It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights


news.yahoo.com

NEW YORK - 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.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
This is a debate that would become of greater importance as the internet become more and more available in other developing countries and content becomes more scrutinized.

People go crazy if "you tube" or any other site decides to remove offensive content I cant imagine how it will be in the next 15 or 20 years.

This is another example for people that think that they can said whatever they want, that thats really not the case.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Interesting article, I wonder how this applies here at abovetopsecret?

I read the terms and conditions, yet I wonder just how far one could really go before crossing boundaries that would cause some sort of censorship.

The difference between the public park and most of the internet is that places where people can express themselves online are usually privately owned, has rules and often tries to keep expression within a topical theme... I suppose you can say what you want online as long as the site owners and staff approve.

Freedom of speech applies only to those who follow the rules and have learned to express themselves within the boundaries those in control have set and only what is deemed acceptable will be tolerated.

In reality in a "free" society it is much the same.

Try shouting "fire" in a theater, or "bomb" on a plane sometime.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
people are way to soft these days, you would think with all we've been exposed to that we would have half a mind to know that if something offendes someone its not grounds for banning it,aside from racist threats and in-humane acts. i'm tired of soccer moms getting their panties in a knot over some little nonsence on tv or youtube, like life is so peachy clean and perfect in reality, come on now. we all fart, we all curse, we all have sex, a lot of it considering the rise in porn consumtion since the economic stimulus, we all become violent in one way or another, and we all have something we believe in. words should always be free. until they actually start charging us per word we speak i say fart on you all with my fat ass.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
This is very true. It is put into practice right here on ATS. On ATS there are tons of rules on what you can and cant say. Very sad.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bakednutz
 


ATS like many of these "public" are businesses that need to define that line between what context is appropiate and which one is not. Thats why it gets on my nerves when people cry foul when a website removes some content from its website.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I've never seen ATS remove anything because it was "provacative" in a political type sense. Most of what I have seen removed has really been based upon their desire to keep the site as "family friendly" as possible, of course to increase their traffic and revenues.

I did see a thread closed today, by a member trying to recruit for the overthrow of the US government, but I can see why they would shut that down for two reasons. First, it violates the T&C regarding any sort of recruitment activity here. And secondly, calling for the overthrow of the government is indeed treason, which is punishable by death during time of war. I can see why ATS wouldn't want to mess with that can of worms.

[edit on 7/6/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012

Try shouting "fire" in a theater, or "bomb" on a plane sometime.



Or "Free Drugs" at a house party or even "He's got a gun!" At a political rally.

There's a reason why you're not supposed to say certain things in society.

People can't help but knee-jerk.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by bakednutz
 


ATS like many of these "public" are businesses that need to define that line between what context is appropiate and which one is not. Thats why it gets on my nerves when people cry foul when a website removes some content from its website.



Well I will agree that some threads and/or posts could get out of control if there were not guide lines I still do not think they need to police them like some crazed nazi. What you would be seeing if there were none of these rules in place would be the real world and free speech at its best and I would love to see it. You cannot even mention any drug by name without it being moved to the RATS forum which is ridiculous. A lot of people on here hate big government and get angered anytime the gov. decides to censor something or prevent what might be considered free speech in the real world but when someone is censored on ATS they just dont care and point to the rule book.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bakednutz
I still do not think they need to police them like some crazed nazi.


Okay, but what if some crazed nazi group started to police the internet for people who are consistently attacking facism?



[edit on 6-7-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 

I dont think you understand. I do not want to see any censoring of the internet. It is a direct violation of the first amendment.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bakednutz
 


Don't we all practice some form of self censorship? Civilization itself is censorship. A mastadon can crap where it pleases, and who cares? Not the mastadon, that's for sure. But being civilized, we chose not to make a public act of it. That's self censoring, so as not to offend other people.

Now the question is, where do you want to crap? How civilized are you?

Sometimes the rules say no crapping here. It's only civil-ized to then not crap where it's agreed to be prohibited. And you did agree to the rules when joining.

I find it pretty simple.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
So you're more than willing to let a bunch of naive teenagers run about willy-nilly with their half-baked ideas on how to solve the woes of society while mocking and attacking the people who disagree?

You're exchanging one bad thing for another, bakednutz.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFreeBird
reply to post by bakednutz
 


Don't we all practice some form of self censorship? Civilization itself is censorship. A mastadon can crap where it pleases, and who cares? Not the mastadon, that's for sure. But being civilized, we chose not to make a public act of it. That's self censoring, so as not to offend other people.

Now the question is, where do you want to crap? How civilized are you?

Sometimes the rules say no crapping here. It's only civil-ized to then not crap where it's agreed to be prohibited. And you did agree to the rules when joining.

I find it pretty simple.



You could say civilization is censorship but only if you choose it. You are still free to say what you want even under your "civilian censorship." I hate hearing about offending other people, who cares, get over it.
While I choose to be civil that does not mean everyone else has to follow suit. If you wanted to rant about something I thought was inappropriate who am I to tell you your wrong?

And you are correct I did agree to the rules when joining. Did I have a choice if I wanted to participate here on ATS? NO.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
So you're more than willing to let a bunch of naive teenagers run about willy-nilly with their half-baked ideas on how to solve the woes of society while mocking and attacking the people who disagree?

You're exchanging one bad thing for another, bakednutz.


Well if you dont like what they have to say, dont read it. You are not required to reply to these naive teenagers or pay any attention at all and if someone were that sensitive to criticism from someone they dont even know they should not be using the internet, or anything for that matter, and just stay home. Someone will always find the most innocent things offensive.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bakednutz
 


Then you chose participation over complete and utter freedom. Did anyone hold a gun on you to make you join? Do the terms of your employement require you to join? Or did you join of your own free will?

And if you joined of your own free will, are you sane enough, and literate enough, to understand the terms and conditions you agreed to?

See, the answers to such questions determine if you have a right to bitch later on.

My wife married me knowing I was poor, so she doesn't complain about us not having taken a trip to the Bahamas yet.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bakednutz


Well if you dont like what they have to say, dont read it.


Uhm, no - it's not that i don't like what they say.

I'm all for freedom of expression, no matter the form.

It's just that there are some fairly easily-influenced people out there who are more than prepared to listen, that's all.

Such individuals, i feel, should not be allowed anywhere near the internet, if we're going to let this sort of thing continue.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Yes, but the article clearly points out that the journalist did not violate any written agreement, virtual or otherwise.

He posted pictures of children in poverty. The reality of the situation in another country.
The photos were stricken from the server because one of the children was smoking.

Yet, there is nothing in the agreement stating that pictures of a child smoking is against the rules. It points out that it's an unwritten rule.


If you ask me, telling people they aren't allowed to show the truth, simply because someone might not like it... well thats tough luck. Reality is reality, and if he wants to report on it, let him.

Refusing to face reality because you don't like what reality has to offer is simple ignorance. Something we on ATS are supposed to be against.

Me. I'm pretty peeved at flikr for this.
It's not just flikr though. There are plenty of other hosting servers out there who decide what can and cannot be viewed, even when it doesn't violate terms and conditions.

It's censorship of reality.
First step to solving a problem, is to understand what that problem is. If you start getting in the way of that... those problems easily come home.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFreeBird
reply to post by bakednutz
 


Then you chose participation over complete and utter freedom. Did anyone hold a gun on you to make you join? Do the terms of your employement require you to join? Or did you join of your own free will?

And if you joined of your own free will, are you sane enough, and literate enough, to understand the terms and conditions you agreed to?

See, the answers to such questions determine if you have a right to bitch later on.

My wife married me knowing I was poor, so she doesn't complain about us not having taken a trip to the Bahamas yet.



Yes I choose participation. Im not violating the rules so I need not worry about getiing censored or banned from ATS. That does not mean I agree with them but if you read my previous post you would understand that!And no one held a gun to my head and really there was not point to that comment.

And you better watch what you say about me being sane or literate or you might be censored for mounting a personal attack.


And I do have a right to complain no matter what my answers and who are you to tell me I do not??



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

It's just that there are some fairly easily-influenced people out there who are more than prepared to listen, that's all.

Such individuals, i feel, should not be allowed anywhere near the internet, if we're going to let this sort of thing continue.


So now you want to test people to see if they are strong enough in their beliefs so they are not easily influenced by what you might consider stupid or ignorant or whatever?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join