If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

Lets say you run your own TV station, and you have certain values you want your station to stand for.
You have a person on a show that airs on your station that has has started making statements that you feel go against what your t.v. station represents. You worry that people will begin to associated his views as being the views of your t.v. station.

Now while that person has every right to express his views, you have the right to to distance him from your station. If he signed a contract saying that he would represent the values of your station, then he broke the contract and you have every right to fire him.

It is not imposing on his freedom of speech to do that. He can still say what ever he wants, you are just making it clear that his views aren't representative of the views of your station.


Just like you can be fired from a job for saying things that go against what the company represents. It doesn't mean you can't say it, you won't be arrested. But when you sign a contract you agree to represent the values and ideals of that company, T.V. station etc.

If ATS was a site that only allowed certain opinions and you agreed to the T&C saying you would only express certain opinions then yes, they would have the right to ban you.

So the question is, did he violate their contract with what he said?

reply to post by calstorm


Why is it so difficult to answer a simple yes/no question?

reply to post by beezzer

The truth is that it isn't.

Private agreements exist. I'm not making it up.

daskakik
reply to post by beezzer

 

The truth is that it isn't.

Private agreements exist. I'm not making it up.

And you still refuse to answer the question.

If you don't want to, it is your right to ignore me.

But why participate when you won't even answer?

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
reply to post by b14warrior

 

So you don't believe in freedom of speech?

I don't think you understand what freedom of speech is.

Robertson still has free of speech.
To say that the company shouldn't have sacked him even though they wanted to is taking away their free choice.

reply to post by beezzer


Because you brought the Duck Dynasty situation into your thread. You can't compare the two situations.

If you had asked your question by it's self Given the type of site ATS is, then as long as they didn't break any rules in the T&C then no it wouldn't be fair.

Duck Dynasty falls under a different situation.

reply to post by daskakik


Let me make it easy for you.

Is it right to deny free speech based on ideology?

b14warrior
reply to post by beezzer

 

beezzer
reply to post by b14warrior

 

So you don't believe in freedom of speech?

I don't think you understand what freedom of speech is.

Robertson still has free of speech.
To say that the company shouldn't have sacked him even though they wanted to is taking away their free choice.

When you are punished for your freedom of speech, how free is it?

beezzer
And you still refuse to answer the question.

If you don't want to, it is your right to ignore me.

But why participate when you won't even answer?

I'm pointing out that your question is loaded/flawed/inaccurate, for the reasons given.

You said that there is no grey area when in the real world there is.

calstorm
reply to post by beezzer

 

Because you brought the Duck Dynasty situation into your thread. You can't compare the two situations.

If you had asked your question by it's self Given the type of site ATS is, then as long as they didn't break any rules in the T&C then no it wouldn't be fair.

Duck Dynasty falls under a different situation.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

Whether you are discussing tin foil hats, abortion, religion, ninjas, Nirubu, or nice sandwiches.

reply to post by beezzer

There is no grey area here.

Actually there is a grey area.

When "free speech" becomes "hate speech" in the public arena, it's no longer considered okay by most of the populace... it crosses a fine line.

There was a time when "free speech" included the ability to refer to a dark-skinned person or persons as n******s. But this so-called "free" speech was not so "free-ing" to those it effected in a detrimental way.

We need to be careful of the slippery slope.

Freedom of speech does not literally mean you have complete and total carte blanche to say anything you damn well please, in any manner you damn well please, anywhere and anytime you damn well please, to whomever you damn well please.



More simply put: Common sense and common social courtesies are what most people try to follow out of respect for their fellow human beings. The ones that don't have these learned social skills, get lambasted for it.


And it has nothing to do with this over-exaggerated politically correct crap.
That's a whole different ball of wax.




But quite frankly...

Why anyone would give a flying fiddler's fart about what some backwoods bible-thumping klansman in some retarded reality tv show has to say about anything, is beyond me.

There.
I just exercised my right to free speech.

ATS is exercising its right to free speech when it bans members/404s threads/deletes posts/etc. The heart of the issue that I'm not seeing being discussed is th FACT that ATS membership is a voluntary, contractual agreement. No one is forced to be a member just because they were born during the time ATS.com existed. No one is forced to pay a fee. When a member violates the T&C (usually after multiple warnings and discussions with the member), ATS does not raid said member's home, steal his/her property, take his/her children away, and then throw him/her in a cage.

NEED I CONTINUE...?

daskakik

beezzer
And you still refuse to answer the question.

If you don't want to, it is your right to ignore me.

But why participate when you won't even answer?

I'm pointing out that your question is loaded/flawed/inaccurate, for the reasons given.

You said that there is no grey area when in the real world there is.

If you are afraid to take a stand, I will understand.

reply to post by CranialSponge


STATE SPEECH IS HATE SPEECH.

beezzer

calstorm
reply to post by beezzer

 

Because you brought the Duck Dynasty situation into your thread. You can't compare the two situations.

If you had asked your question by it's self Given the type of site ATS is, then as long as they didn't break any rules in the T&C then no it wouldn't be fair.

Duck Dynasty falls under a different situation.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

Whether you are discussing tin foil hats, abortion, religion, ninjas, Nirubu, or nice sandwiches.

Not if you enter into a contract voluntarily restricting your freedom of speech.

beezzer
If you are afraid to take a stand, I will understand.

If you're afraid to accept your mistake then I too will understand.

reply to post by CranialSponge


What "gray area" did Phil Robertson breach?

What is your answer, you crazy Canadian?

Why won't people answer the question?

Either we have a freedom of speech or we don't.

Any restriction impedes that freedom and negates it.

daskakik

beezzer
If you are afraid to take a stand, I will understand.

If you're afraid to accept your mistake then I too will understand.

No mistake.

I'm just willing to stand out and defend speech that I don't even agree with.

Sorry the same can't be said with other members.

beezzer
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

What "gray area" did Phil Robertson breach?

What is your answer, you crazy Canadian?

How about the part in his contract where he won't make his network want to fire him? You can believe with 100% certainty that that is part of the contract.

If I made a contract with you, that if I didn't drop the F-bomb for a week, you'd give me a million bucks, and then I said the F word into a loudspeaker outside of your bedroom...well I should still get my million bucks, because free speech right? I know you'll answer with "I'd never sign that contract" or "I don't have a million" and just let the example go right out the window. Don't bother.