Because you just can’t say any or everything, that isn’t how Free Speech works. Yes you can pretty much say what you want but you have to understand that comes with consequences.
2 Likes
This is correct.
Unfortunately, in recent times conservative judges have ruled that corporations have most of the rights, although few of the responsibilities, of individuals.
Never mind N/A
Real question, what is wrong with you?
I disagree with the OP, but after reading your post I am dumbfounded on how you went from his original post to the “n” word.
Wait, what? I too disagree with the OP but unless your Cleo the Psychic how do you know what OP said and didn’t say? I honestly think you are gaslighting and should be punished for slander.
Well I don’t think you will win your argument.
But one could say that if private companies in the United States do not respect the country’s constitution then perhaps they should not be allowed to do business in this country.
I mean they can conduct business in other countries that really do enforce all sorts of censorship.
But I don’t think you will win.
I hear this other phrase a-lot too. Freedom of Speech doesn’t not protect you from consequences.
So here is the only issue I see with this phrase. If this is true, then it pretty much means there is no freedom of speech because that is one big reason why this provision was enshrined in our constitution because in the past if one group didn’t like what another group said in the United States, they could pretty much destroy that other group’s life.
Though I would say that is what is going on in today’s society anyway.
Oh and here is the larger reason.
Let me give this reason why freedom of speech is important regardless if you don’t like what the messenger is saying.
Let me give this reason by providing an example.
So I am going to assume that most people today absolutely hate white supremacist organizations. With good reason.
With that said, if they were outright banned to say the things they want to say this is what my greater fear of what that would lead to.
It would lead to a society where you are giving permission to all sorts of other groups in the future to ban anything they don’t like and then one day it might be something you like.
See so you don’t have to like everything that is said by people or groups in the United States
but freedom of speech to me is the price of being able to live in a free society and maintaining the United States as a free society for me and future generations is important.
Personally, I’d say amen to that.
But with the current court it isn’t going away any time soon.
1 Like
… self proclaimed “originalists” are willing to ignore documented history of the debate at the time of adoption and interrupt the will of the founders based on current political prejudice.
1 Like
All this
Meanwhile they have servers like MG where its okay be sexual. So most need to get off this self righteous “blizz house, blizz rules” if your a company that bans certain rhetoric, then ban sexual play as well. To say kids play this game, then proceed to allow the stuff on MG to continue is sick. Like kids/teens dont go on that server …spare me.
Our judicial system is adversarial, there will always be those who agree or disagree with a final ruling. But we understand that the ruling is the law until such time as the law is changed. For now at least, these decisions are the law regardless of how you feel about it.
Go try to say some of the stuff people say on here at work. I hope you enjoy starving to death in an alley.
2 Likes
I absolutely agree, I’ve repeatedly taken an oath to defend and support the Constitution, that means accepting the authority of the institutions as defined in the Constitution. Although the interpretation of what is and is not “constitutional” as a power of the Supreme Court owes more to Marbury v. Madison than to the text of the Constitution.
But bottom line, yes Columbia v. Heller and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are currently and unambiguously the law of the land. However, I do have recuring daydreams about just what I would have said or done if I lived when the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was the law of the land; the judiciary is not always right by any means.
2 Likes
Sure. Only if you are willing to put your name, photo, home address, phone number and email address up every time you say whatever you want. If you want no limits, you shouldn’t have a problem with putting your entire identity and life out there along with your comment. If you don’t have the balls to place your identity behind the comment, then you probably shouldn’t say it at all.
3 Likes
Does not apply to private companies like Blizzard. Twitter just found this out also.
Blizzard can set it’s own rules about what speech is allowed in game and in the forums.
If you do not like it…leave the game.
3 Likes
i would correct your logic by explaining a more accurate analogy, but your statement i quoted here is a direct reply to that same analogy i would make.
how are you going to see something of sound logic and be like “actually no, its more like this less logical thing instead” lmao
lmao why are you making things up in an attempt to prove a point?
arent you more interested in the truth than what you want to believe??
i cant believe youre actually just making things up for every argument you have to back it up and its all so obviously false and so easily overlooked
It wasnt a scotus ruling the 1971 case was a lower court ruling and you know nothing about my opinion on gun rights.
I dont believe ownership is a right, its a privilege something the nra preached and taught to generations. Until that one case and every back woods trailer rat started spouting you’ll take muh gun over my cold dead hands.
And that statement is 100% correct and the reason it was written you know by the founders and the first congress. States hadn’t even been established when it was written.
That’s where state constitutions outlined the authority of state governments and their limits granted by the 10th.
Apologies if I misunderstood your intentions in your reply. To be honest. What bothered me was that you said that you were glad you had Educated me. To me it kinda implied that I was uneducated. Yes I don’t know everything in the world. But that just sounded wrong. Perhaps I’m being too sensitive here. I dunno?
It does imply that, but only about the subject I was referring to. Lack of knowledge isn’t something to be ashamed of. 
I would argue that’s it their forums. They can decide what is acceptable or not. My only problem is it must be applied evenly across the board. Everyone knows that’s not the case on the wow forums. Some groups get a pass, while others get the hammer.