DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'

[Alzrius]

Free speech is about the government not restricting your political speech, which has no relevance to this discussion.

Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so is relevant to this discussion.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from that speech except to prevent the government from imposing consequences on you over it.

"Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.

Is this a problem? Yes it certainly is but it isn't a "free speech" problem, it's a corporate power problem in general. Balancing the right of businesses to sell what they want to sell and not sell what they don't want to sell against potential monopoly power in a space is a difficult needle to thread. I'm normally right in the face against corporate power but this one is such a minor example of it that I just can't get outraged over it. DriveThru isn't even close to being a monopoly yet for one thing.

That's highly arguable. While there's no way to measure it that I'm aware of, I'd say that while pay-for-download role-playing game supplements might be an extremely niche market, there's certainly an argument to be made that OneBookShelf has monopoly power within it, even if they don't have an out-and-out monopoly.

 

[Reynard]

So much for free speech, eh?

::insert Inigo Montoya meme here::

 

[eyeheartawk]

We have our old friend Venger Satanis to blame for this.

Note, the complete lack of surprised pikachu face from anybody by this fact.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"Publishers who make derogatory or defamatory statements..." is not the same as criticism in general. That's your first mistake right there. People are allowed to criticize OBS. I have in the past. Still have all my products. Never got a warning from them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We have our old friend Venger Satanis to blame for this.

Note, the complete lack of surprised pikachu face from anybody by this fact.

Yep. We have people like Venger to thank for tightening the rules for everyone else. Just like we're seeing Hasbro/WotC being forced to defend their IP vigorously because of what LaNasa is doing (when they allowed more freedom when Jayson was in charge of TSR). These jackholes ruin it for everyone.

 

[Jer]

"Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.

I'm sorry but if you go around spouting Nazi propaganda and nobody wants to be around you because of it that isn't "blaming the victim" that's "blaming the Nazi for being a Nazi". Do you really think that if I have an acquaintance who decides to go full-on Nazi I'm obligated to treat them nicely? I certainly don't. Their consequence for spouting Nazi dogma near me is going to at a minimum me saying "get out and don't talk to me again" if not a punch in the face. I also don't purchase products written by Nazis nor would I sell products written by Nazis in my store. I don't call that blaming the victim at all - it's a consequence of being a Nazi.

But to get to your examples - "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" is a violation of free speech and free association if it's done by the government. If it's not done by the government then it's criminal activity. That isn't anywhere near the same as kicking Nazi material off of DriveThru and then banning them if they gin up a Twitter mob against the customer service folks. And equating rape apologist victim blaming nonsense to kicking someone off of DriveThru for ginning up a Twitter mob is so offensive and disgusting to me I'm pretty close to exercising my own right of association and putting you on my blocked list.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence.

Criticism is not Defamation.

 

[Guest 7034872]

One thing I don't come onto these threads to read about is politics.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm sorry but if you go around spouting Nazi propaganda and nobody wants to be around you because of it that isn't "blaming the victim" that's "blaming the Nazi for being a Nazi". Do you really think that if I have an acquaintance who decides to go full-on Nazi I'm obligated to treat them nicely?

It's not a question of "treating them nicely," but rather a question of whether or not it's okay to inflict tangible economic harm on someone because they've expressed an opinion that you find odious, particularly when the entity inflicting said harm has much more economic heft than the person they're punishing.

As much as it might offend conservative and libertarian ideologies, businesses whose degree of influence over the market(s) they cater to – at least once they hit a certain outsized threshold (which can, admittedly, be very hard to delineate) – do (in my opinion) have an obligation to serve the public interest, at least in some regard, rather than only themselves and their stakeholders, which means not being able to cut off access for individuals whom they personally disapprove of.

But to get to your examples - "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" is a violation of free speech and free association if it's done by the government. If it's not done by the government then it's criminal activity. That isn't anywhere near the same as kicking Nazi material off of DriveThru and then banning them if they gin up a Twitter mob against the customer service folks. And equating rape apologist victim blaming nonsense to kicking someone off of DriveThru for ginning up a Twitter mob is so offensive and disgusting to me I'm pretty close to exercising my own right of association and putting you on my blocked list.

As I noted before, the scale might be different, but the underlying reasoning is the same. "They provoked us" is not an excuse for causing harm, at least when the provocation is "said stuff we don't like" (outside of very specific exceptions such as explicit threats of physical violence, gross violations of personal privacy such as doxxing, etc.). That's true regardless of the level of provocation/retaliation involved, or whether or not you find the original statement(s) provocative yourself.

 

[aco175]

Seems like some people are ready for a good 'ol book burning. I'll bring marshmallows but not sure if I can bring pointy sticks.