The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on July 07, 2008, 06:22:53 AM
-
'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights
NEW YORK (AP) - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services - from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video - become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.
MUCH MORE (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91OGQ680.html)
:popcorn:
-
This should come as no surprise to anyone, but...
I you want unfettered Free Speech on the internets, start your own ISP. There is a reason Yahoo and others have a thing called "Terms of Service." Those are... wait for it... the TERMS OF SERVICE.
You agree to those terms and that includes policing of content.
This isn't a free speech issue for Yahoo any more than it is for CC. The owners have the right to manage their services as they see fit and how the users AGREE.
-
Yep, makes perfect sense! I'm with you, free! I read about this yesterday sometime and was thinking 'duh'.
-
This should come as no surprise to anyone, but...
I you want unfettered Free Speech on the internets, start your own ISP. There is a reason Yahoo and others have a thing called "Terms of Service." Those are... wait for it... the TERMS OF SERVICE.
You agree to those terms and that includes policing of content.
This isn't a free speech issue for Yahoo any more than it is for CC. The owners have the right to manage their services as they see fit and how the users AGREE.
Ditto and H5!
-
It isn't a "free speech" issue, and these journalists know it. Stories like these are written to stir the halted imagination of half-wits. There has been a concerted effort going on to misdefine "free speech" for some time now. It is all about planting wrongheaded ideas into lazy brains. It is a popular leftist pasttime during a Republican administration.
-
It isn't a "free speech" issue, and these journalists know it. Stories like these are written to stir the halted imagination of half-wits. There has been a concerted effort going on to misdefine "free speech" for some time now. It is all about planting wrongheaded ideas into lazy brains. It is a popular leftist pasttime during a Republican administration.
At the risk of Thread Drift, did you catch the 1st page of USA Today? "Gains In Iraq may lead to pullouts"
Good news for the USA is the worst possible news for the MSM and the democrats.
-
I frequent another forum dedicated to my profession. A member there was banned after repeated warnings for getting out of line. The admin over there is extremely lenient and the member had been a pain in the a$$ for months. After he was banned there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth...mostly regarding the 1st Amendment. There were even calls for a lawsuit because the site owner had violated his civil rights. :whatever:
I did attempt to explain the basics of the 1st Amendment, but ..... "pearls before the swine".... :whatever:
-
I frequent another forum dedicated to my profession. A member there was banned after repeated warnings for getting out of line. The admin over there is extremely lenient and the member had been a pain in the a$$ for months. After he was banned there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth...mostly regarding the 1st Amendment. There were even calls for a lawsuit because the site owner had violated his civil rights. :whatever:
I did attempt to explain the basics of the 1st Amendment, but ..... "pearls before the swine".... :whatever:
Hmm, I'm thinkin' only the gubamint can violate our free speech rights. I can kick anyone I want out of my house for BDS and it's not a civil rights violation because I own the property, thus I make the rules.
Also, I think too many people believe that freedom of speech means people have to listen. "My voice isn't being heard" is a common complaint yet there is no Constitutional guarantee that anyone will listen.
-
I believe that, in the article, they even went so far to say that the 1st Amendment rights only applied to "public places". There is NO internet site that is truly "public". Too bad the chicken little syndrome keeps living....