Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?

Umbran said:

Before you quote rights, make sure you understand them fully.

Click to expand...

Is being condescending civil?

The US "Right to free speech" is a right to not have *government* impinge upon your right to speak. Morrus and the mods, not being government, are not covered. EN World is a private enterprise, and within it, the proprietor can legally restrict speech. This is well-established in legal precedent - many folks have tried lawsuits on this basis, and lost. You'd probably not even get into a court with such an argument today.

Note, especially that you agreed to the terms of service when you created your account. Having entered into that agreement, you lose a lot of your right to gripe about the rules. Don't like it? Post elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I know all this BS. I refere you this case. Not about free speech, but freedom of religion. I find it interesting because and similar since it is a question of rights. Here we have someone who bought a condo, not from guberment, and agreed to the rules of that condominium, still not guberment. Afterwards, he claimed that the rules violated his freedom of religion, it went all the way to the surpeme court and... won. So, this idea that rights exist only to protect you from teh ebil of guberment, yeah not so much.

That was the legal angle. From the moral angle, censorship is a terrible thing, no matter who does it. Obviously, the internet is an extention of the public sphere and freedom of speech should be protected here too from the censorship of guberment, yes, and corporations. As corprations take more and more space in the public sphere, gain more power and influence, they become almost parallel guberments, or at least counter powers. They need to be kept on a short leesh and the public protected from their abuse. It is just the natural evolution of rights and freedoms.

Censorship by a government is usually a bad thing. Within the confines of a private arena, not so much.

Click to expand...

Why the double standard? Why is one bad and one good, why is not always bad. Whether it is the guberment that prevents me from saying Putin is naughty or Facebook, it makes no difference. Both are censorship and both are condemnable.

I sure as heck think it is okay for me to have the right to eject someone from my home if they, say, start verbally abusing my wife. It is technically censorship, but I fail to see how it is "very bad" for me to do so.

Click to expand...

False analogy.

Well, I see the descent into snark has begun.

Let me just note that the issue of civil freedom of speech is subtly different from freedom of religion. Religion is generally deemed to be a "protected class" that can't be discriminated against, not only by the government but also in private accommodation, in much the same way as race or gender. The issue of speech is different, as the supreme court has ruled on a number of cases that it applies to government suppression of political speech, not just anybody's suppression of just any speech.

And the issue remains, in a private forum, the person running the forum has a right to decide the rule of conduct in that forum. If I can't walk into Morrus's living room and begin shouting profanity, I can't do it here. But if I want to stand in the middle of Times Square and decry the evil's of Barack Obama, I am free to do so and the government can't stop me (though, as it turns out, they can shunt me into an ironically named "free speech zone" to do it).

Not about free speech, but freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

Completely different standards- legal apples and legal oranges.

The right to free speech is one that is directed mainly- but not solely- at protecting the rights of speakers against censorship by the government.

The right to freedom of religion is a far broader right, and intersects most areas of federal, state and civic law.

goldomark said:

That would be censorship. A very bad thing, don't you agree?

And maybe I could sue. If this guy could sue for a contract he signed with another non-gubermental entity and won, why not for free speech?

Click to expand...

Just so I'm clear - you don't agree with the conditions you stated you agreed with when you joined my little messageboard?

Morrus said:

Just so I'm clear - you don't agree with the conditions you stated you agreed with when you joined my little messageboard?

Click to expand...

That's not what he is saying, nor is it what the article is implying. Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.

Um, huh?

Homicidal_Squirrel said:

That's not what he is saying, nor is it what the article is implying. Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to censor me?

Morrus said:

Are you trying to censor me?

Click to expand...

I never try anything. I just do it.

Homicidal_Squirrel said:

I never try anything. I just do it.

Click to expand...

/win

trappedslider said:

They aren't so much as trolls as folks who enjoy causing heated discussions over nothing...It's how it went down back over at WoTc's forums.

Click to expand...

What happened on the WotC forums is irrelevant. We don't care. We only care about what they do here.