Freedom of Speech a debate.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: intrepid
The owners of ATS are far more lenient than any I've come across. I personally wouldn't have allowed a few complainers to muddy up the board this long. This is JMO

I fail to see why suggesting fairness should deserve such a response?

Thats pretty subjective though dont you think? What you deem fair, may not be so the the person who may feel slighted against.......

Hence the need for mods who try as best they can to be neutral parties to the situation

The issue is that many people have different opinions on what they BELIEVE is freedom of speech.....and what they BELIEVE is a violation there of.......

I can believe a lot of things, it doesnt make it true

There is actually no need for human mods. Human mods are themselves subjective.

There are algorithms that simply won't let you type certain words. This is one of the reason for the terrible spelling of words you know every person knows how to spell.


There's objectivity for you!


a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
There is actually no need for human mods. Human mods are themselves subjective.

I don't agree with you at all.

I 100% support human mods and would not join a site that didn't have them. (I have been on unmonitored sites).

Yes, human's are subjective, but the mods here do a damn good job of being fair.

I've been "chatting" since ICQ. I've had plenty of experience with bias mods.

I get what you are saying OP. And your argument would hold weight. If it was not for one simple little fact. You and all of us, specifically agreed to the T&Cs when we joined. We could not of joined if we did not. We willingly gave away any rights of freedom of speech, the countries we reside in, or any gods if we our religious, have given us. It goes beyond my house my rules. We agreed to a legally binding agreement when we entered this house.

The issue at hand wasn't is this site better than nothing. The issue as I saw it was pointing out the we can take the time to reread or even editing our own posts to keep things more level headed.

You can give your control to others or you can take control for yourself.


a reply to: Annee

Honestly, I don't get it, I specifically said that this thread shouldn't talk about this website and its policy. Its in BOLD letters, yet almost every post is talking about ATS.

I was talking generally, not this website, any website, private owned company. And I emphasized on the difference between the right to have and the privilege.


Not sure what has happened but this thread ended up as the opposite of what I intended.

a reply to: MessageforAll

Well fine, your answer is that as long as you agree to give it up, then yes your right is now a privilege.
I haven't been to a site in a while that you don't have to agree to some sort of agreement before posting,. And I doubt there are many that just let you freely say what ever you want

originally posted by: MessageforAll
Honestly, I don't get it, I specifically said that this thread shouldn't talk about this website and its policy. Its in BOLD letters, yet almost every post is talking about ATS.

I was talking generally, not this website, any website, private owned company. And I emphasized on the difference between the right to have and the privilege.


Not sure what has happened but this thread ended up as the opposite of what I intended.

You may not want us to talk about ATS. But this is clearly about ATS as it evolved out of a thread on ATS. That thread evolved out of a series of threads on ATS all saying the same things in different ways. However this is your thread so I will respect you and your request.

As to free speech being only for Americans. That is false. It is up to the laws in whatever country you reside in. If you are religious and you believe your god gave you the rights of free speech. It is up to you to decide how to adapt the laws of your god and religion with the laws of your country. If you believe free speech is a right given to you just by being born human. Again its up to you to adapt that belief into the laws of the country you live in. As most countries have laws that govern free speech.

Most privately owned website have some sort of terms and conditions you have to agree too before joining. Just change what I said earlier from ATS, to any privately owned site you want. My point still stands. You have to willingly agree to any websites terms and conditions. By agreeing to said terms and conditions of any website you give up your right to free speech provided by your country or god or being born human. It is not about privilege and right when talking about willfully agreeing to something. It is about you agreeing to a legally binding agreement.

originally posted by: karmicecstasy


You may not want us to talk about ATS. But this is clearly about ATS as it evolved out of a thread on ATS. That thread evolved out of a series of threads on ATS all saying the same things in different ways. However this is your thread so I will respect you and your request.

Just one more thing the thread I was referring to was this one -> www.abovetopsecret.com...

When you look at what some posters replied, various interpretations from the subject, this is why I wanted to make the thread.
IT wasn't meant to start a debate over ATS policy. Just about how people see what they call freedom of speech and when/where it applies

Btw ty for replying.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
The issue at hand wasn't is this site better than nothing.

a reply to: Annee

I never said anything like that.

a reply to: MessageforAll

I know, I read that whole thread this is based on. Your thread was based on that thread. That thread was about the policy of ATS. I do get what you are saying though. Which is why I responded again on the topic you want your thread to be. I try to always respect every poster.

a reply to: Annee
That's how I perceived your message. What were you attempting to convey?

The Op has asked about the freedom of speech, the restriction of on a website such as ATS and why is it that the USA tends to be the one that everyone points to when it comes to such. To that end the following can be stated:

On a website like ATS, they have the right to restrict and constrain speech or ideas that are put out. As it is not a publicly traded company as far as any one knows, and in itself is monitored to keep things civil. And thus it has the right to restrict and or censor some things that get too offensive.

The reason why the USA is often referenced when it comes to the freedom of speech is that in the United States of America, there is very few restrictions on speech itself, where you will find in many parts of the world, there are far greater restraints and restriction on speech to the point where a person could get in trouble for saying the wrong thing, and end up in jail.

Point in case on this, and several comes to mind, would be most Islamic countries, it is against the law to speak out against Islam, and a person could end up in prison for such. In Russia, speaking against Putin or the government could get you fined and imprisoned for years, like Pussy Riot. In Italy, while it is a free country, however there is a comic that got into trouble for making fun of the Pope. In England, speaking anything that is deemed offensive is a punishable offense. South Africa, you may not speak to advocate for war, or make hate speech against race or religion, or gender.
In some Asian countries, blogging is at the will of the government, anything that the government does not like it shuts down the internet. Japan has the freedom of speech much like the USA. And that came about after the reformation of the government following the end of WWII.

In Germany, questioning say the Holocaust is a punishable offense. And the list goes on and on.

So the most recognized country with the least restriction on speech is the USA. Where the only speech that is really barred is that which fails the obscenity test, or defamation, or incitement to riot or lawless action, or violence.

The way I see it is similar to when you're in a pub. The publican can throw someone out for no reason if he wants to as you're on his private property. I'm sure the same applies with websites, as they also have rights as to what gets displayed on their website. I don't think the Constitution (or Human Rights Act in UK) has any relevance unless perhaps you're making your own website.

Man behind the Mask said: Take North Korea for instance........
I can say what I want about Kim here in the US and most parts of the world........
If I did that there in NK, id be looking at death or a work camp.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now if Kim had the long arm that Israel has in Germany in Canada.....He would put you in Jail.

Can you see why this is so wrong? I can.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
The Bible thumpers are working diligently to change this.

a reply to: Iamthatbish
Yes, but in the USA, the way the laws work, the moment that a law goes into effect, it means that it affects all. So while the bible thumpers may change the law to suit them, often many people find that such quickly gets turned around on them fast. Take prohibition. It was a noble cause, ban the sale and consumption of alcohol in the USA, only to find out that it was a bad idea in the first place and caused more problems than it was worth.

Prohibition was a great example. It cost people time, money and lives fighting that law. Revocation was not swift either.



a reply to: sdcigarpig

NVM.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

So the most recognized country with the least restriction on speech is the USA. Where the only speech that is really barred is that which fails the obscenity test, or defamation, or incitement to riot or lawless action, or violence.

I agree with your whole post.

But, I think Finland might have the most internet freedoms.

Maybe in part to Linus Torvalds and open source.