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.

[mldb88]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

Originalmente postado por Boblin the Goblin:

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.

And that is objectively false as well, Rangers. Lawmakers can’t just “ignore” the constitution. As you’ve been told repeatedly, Freedom of speech applies to government trying to censor or silence the people from speaking out against it. It does not apply to private businesses or platforms like steam no matter how much you try to gloss over the relevant parts.

[Brian9824]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

[
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.

That is false, the courts cannot change the constitution you should read up on how that works. A constitutional amendment to change free speech would require 2/3 support of the states.

Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. All it does is protect the site hosting your posts from being sued over the content of your posts. Without Section 230 sites would moderate far more strictly and you'd have LESS freedom to speak.

Section 230 applies to everything from forums, blogs, and even the email provider you use to send your email. It protects INDIVIDUALS and companies.

Without Section 230 protection for instance you as a person could be sued if you sent someone a news article that someone didn't like and they felt it was slanderous

[Aachen]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

…. 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.

Congress cannot set aside the constitution. Exactly how do you mean it’s gone “out the window?”

[N3tRunn3r]

Steam is a private company with own rule-sets . . .

[xBCxRangers]

Originalmente postado por mldb88:

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

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.

And that is objectively false as well, Rangers. Lawmakers can’t just “ignore” the constitution. As you’ve been told repeatedly, Freedom of speech applies to government trying to censor or silence the people from speaking out against it. It does not apply to private businesses or platforms like steam no matter how much you try to gloss over the relevant parts.

As i said, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. You or others already established, private property, and what they can do on their property.

The internet is governed, by a Law, not a Constitutional anything, created in 1996 to regulate, protect, and govern these online and social media companies.

That Law, not a "Right", is called Section 230. That law, is what has these companies operate, as to what is said on their property, and how they are regulated and therefore, work..

And like we can be sued as to what happens on our property, they cannot, if only because of this very "law".

And laws can be changed, altered, or ommited.

And if that's what our Republican friends want to do, that is what they will do. As our Regulatory Bodies will change as well, based on the picks of those Republicans.

And if Mr Newell sees that he, and his company can be sued, for what is said here, or sold here, or performed here, or whatever the government cites, Mr Newell will be obligated to follow our laws, or be sued.

And so, again, nothing to do with Constitutions, or Freedoms of Speech, but simply laws put in place, that can be changed or otherwise gone.

Have fun

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

Originalmente postado por Boblin the Goblin:

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.

Lawmakers have made decisions. The recent Texas and Florida cases reinforced the standard.

States can't force companies to moderate how the state sees fit.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

Originalmente postado por mldb88:

And that is objectively false as well, Rangers. Lawmakers can’t just “ignore” the constitution. As you’ve been told repeatedly, Freedom of speech applies to government trying to censor or silence the people from speaking out against it. It does not apply to private businesses or platforms like steam no matter how much you try to gloss over the relevant parts.

As i said, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. You or others already established, private property, and what they can do on their property.

The internet is governed, by a Law, not a Constitutional anything, created in 1996 to regulate, protect, and govern these online and social media companies.

That Law, not a "Right", is called Section 230. That law, is what has these companies operate, as to what is said on their property, and how they are regulated and therefore, work..

And like we can be sued as to what happens on our property, they cannot, if only because of this very "law".

And laws can be changed, altered, or ommited.

And if that's what our Republican friends want to do, that is what they will do. As our Regulatory Bodies will change as well, based on the picks of those Republicans.

And if Mr Newell sees that he, and his company can be sued, for what is said here, or sold here, or performed here, or whatever the government cites, Mr Newell will be obligated to follow our laws, or be sued.

And so, again, nothing to do with Constitutions, or Freedoms of Speech, but simply laws put in place, that can be changed or otherwise gone.

Have fun

The Constitution is literally the template for laws.

Why do you think police need a signed warrant before they can enter a home without permission? Hint: the Constitution.

[William Shakesman]

Originalmente postado por N3tRunn3r:

Steam is a private company with own rule-sets . . .

Private companies don't have infinite freedom to make the rules. There is no freedom of association in America and corporations cannot ban whoever they like and they have been forbidden from doing so since at least 1964 and probably earlier if you follow jurisprudence with a bit more rigor.

This doesn't apply to OP's statement, but it is false to assume corporations have no limits.

[Ben Lubar]

Originalmente postado por William Shakesman:

There is no freedom of association in America

Yes there is. If there wasn't, I could go into your house and stay there and you would not be allowed to tell me to leave.

[Brian9824]

Originalmente postado por William Shakesman:

Originalmente postado por N3tRunn3r:

Steam is a private company with own rule-sets . . .

Private companies don't have infinite freedom to make the rules. There is no freedom of association in America and corporations cannot ban whoever they like and they have been forbidden from doing so since at least 1964 and probably earlier if you follow jurisprudence with a bit more rigor.

This doesn't apply to OP's statement, but it is false to assume corporations have no limits.

That is false, a business is free to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as its not for discriminatory means. So if your not following the rules they can ban you.

What they can't do for instance is ban you for being Jewish.

I suggest you read up on the actual laws before spreading false information
https://www.craftlegal.com/2024/01/24/when-can-a-business-legally-refuse-service/

[xBCxRangers]

Originalmente postado por Boblin the Goblin:

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

As i said, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. You or others already established, private property, and what they can do on their property.

The internet is governed, by a Law, not a Constitutional anything, created in 1996 to regulate, protect, and govern these online and social media companies.

That Law, not a "Right", is called Section 230. That law, is what has these companies operate, as to what is said on their property, and how they are regulated and therefore, work..

And like we can be sued as to what happens on our property, they cannot, if only because of this very "law".

And laws can be changed, altered, or ommited.

And if that's what our Republican friends want to do, that is what they will do. As our Regulatory Bodies will change as well, based on the picks of those Republicans.

And if Mr Newell sees that he, and his company can be sued, for what is said here, or sold here, or performed here, or whatever the government cites, Mr Newell will be obligated to follow our laws, or be sued.

And so, again, nothing to do with Constitutions, or Freedoms of Speech, but simply laws put in place, that can be changed or otherwise gone.

Have fun

The Constitution is literally the template for laws.

Why do you think police need a signed warrant before they can enter a home without permission? Hint: the Constitution.

That's the very point. When it comes to "private property", there are laws we all have to follow. We are "responsible" for what happens on our property.

These online companies, are not.

And as we seen in the Alex Jones and other matters, those companies shielded as to what was said, or broadcast on their platforms.

We do not have such protections. They do.

And those protections can very easily go away.

And if Mr Gaetz, or Mr Cruz, or Ms Warren, and many others get their way, poof, goodbye law, and then Mr Newell, and/or his company will be responsible, sued, for what is said here, or what is sold etc, depending on what those Lawmaker want to pass.

And so we talk a lot about how we have to be responsible stewards of or properties, so will they.

Will that create more free speech?

Likely not in my opinion, being many will just not have these chat spaces, being they don't want to be responsible for them.

But the way others may see it, if they can't have their speech, no one else should. And that's likely where all of this is going to go, if politics go the way they are going.

And so i hope i cleared this up. I have other matters. Thanks for the conversation.

[Aachen]

Originalmente postado por William Shakesman:

Private companies don't have infinite freedom to make the rules. There is no freedom of association in America and corporations cannot ban whoever they like and they have been forbidden from doing so since at least 1964 and probably earlier if you follow jurisprudence with a bit more rigor ….

Do you mean to imply any limitation on a right entirely erases it from existence?

[Brian9824]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

That's the very point. When it comes to "private property", there are laws we all have to follow. We are "responsible" for what happens on our property.

These online companies, are not.

And as we seen in the Alex Jones and other matters, those companies shielded as to what was said, or broadcast on their platforms.

Once again you seem to be mistaken. Alex Jones company was not in any way found liable. Alex Jones himself as an individual was.

That is because while he had a first amendment right to say the things he did, that doesn't mean he can't be held liable for what he said.

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

We do not have such protections. They do.

That is false once again, Section 230 applies to individuals AND companies equally.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230#

For more than 25 years, Section 230 has protected us all: small blogs and websites, big platforms, and individual users.

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

And those protections can very easily go away.

Section 230 could indeed go away, but if it did moderation would INCREASE not decrease as you so often falsely claim.

However it could also just as easily be expanded upon to give businesses even more protection, hence why your what if claims mean nothing until laws actually pass. D&D COULD have been made illegal, and congress held hearings on it, but no laws were passed. You can claim ANYTHING can happen as justification, but until it happens you can't use it to justify claims.

[Haruspex]

Originalmente postado por Lambros:

my time is better spent being mad and improving myself.

I guess you can add convincing yourself that you are a victim and whining about it on the Internet to that list. Something to do between rage-sessions and the gym I guess.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originalmente postado por MrNewell123:

Originalmente postado por Boblin the Goblin:

The Constitution is literally the template for laws.

Why do you think police need a signed warrant before they can enter a home without permission? Hint: the Constitution.

That's the very point. When it comes to "private property", there are laws we all have to follow. We are "responsible" for what happens on our property.

These online companies, are not.

And as we seen in the Alex Jones and other matters, those companies shielded as to what was said, or broadcast on their platforms.

We do not have such protections. They do.

And those protections can very easily go away.

And if Mr Gaetz, or Mr Cruz, or Ms Warren, and many others get their way, poof, goodbye law, and then Mr Newell, and/or his company will be responsible, sued, for what is said here, or what is sold etc, depending on what those Lawmaker want to pass.

And so we talk a lot about how we have to be responsible stewards of or properties, so will they.

Will that create more free speech?

Likely not in my opinion, being many will just not have these chat spaces, being they don't want to be responsible for them.

But the way others may see it, if they can't have their speech, no one else should. And that's likely where all of this is going to go, if politics go the way they are going.

And so i hope i cleared this up. I have other matters. Thanks for the conversation.

Not really.

A home-owner isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves on their property while chopping vegetables.

A restaurant isn't responsible for a patron spilling a drink on their food an ruining it.

Nothing you said is true.