I curse like a sailor who’s four day shore leave just got cut to one but I know when to keep the salty words to myself. Some people apparently either never develop that filter or don’t care enough about the people around them to keep it clean.
4 Likes
Ah yes, lets just throw away all concepts of property rights so you can throw some slurs around.
3 Likes
You took it out of context. Here’s the full post:
I also noticed that some people instead of discussing the topic resorted to name calling, veiled/insinuated insults. Some blatant unfounded accusations. And jumping to wrong conclusions about my motivation for posting this topic thread. That’s unfortunate.
This is so telling because though you dont have to respect the 1st amendment, you should, because its a slippery slope once you start censoring stuff you find offensive.
There will come a day when the next group comes along and demands this group of censors be silenced for something they say.
Some people here, ya know who they are… they can’t stand it if someone says something they don’t like. They use words like “hate” and “toxic” a lot. They can’t control themselves and just stop reading, they have to silence people. They are the epitome of what they themselves hate.
2 Likes
You do know the Left will come on here and say a company has a right to free speech censorship unless they are owned by anyone that leans right at which point Free Speech needs to be censored.
Dear OP,
If you think something is a mistake, then become an activist and petition the government about changing/expanding the laws. Don’t come to some forum to complain about it.
This is exactly the problem with censorship: Who will be the censors. Who will decide what is allowed to be said and what is taboo. What hidden agendas do the Censors have, if any?
That’s why having no censors is better than having censors.
Today certain topics are censored that you agree with. Tomorrow the topics you want to talk about might be censored in turn. Censorship will never achieve a fair implementation.
No, they have that right too, provided it does not cross into something illegal that would incite violence. Then everyone has the right to decide if they want to be customers of that company, or use that service. Advertisers also have freedom of association - and if they don’t like a company they don’t have to advertise there.
Hosting companies also have freedom - the freedom to not host websites they feel are seriously egregious.
So yeah, people can run their company the way they want, but they may find themselves without users, customers, or advertising revenue. When extreme enough, maybe even find themselves without a hosting site or DDOS protection services.
No. There were websites like that and most were shut down or kicked off their hosting platform. 8chan comes to mind as an example of something pretty bad.
2 Likes
Well said Chintzy. It’s pathetic how soft people have become and in turn resort to silencing/censoring.
What I find more ironic, is that the people who want to act edgy and tough come crying to the forums when they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Thread after thread crying about rules they agreed to.
It is not brave, hard, or cool to just spew nasty things all the time. It is even less cool to complain about it when you get penalized.
7 Likes
Special interest elitists. AKA Team Git Gud. Can confirm as someone who was given two forum vacations on a separate BNet from them.
Oh I just thought this was a interesting topic for discussion in the Wow General Forum since it is about a subject concerning the Wow Forum.
Please understand I’m not advocating anything here. I’m just asking for other players opinions about a relevant question. It’s more of a philosophical question than anything else. In essence: how far are people willing to allow someone else (Including a Business or Corporate entity) to tell them what they as an individual can and cannot say or discuss.
You are one of those people who thinks the 5th amendment is ONLY about self incrimination. It’s not. Had you read what I wrote you would understand the parts of the 5th Amendment that apply to this conversation.
When you see the following words from the 5th Amendment: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” where are you seeing anything about self incrimination?
I stopped reading right there. You want free speech? Go to twitter. It’s a toxic cesspool.
If you read through the full thread you will notice how toxic some people have been to me.
Although some of it is veiled and some just outright insults. So perhaps this has gotten like twitter.
Friend,
I am close to being a free speech absolutist but you’re off base here. The reason that the First Amendment protects you from only the government is in the text “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Congress shall make no law part is key.
The Bill of Rights is based on NEGATIVE rights. That’s why it is written with these Congress shall clauses. It’s not there to tell you what your rights are, it’s actually there to restrain the government from taking your rights. You do have more rights than what are listed in the Bill of Rights, after all. Unless the government is telling Blizzard what and who to censor like what was going on at twitter, it’s just not applicable here.
The concept of freedom of speech is larger than what is enshrined in the law though. If it were up to me, I would allow all the speech up to inciting violence or causing a panic, that sort of thing. But I don’t run the game, we just play here.
Hope that clears things up.
1 Like
I will add to that by pointing out that my assertion was as I pointed out that although private entities are not required to by Federal law abide by the right to free speech. They should abide by the generalized law of the land. To respect the spirit of the law.
If as a people we want free speech for ourselves then we should have it across the board.
That’s not what the law or the spirit of it was though. The document exists to setup a government and restrain it so it doesn’t become tyrannical and crush people. It has nothing to do with private platforms.
1 Like
The thing is, it is a moot discussion because there are no laws that cover what you can or cannot say on a private forum, that is up to the owners of the forum.