What's the limit for freedom of speech?

[Thehandyman1957]

Perhaps a reminder of this topic is in order.

Board Rules
app.php/rules

I will highlight a couple just for kicks.

Post contents
a. One of the most important things: Do not make posts that have the sole purpose of stirring things up.

I saw this from the very start. Was amazed it was allowed at all.

f. This forum focuses first and foremost on support and development of the Pale Moon browser.
Don't post politically, ideologically, religiously or socially sensitive topics on this forum, especially if they revolve around strong, polarized opinions and world views.
This to keep drama and heated tempers to a minimum.

Man, can we see where this was going???

And of course,

8. In closing
This is not a democracy. You are in my house, and you are my guests.
Please behave yourself accordingly.

So since this is Moonchild's house, your freedom of speech is limited to his rules
which are here to keep the peace and tranquility of the forum. And since freedom of
speech can lead to quarrels, arguments and debates that lead to anger and insults, it
is in the best interest of this forum to leave these topics to the outside world, and keep
things in perspective to the topic of PM and related issues. Don't you think?

[doofy]

And since freedom of
speech can lead to quarrels, arguments and debates that lead to anger and insults, it
is in the best interest of this forum to leave these topics to the outside world, and keep
things in perspective to the topic of PM and related issues. Don't you think?

I said precisely this to a mod a day or two ago.
And was ignored.
Someone, somewhere, has approved this thread.

For whatever reason.

Since this thread is cool, maybe also is a John Denver thread? Or favourite movies?

Most here are voting with their feet, but still...

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Off-topic:
What about the rule 2 a and b regarding off-topic. This is a general discussion board. Thus far nothing has become heated.. So what? I posted and commented what I did so now you are both against this thread now?

Or is it simpler than that? Are you just against MY free speech?

[satrow]

Would those not contributing to the discussion please desist from attempting to force their own form of preemptive censorship on others, no one's forcing you to read a topic that you think shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[Isengrim]

Off-topic:
I too was surprised that this topic survived, but I shan't question it.

I support the right to free speech, but I think there should be some limits on certain kinds of speech that (I believe) can cause more harm than good, such as:

• Fraud
• Lying under oath in court
• False advertising
• Speech designed to incite panic ("Yelling fire in a crowded theater")
• Bomb threats, "SWATing", or other false claims designed to mobilize emergency responders

Most of these tend to boil down to "lies that have tangible ramifications", such as damage to someone else's life, health, or property. Can they be skirted around or loopholed? Yes. Can they be taken too far? Also yes.

Another way to look at it might be: "My right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins."

[Sob__]

@Isengrim: Your examples fall under common sense for pretty much anyone as not a free speech matter. "Sure, I did yell fire in crowded theatre, but you can't blame me for all those people stomped to death. Freedom of speech, right? I can say anything I want. It's their fault for panicking. And for nothing, they should have seen there was no fire!" It can work when playing devil's advocate for fun, but I've never met anyone who would seriously mean something like this. It's the more controversial things where it gets interesting. So-called hate speech, promotion of <insert your favourite evil ideology>, etc. It's often not clear where the other man's nose begins and how much preemptive measures against someone else's fists are justified.

[Thehandyman1957]

Off-topic:
What about the rule 2 a and b regarding off-topic. This is a general discussion board. Thus far nothing has become heated.. So what? I posted and commented what I did so now you are both against this thread now?

Or is it simpler than that? Are you just against MY free speech?

No, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was just continuing my dialog from
my first post. I'm not against anyone at all. Just pointing out general information.

[Thehandyman1957]

Would those not contributing to the discussion please desist from attempting to force their own form of preemptive censorship on others, no one's forcing you to read a topic that you think shouldn't be allowed to exist.

With all due respect, I am not tying to censor anyone, but I have seen many
other subjects get closed that were not even close to something like this topic
and it's ability to stir up trouble because of differing opinions. I have only
stated the obvious and your own rules of conduct. Heck I have even seen people
get banned for smaller things.

And yes, your right, I don't have to read this topic. It doesn't actually bother me
at all. Was just pointing out the apparent double standard here.

[Moonchild]

Was just pointing out the apparent double standard here.

There is no double standard for something that is, by its very nature, not a black and white thing and covers a very broad spectrum that is highly context-sensitive.

The very nature of this question is relevant to all online communication, so it's automatically relevant to this community forum and the people visiting it. Was the thread started just to stir things up? No, it seems to me like a simple, honest question asked to our users.
If you want to take this discussion to become an unhealthy argument, then I'm sure the thread will be locked -- but just applying some common sense and common decency will continue to make it possible to discuss this topic here. If you don't want to follow this discussion or you think it's off-topic for why you are here, then feel free to not read it and/or respond to it, and move to those topics that do interest you.

[NickFortune]

Hello all!
I used to think that the limit was the mockery and disrespect.

See, I can understand how someone who is regularly mocked and disrepected by other people might feel that those people had no right to express themselves in such a way. But if you try and ban mockery and disrespect, then the laws can be used ny poiticans and corporations as well, and since they have more money, they'll use them more effectively than the likes of you and I. We'd create a world where any criticism of authority could be criminalized. And the sad thing is that the folks who such a law was supposed to protect would probably see very little benefit. Except perhaps in extreme cases it would be like roughly shouldering your past someone in a crowd. Sure, it's technically an assault, but law enforement officials have probably got any number of other things to take care of.

So I think you have to be careful before saying "this can make people feel bad, therefore it must be banned". Every law is a two edged sword and in this case it would be the already vulnerable who were most likely to have such laws used against them.

[athenian200]

My view is that it should be basically what we have under US law now. Threats or calls to violence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, along with things like libel and slander. I don't like the way things are done in Europe, where anything that's offensive or hateful to a certain group can be against the law. I've heard some stories about the British police in particular going after people for liking a post on Twitter that was politically incorrect. I know for a fact that the British police monitor the comment sections on most UK news articles.

The problem is, the whole digital public square thing. We basically can't have US-style freedom of speech on platforms like Facebook or Twitter anymore because those companies wish to operate in the EU. Whenever someone does try to create an alternative platform that does allow free speech, hosting providers will put pressure on them, then domain registrars, and finally if you somehow get past both of those issues, they go after you via the payment processors like PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa. That's a very tough issue to get past because aside from the payment networks of major credit card companies, all our other options for processing payments are old and creaky methods that no one wants to use... direct bank wires that cost money, sending checks/cash/money orders through the mail, etc.

It's worth looking into the story of both Gab and SubscribeStar if you're interested in how digital deplatforming is being used to curtail free speech online. I don't believe every forum owner should be forced to allow freedom of speech on their own forum, not even Facebook/Twitter/Google, but where I draw the line is when payment processors, banks, hosting providers, ISPs, domain registrars, etc... make it impossible to create an alternative by targeting you on the infrastructure level. That, in my view, is the real problem. It becomes a situation where a law is being effectively imposed that isn't the law of your country, because internal policies of so many organizations you need to publish online are aligned to other countries that do outlaw those things.

[GigaWatt]

The "right" to be offended or have hurt feelings trumping my right to say what ever the hell I please.. Should never be a thing.

I think this more or less sums up of what I think on the subject .