Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote:You ever hear a sentence that just gets worse and worse with every word as it goes along?

President Trump will restart his campaign with a rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa.

christ

Followed by rallies in FL, AZ and NC.

Stickman wrote:"Nobody loves the gays more than I do!"

tree_ does. He likes to throw them off rooftops.

Stickman wrote:"Nobody loves the gays more than I do!"

This is the biggest issue I see with you guys (read: Americans) and your Constitutional Rights. I can't see how you can truly uphold individual Constitutional Rights for everyone without also, by the nature of upholding certain rights, be then infringing on others Constitutional Rights. It just doesn't work.

Do you guys have hate-speak laws at all? Or is the First Amendment really that powerful a thing that you can effectively say whatever you want, regardless of inciting hate and prejudice? Or does that then become an individual platform thing - like with Twitter censoring accounts or whatever. Aren't they though infringing on a person's First Amendment Rights if they blacklist someone? Or are they allowed to because it's their platform and so they have the power to determine what is said on it?

Apologies for the rambling here but I genuinely find this stuff really confusing. I constantly hear people talking about their Constitutional Rights being infringed yet I wonder how many of these same people really understand those same rights. And I then further wonder if it is really workable at all - I mean couldn't the whole thing be an enormous ruse just to ensure the legal system is a continuously growing and growling beast? Claim upon claim upon counter-claim. Suing here there and everywhere. Gotta keep those law firms in the dollars.

The First Amendment says nothing about private organizations deciding what content is allowed on their platform. It simply forbids the government (specifically Congress) from abridging speech.

And speech is more widely protected in this country than just about anywhere else. You can deny the Holocaust, you can spout hate. There is some very weak fighting words exception that I've never really understood. And porn, we don't like porn here

So am I technically infringing on tree_'s First Amendment Rights by having him on ignore? And does RM infringe on user's First Amendment Rights when they ban someone for being a dick? And what is the point of the "report post" button if you can say whatever you want?

Or do you just rely on the fact that to sue RM for this type of slight would be stupid? Question though, say you banned PhatJ for his posts in this very thread, under whatever pretence you used - if he did sue RM because his right to Free Speech was taken away, would he win? Would RM have to allow him back? Or does RM have the right to determine who posts here and what is discussed (and how it is discussed) on it's own forum?

I know what the answer should be, but I'm not convinced it is the actual answer I'm going to get back.

<Edit> I appreciate this is probs for another thread, don't mean to be off-topic. I am genuinely interested though.

Higgs wrote:So am I technically infringing on tree_'s First Amendment Rights by having him on ignore?

No. He has the right to speak. Doesn't mean you must listen.

Higgs wrote:And does RM infringe on user's First Amendment Rights when they ban someone for being a dick?

No. The First Amendment is about the government restricting your free exercise of speech, not a privately owned business or enterprise.

Higgs wrote:And what is the point of the "report post" button if you can say whatever you want?

See previous answer.

Higgs wrote:Or do you just rely on the fact that to sue RM for this type of slight would be stupid?

See previous answer.

Higgs wrote:Question though, say you banned PhatJ for his posts in this very thread, under whatever pretence you used - if he did sue RM because his right to Free Speech was taken away, would he win?

No. See answer #2.

Higgs wrote:Would RM have to allow him back?

No. See next answer.

Higgs wrote:Or does RM have the right to determine who posts here and what is discussed (and how it is discussed) on it's own forum?

Yes. See answer #2.

Higgs wrote: I appreciate this is probs for another thread, don't mean to be off-topic. I am genuinely interested though.

You're welcome.

Yeah, B can delete tree's posts and ban him. But the government can't then put either of them in prison for that. And if tree wants to go the public square in the middle of town and distribute leaflets about how he's not sure if racism exists, he can't get in trouble with the law for that.

But he might get punched in the face.

Thanks 'blood. Clears things up.

My confusion is that (as chud pointed out above) the First Amendment is solely concerned with the Gov't, not anything privately run. I got that now.

TIL indeed!

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.

That's it. That's the first amendment.

Kinda ...underwhelming really.

Higgs wrote:Kinda ...underwhelming really.

Well it's help up pretty well for 244 years so...

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

Higgs wrote:Kinda ...underwhelming really.

Well it's help up pretty well for 244 years so...

233

yeah now who's stupid

Higgs wrote:Thanks 'blood. Clears things up.

My confusion is that (as chud pointed out above) the First Amendment is solely concerned with the Gov't, not anything privately run. I got that now.

TIL indeed!

It is sometimes confusing because many people (and this tends to be seen more often, though by no means exclusively, from the conservative side of things) will equate freedom of speech with "freedom to say anything and not suffer any adverse consequences from it." The government imprisoning you because of things you say is an infringement of the First Amendment. Losing your job because you said something racist or controversial is not an infringement, but often people will equate the two.

Constitution, Declaration of Independence...same difference.

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:Constitution, Declaration of Independence...same difference.

The South thought that once.








Once.