tools use or worse, like attacks on the server.

Individuals will not be affected, as they have an INFINITE BLOCK LIST, and I will stand by any Corpo. that uses such, the simple text file may even reside on MY PC, as long as it is read and used. So you can customize your forum experience to your liking.

Could you paste the text of the first Amendment here for us?

Amendment I
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.

[JamesF0790]

Originally posted by bluesky66621:

Originally posted by JamesF0790:

Could you paste the text of the first Amendment here for us?

Amendment I
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.

Thankyou Bluesky. I wish more people would read the first few words.

[Knee]

Originally posted by JamesF0790:

Originally posted by bluesky66621:

Amendment I
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.

Thankyou Bluesky. I wish more people would read the first few words.

heck, even the first word is enough

[Lambros]

The saying “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins” has been attributed to legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. It emphasizes the pragmatic limitations on liberty, recognizing that individual rights should not infringe upon others’ well-being12. Interestingly, variants of this expression were used by temperance movement lecturers in the late 1800s, advocating for restrictions on alcohol consumption1. Abraham Lincoln also expressed a similar sentiment: “Your rights end where my nose begins” 3. So, it seems the idea has been echoed by various thinkers throughout history.

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by Lambros:

The saying “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins” has been attributed to legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. It emphasizes the pragmatic limitations on liberty, recognizing that individual rights should not infringe upon others’ well-being12. Interestingly, variants of this expression were used by temperance movement lecturers in the late 1800s, advocating for restrictions on alcohol consumption1. Abraham Lincoln also expressed a similar sentiment: “Your rights end where my nose begins” 3. So, it seems the idea has been echoed by various thinkers throughout history.

There's not much point in debating it. Freedom of speech is an anomaly specific to certain cultures and peoples and in a proper multicultural environment like the global internet, nobody is going to agree to it because everyone comes from different experiences. It's a virtue that is understood by few and held by fewer.

Bonus point: The above paragraph also applies to most contracts and agreements.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by JamesF0790:

Originally posted by bluesky66621:

Amendment I
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.

Thankyou Bluesky. I wish more people would read the first few words.

Yep, sadly people think the first ammendment means they can say whatever they want without consequences. There are repercussions to your actions

[KalGimpa]

as i have said before

you will never get away from censorship

it exists in every single place you will ever go in some way, shape or form

if you wnat a truly free for all type of place

you will have to make it and host it

even then, it will be your censorship that people will have to deal with

[Aachen]

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

There's not much point in debating it. Freedom of speech is an anomaly specific to certain cultures and peoples ….

Which do you reference?

…. Bonus point: The above paragraph also applies to most contracts and agreements.

Again, which?

[xBCxRangers]

This a thorny issue. It is true the Constitution does not exempt, anyone, not congress, or business, or anyone from peoples Freedoms of Speech protections.

However in reality, they do.

The question becomes, does an entity, who's very business, or purpose, or item, which is all about speech, have to the Right to inhibit it?

These matters, continually thru our courts here in the states, and the paradigm is shifting.

We in fact had a President, banned from a socio media platform, and that former President, at least atp, likely to be reelected, with a Congress of like, that can certainly alter, change, or end Section 230 provisions, if in fact these companies are not proactive in these speech issues.

But it's a double edged sword. Those same folks, in fact want certain speech or matters, banned, and in certain states of like, trying to do just that.

The only advice i'd give to the OP, is we just have to wait to see what happens politically, and how future lawmakers, likely in the near future will treat these matters.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by MrNewell123:

This a thorny issue. It is true the Constitution does not exempt, anyone, not congress, or business, or anyone from peoples Freedoms of Speech protections.

However in reality, they do.

The question becomes, does an entity, who's very business, or purpose, or item, which is all about speech, have to the Right to inhibit it?

These matters, continually thru our courts here in the states, and the paradigm is shifting.

We in fact had a President, banned from a socio media platform, and that former President, at least atp, likely to be reelected, with a Congress of like, that can certainly alter, change, or end Section 230 provisions, if in fact these companies are not proactive in these speech issues.

But it's a double edged sword. Those same folks, in fact want certain speech or matters, banned, and in certain states of like, trying to do just that.

The only advice i'd give to the OP, is we just have to wait to see what happens politically, and how future lawmakers, likely in the near future will treat these matters.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by MrNewell123:

This a thorny issue

Nope, only a thorny issue if you have no knowledge of what freedom of speech means. It only protects you from the government censoring your speech and even then the government can still sanction your speech for numerous reasons such as inciting violence, nor does it mean you can't be held accountable for the actions or results of your speech if it causes damages aka slander/libel.

A business has the same rights as a person in that they can censor any speech they wish on their platform. You would claim that someone can walk into a star and start describing sex acts in graphic detail which is protected speech under the first amendment (if done in his own home or in the home of someone willing to engage in that kind of talk)

It does not mean the person can engage in any discussion they want about any topic they wish if the private owner of that place wishes to not allow it.

Originally posted by MrNewell123:

y alter, change, or end Section 230 provisions

Once again Rangers you should really read Section 230, if its repealed they would actually censor your speech far more, not less as they would be liable for instance for you posting false information if they host it.

So if you posted false information you'd be banned from using the site.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Originally posted by MrNewell123:

This a thorny issue. It is true the Constitution does not exempt, anyone, not congress, or business, or anyone from peoples Freedoms of Speech protections.

However in reality, they do.

The question becomes, does an entity, who's very business, or purpose, or item, which is all about speech, have to the Right to inhibit it?

These matters, continually thru our courts here in the states, and the paradigm is shifting.

We in fact had a President, banned from a socio media platform, and that former President, at least atp, likely to be reelected, with a Congress of like, that can certainly alter, change, or end Section 230 provisions, if in fact these companies are not proactive in these speech issues.

But it's a double edged sword. Those same folks, in fact want certain speech or matters, banned, and in certain states of like, trying to do just that.

The only advice i'd give to the OP, is we just have to wait to see what happens politically, and how future lawmakers, likely in the near future will treat these matters.

That doesn't make any sense.

Well, you have to read it. This is all a matter, lawmakers are going to make decisions on. And the courts being rubber stamps for whoever is in office, are going to help make those decisions.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution says. That is all out the window. On many issues, not just this.

If lawmakers change or alter laws, to make these social media and gaming companies, or both accountable, that is what they are going to do.