OT: Let’s all take a deep breath

[13lackGu4rd]

Originally Posted by Peter Ebbesen

You are aware that the issue of how a private forum is moderated is not at all related to the issue of freedom of speech, yes?

As an example, if I say that in my house nobody is allowed to say anything at all and invite you in as a guest, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated when I expect you to shut up and choose to throw you out, should you start talking. (You might rightfully question my sanity by that point should you feel so inclined, but freedom of speech just doesn't enter the equation).

Ignoring that for the moment, good luck with the new forum!

it's funny when you speak so valiantly about a topic yet you are so clueless about it... local rules, be it your house, a forum, a country's laws, or whatever else, do not affect the freedom of speech which is a universal concept. you're saying that you can do whatever you want in your house/forums and it won't damage the freedom of speech, so what happens in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela or any of the Communist countries(not these days but back when Communism prevailed there)? they didn't damage the freedom of speech because it's their country, so they can do whatever they want in it?

or wait, countries are different because they are everyone's, right...? see, that's where you're wrong! countries are not for everyone, it's the liberal/democratic system that claims as such, but not all countries are liberal/democracies so this doesn't apply to the concept of a county as a whole.

freedom of speech is an absolute concept. however it is never kept 100%, it is always damaged to a degree. the question is how far are you going to damage the freedom of speech, or how tight/loose of a leash you put on it. and it doesn't matter whether it's a forum, your home, a country, your work place, the UN or whatever else. so please, don't come here and tell us that because you agree with Shrapnel's stance on this incident, which many including myself claim was within their right to do so, didn't affect the freedom of speech. that, my friend, is called hypocrisy!

[Gandalf Parker]

Except that this is not a country. This is Internet.

And..
everything has its pros/cons. Even free speech. Its not how much you are willing to damage it.
Its where on the scale do you wish to be balancing its benefits vs its detriments.
(hint: neither extreme tends to be a good answer)

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally Posted by 13lackGu4rd

it's funny when you speak so valiantly about a topic yet you are so clueless about it... local rules, be it your house, a forum, a country's laws, or whatever else, do not affect the freedom of speech which is a universal concept.

Clueless, am I?

As a concept of universal rights, you have the right to seek information, to receive information, and to express information. Moreover, the means of expression is not limited to any specific medium, you have the right to express it via any medium.

This does not, however, give you the right to do this wherever you want saying whatever you want without consequences to your actions. In my example, where I forbid talking in my house, I have not violated your rights to express information. I have not sought to prevent you from obtaining or receiving specific or general information. I have merely applied a sanction to you (evicting you from my property) that I am granted by another right (my right to decide who gets to be on my property for whatever reason I see fit). The latter right might possibly conflict with other rights (universal or not).

So, while not a violation of the universal concept, it might be a violation of a non-universal practical interpretation as codified by laws; However, most such laws dealing with practical interpretations deal with freedom of speech in public.

[13lackGu4rd]

Originally Posted by Peter Ebbesen

Clueless, am I?

As a concept of universal rights, you have the right to seek information, to receive information, and to express information. Moreover, the means of expression is not limited to any specific medium, you have the right to express it via any medium.

This does not, however, give you the right to do this wherever you want saying whatever you want without consequences to your actions. In my example, where I forbid talking in my house, I have not violated your rights to express information. I have not sought to prevent you from obtaining or receiving specific or general information. I have merely applied a sanction to you (evicting you from my property) that I am granted by another right (my right to decide who gets to be on my property for whatever reason I see fit). The latter right might possibly conflict with other rights (universal or not).

So, while not a violation of the universal concept, it might be a violation of a non-universal practical interpretation as codified by laws; However, most such laws dealing with practical interpretations deal with freedom of speech in public.

nice argument, too bad it was entirely off topic. the passage I quoted of you clearly said that is doesn't violate the freedom of speech if you tell somebody who arrived at your home to not say a single word. you claimed it doesn't violate the freedom of speech when Shrapnel perma banned Sombre and others for speaking their minds, no matter how they said it. that was what you said and is what I corrected you on. in that passage alone you didn't mention consequences, limits of freedom of speech, etc, you just claimed it doesn't apply in these situations, because it's comfortable to you that it won't.

also, why bring the right for information and all these other things into it? there's absolutely no relevance... now, I clearly said that freedom of speech has its limitations. even the most liberal places have some limitations on it, good job for stating the obvious there! however you can't deny that these limitations are arguable, and it's a very thin line that has no clear boundaries. also you can't just dismiss things when they don't suit your agenda, and rambling off topic to prove a false point is just dumb...

[Annette]

Please, gentlemen, let's keep this civil. Shrapnel Games' policy regarding freedom of speech is found under the "Terms of Use" section in "Forum Rules."

[lch]

I thought this was over in the middle of page 7. Back to the OP's post, please?

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally Posted by 13lackGu4rd

nice argument, too bad it was entirely off topic. the passage I quoted of you clearly said that is doesn't violate the freedom of speech if you tell somebody who arrived at your home to not say a single word. you claimed it doesn't violate the freedom of speech when Shrapnel perma banned Sombre and others for speaking their minds, no matter how they said it. that was what you said and is what I corrected you on.

I have to admit that I failed to grasp what you intended with your last post as you jumped from my house example to universal rights to Venezuela/Cuba to nations in general to the question of democracy and freedom of speech and ended up with accusing me of hypocrisy for supporting Shrapnels' right to make deals with other people regarding the use of their forums, which you seem to consider for some reason to be a restriction of the freedom of speech.

Apparently your entire point was the last two or three lines coupled with the assumption somewhat along the lines of "freely entering into a deal with somebody else that requires you, as your part of the deal, not to speak about something specific is a violation of your right to the freedom of speech" but let's be fair here; Reading your previous post, how on earth was I to know that?



EDIT: Right, Ich. Deep breath. Thank you.

[chrispedersen]

I don't agree by the way that the concept of free speech is a universal concept. And a little bit of history backs this up. Even in our american colonies we had taxes on books; and we came from a style of government where you could be imprisoned for wht you said.

Thats one of the reasons the rights enshrined in the constitution were so radical.

I do think that we have made great progress in much of the world convincing people that free speech is a good thing. However, I would say that in the muslim concept, in their uma, there is no such belief.

For example, note the willingness to issue fatwahs against the cpenhagen cartoonists. Similiar efforts to restrict free speech are under assault at the UN under the guise of religious liberty.
Likewise the saying in china is the tallest tree gets cut down first. conformity is valued more highly than exceptionalism or free speech. Perhaps justifiably as they have a lot of people that have to live in proximity.

[Foodstamp]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't agree by the way that the concept of free speech is a universal concept. And a little bit of history backs this up. Even in our american colonies we had taxes on books; ...

And did you know eBay charges a 15% fee on the final sale price of a book! What kind of heartless corporate organization charges people more money because they want to read! Down with the British and down with eBay!

[Gandalf Parker]

How geeky are we? Mixing virtual world with real world in everything?

OK how about this? In our VIRTUAL Community we VIRTUALLY have Free Speech?
(see the play on words? virtually as in "almost like but not really")

The organization of the Internet is much like a giant democracy made up of many small tyrannies.