Millennials Demand ‘Digital Magna Carta’

originally posted by: FlapdoodleStork
Your speech IS protected by the first ammendment.

No it's not. Not on a private website. T&Cs have nothing to do with it. The first amendment is about GOVERNMENT prohibiting you from speaking.

4. Does the First Amendment apply to private companies and organizations?
No. The First Amendment applies to the government — to protect individuals from government censorship. While the text of the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” it means that no federal, state or local government official can infringe on your free-speech rights. A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.

1forall.us...

Free speech and the private sector

The cocktail party seems to be a success; you're enjoying yourself, and everyone else seems to be having a fine time as well. But then you hear a commotion, and notice the host angrily ushering one of the guests out the door. The guest's hat is flung out after him, unceremoniously. Mystified, you ask the host what happened. "Sorry for the disturbance, Mike, but I never realized Bill felt that way about abortion. I just won't tolerate such viewpoints in my house." You're outraged: What happened to Bill's free-speech rights?
Unless that cocktail party was part of a government function, or took place in a state building, or could somehow be considered a public forum, Bill's rights weren't violated. The host's rights to control his own property are not limited by the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not give individuals the right to say whatever they want whenever they want.

Now replace the cocktail party in the above example with a classroom at a private university. Could the university's code of conduct specify expulsion for expressing certain opinions or beliefs? Yes, indeed.

Application to cyberspace: Many private institutions with religious affiliations prohibit blasphemy on campus. These institutions may apply the same restrictions in cyberspace, limiting expression in Web pages, e-mail, Usenet postings, chat rooms, and any other Internet communication.

net.educause.edu...

Most spaces on the internet are privately owned, and have no obligation to allow you to speak freely in their space. Whether it's Facebook removing content that violates its own terms of service, a blog owner deleting a comment they find offensive, or a big company deleting user posts from its Facebook page, your speech may be censored, but you have no first amendment right to free speech in those places. This includes our discussions on Lifehacker—we've always held our community up to high standards, and if you start a discussion we find isn't up to those standards, we reserve our right to dismiss it.

lifehacker.com...

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

you do not "waive your rights" when you agree to T&C's.

That's not how it works.

If you agree that you won't put your feet on the couch if I let you in my house, and then put your feet on the furniture, i can kick you out of my house. Its just that simple. But to put it another way: your right to free speech cannot overcome their property rights. Your rights stop where theirs begin.

You aren't waiving your rights...you don't have them to waive.

originally posted by: wasaka

originally posted by: TzarChasm

...making a magna carta for the internet, thats a joke to begin with. probably 95% of the worlds worst crime happens on/through it. no exaggeration. i have had arguments with friends about how the dude who invented the "deep web" is just as bad as hitler.

Hyperbole much?

"95% of the world worst crimes" (you say)?

poppycock (I say)

"Deep web inventor bad as Hitler" (you say)?

hog wash (I say)

Let's hear another another one of your obtuse
exaggerations, they are quite amusing.

Hyperbole and hogwash, you say? Have you ever seen what they sell on the deep web? I would be willing to bet most people here have never laid eyes on it. Merchandise includes: People. Children. Sex slaves who are probably still being looked for and will never be found. Biological and nuclear weapons. Your social security number and personal records. Drugs that would make your skin crawl just to be near them. Exotic animals who are virtually extinct and sold as delicacies. Everything that we fear and despise, you can find it there. You guys bitch about gay marriage being illegal...that's funny compared to the damage done by the virtual black market. Hogwash indeed. But, you know, ignorance is bliss. You will sleep soundly tonight while thousands of children are being beaten and molested and traded like cattle. You don't take that seriously? I'm ashamed for you.

I have already said before, and you REFUSE to acknowledge, they have the right to set their terms on their own property.


Inalienable = doesn't go away. ever.

If you exercise your right to speech in a way that others don't like on their property, they can also exercise their right to free association and kick you out.


Your right still exists
The reason this is important, is that if we say that free speech doesn't exist on private property, how about other rights? Do we also forfeit the right to our own lives and property?

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

I'm not even sure what you're argument is. Are you saying that private entities should allow users to say whatever they want when using their social media platforms? That would be ridiculous.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

you do not "waive your rights" when you agree to T&C's.

That's not how it works.

If you agree that you won't put your feet on the couch if I let you in my house, and then put your feet on the furniture, i can kick you out of my house. Its just that simple. But to put it another way: your right to free speech cannot overcome their property rights. Your rights stop where theirs begin.

You aren't waiving your rights...you don't have them to waive.

I have failed to make myself understood

I am not contesting the right of private property owners to say what goes on in their living rooms or web sites for that matter.

Perhaps it would help if I affirm that one person's rights stop where another's rights begin. But that doesn't mean that your rights just go "poof" when you cross the threshold of a private residence or log in to a web site.


You still have them, you just can't exercise them at the expense of other people's rights.



What I am asserting is that I am within my rights to criticize the policies of certain corporations. I see them as a threat to human liberty... even though they are acting within their rights.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

I'm not even sure what you're argument is. Are you saying that private entities should allow users to say whatever they want when using their social media platforms? That would be ridiculous.

What I am trying to say is.
If they are going to represent themselves as a public platform, they should refrain from engaging in political censorship.
Since It's not possible to stop them from doing so without odious regulations, I think it's important that we criticize the crap out of them when they push people around.

And I think we should vigorously resist their efforts to gain control over the web.

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

Would you support the right of a White Supremacist to go on to Disney's privately-owned clubpenguin.com to spread racist ideology to children? Would you be up in arms if Disney decided such behaviour was inappropriate for the environment they are fostering for children and banned such a person from saying such things?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

Would you support the right of a White Supremacist to go on to Disney's privately-owned clubpenguin.com to spread racist ideology to children? Would you be up in arms if Disney decided such behaviour was inappropriate for the environment they are fostering for children and banned such a person from saying such things?

Nice strawman.

It would be within their rights to decide what content is on their site.
It would also be within the rights of the White Supremacist to criticize Disney over it.

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

How is that a strawman? I asked you about a scenario that you described you would defend in your very own words.

Would you criticize Disney or not?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

How is that a strawman? I asked you about a scenario that you described you would defend in your very own words.

Would you criticize Disney or not?

I guess you're right, it's really more of a loaded question than a strawman.


I would have no problem with Disney for banning content that is clearly inappropriate for their young audience, and violates their TOS.

As much as I despise White Supremacists (which I do intensely), I do not begrudge them the right to their opinions or their right to criticize those who banned them.

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

I think we are discussing semantics here, and that we can both agree that it is semantics. I know what you mean, and am not correcting you. I'm just sharing a viewpoint to help you clarify it for public forum use.

ETA: at the end of it all, "the internet" should not be censored. Individual sites can do what they want with what they have. But the framework that their servers connect through should not have governmental interference. they need to exercise "HANDS OFF" as their SOP.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You're right, we really are in agreement on the issues. I really need to work on my writing skills.

They can have their walled gardens and the feeble minds that grow in them.
I'm just worried someday that they are going to be able to restrict alternatives and force all of us into their digital ecosystems.

The idea of a "Digital Magna Carta" appeals to me. Though I think It would be best if enough people stood up and insisted on their rights, rather than a document being foisted upon us by some organization.

I like it...except that there are repeats on the list...to be fair, it was written by children...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
the dude who invented the "deep web" is just as bad as hitler.

You clearly have no idea what your talking about.
No one "invented' the deep web.
People have this huge misconception of what the "deep web" is.

All it is are webpages that are not indexed by 'surface web' search engines like Google or yahoo, some of which need a Tor browser to access. The reason the deep web gets so much hype is because people treat it like it's some "spooky sekrit club" when it's not. It's the regular internet, just not "filtered" and regulated.
And yes it's true you can come across some awful things on there if you're not careful, but unless you're SPECIFICALLY looking for onion links to extremely questionable material, you should be in the clear, provided youre using a good proxy and antivirus.

Normally when you hear horror stories of black markets, child exploitation, hitmen, etc. those are usually on private "dark nets" for which you'd need to find a computer it's hooked up to and hack into it. These are not accessible via the 'deep web'.
If you do stumble upon a onion site like any of those, they're either scams or FBI honeypots.

originally posted by: Bandersn4tch

originally posted by: TzarChasm
the dude who invented the "deep web" is just as bad as hitler.

You clearly have no idea what your talking about.
No one "invented' the deep web.
People have this huge misconception of what the "deep web" is.

All it is are webpages that are not indexed by 'surface web' search engines like Google or yahoo, some of which need a Tor browser to access. The reason the deep web gets so much hype is because people treat it like it's some "spooky sekrit club" when it's not. It's the regular internet, just not "filtered" and regulated.
And yes it's true you can come across some awful things on there if you're not careful, but unless you're SPECIFICALLY looking for onion links to extremely questionable material, you should be in the clear, provided youre using a good proxy and antivirus.

Normally when you hear horror stories of black markets, child exploitation, hitmen, etc. those are usually on private "dark nets" for which you'd need to find a computer it's hooked up to and hack into it. These are not accessible via the 'deep web'.
If you do stumble upon a onion site like any of those, they're either scams or FBI honeypots.

Exactly my point. All of those transaction take place on the internet precisely because the nature of the beast is that it can't be governed. Magna carta...lol.

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

Something i say from time to time, "I don't ask for my rights, i just live them"

I think we all know the difference between right and wrong, even if it sometimes requires a bit of introspection along the way.

a reply to: wasaka

Do these 500 10-18 year olds even know what the Magna Carta is?

Have these kids been told that the most famous draft of the Magna Carta (there is more than one) has not had relevance since it was scribed? Do they realize that the most prominent passages (that calls for our rulers to be held accountable for their actions) has been ignored since it's inception?

Sure we can agree with those sentiments but there's a snowballs chance that the Digicarta will ever come to pass. The words of the Magna Carta are redundant and so are the dreams of these kids. It's sad but true.

I Think it's a good start. It is only a matter of time before we are all forced to log into the internet using our unique and verified gov approved profile containing all our information to be openly tracked,taxed, and fined.

The "login with Facebook" will be the only option available, but it will be "login with universal gov ID passport".

This battle will rage on until they win.

WolvesAndSheeple