Login

Ratjoy.com » Forums » Suggestions, Technical Support and Feedback » Does democracy equal to mass violence here?

Does democracy equal to mass violence here?

Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 If so, please let the boss to set the server in no democracy such as China. Then I won't have the right of liberty.
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 Did you just suggest someone host their website in China. BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! That sir is priceless.
Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 I didn't suggest anyone to host their website in China for I do want the right of liberty. I use "if" as I doubt if everyone here does want no liberty.
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 (Last edited on Jun 7, 2012) Doesn't really matter what anyone here wants. One guy owns the site and the domain and is therefore King here. Like it or don't, I highly doubt it will change. For the record I wouldn't want it to.
Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: -1 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 Here is a public place as everyone can freely register an account and enter the forum. So the boss of RJ will not be a king here. Believe it or not, I highly doubt people's rights are not protected by the law here.
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 Here is the complete text of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: "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." Now, please tell me, in what way does that possibly apply to internet message boards?
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 One of my favorites. [quote] "Freedom of Speech...Let Me Tell You What It's NOT The right we refer to as "freedom of speech" is, as you probably know, a Constitutional right. It's part of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, one of the amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Do you know what it says? If you do...if you're really, really sure you do...you don't need to read any further. But if you're like the dozens and dozens of people I seem to encounter in online forums every day, you'd better check this out: 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. It's a short little amendment packed with important concepts, and maybe that's why one of the most critical concepts of all tends to get overlooked. You might have noticed it this time around. Yep, I'm referring to the introductory clause (Who pays attention to those? You just write those to help stretch your paper to meet the minimum page requirement, right?) that MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ONLY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION. In fact, if you simply look at the language of the amendment itself, you'll note that it refers only to Congress. What about states? Surely states are limited, too? And, in fact, they are. That's because the restrictions on Congressional action set forth in the Bill of Rights have, in large part, been explicitly extended to the states and other governmental agencies. They have not, however, been extended to your next door neighbor. It is NOT a "violation of free speech" when he tells you to stop screaming at your wife in front of his kids. It hasn't been extended to your local video store owner--he's free to decide not to offer titles that contain material he considers offensive. It's NOT a "violation of free speech" when a message board administrator or blog hosting company takes down your comment. It's not even a "violation of free speech" when a wholly unreasonable right-wing religious leader points a gun at you and tells you to repent your liberal leanings or burn in hell forever. Some of these things are perfectly legal. Some fall into gray area--for instance, the message board administrators and blog hosts are typically bound by their own terms of service. Some--like the guy with the gun--are flat-out whacked and criminal offenses to boot. But none of them...not a single one...implicates your free speech rights. Why? Because there was no governmental action. Period. A website cannot infringe on your free speech rights (unless it's operated by a governmental entitity). Another user on a message board or in a forum cannot infringe your free speech rights (unless he acts "under color of law", representing some governmental entity). A restaurant owner cannot infringe your free speech rights...you get the idea, right? Fifty times a day, someone on the Internet yells "what about free speech?" in a context that has nothing to do with governmental entities--and those are only the ones I see. The only viable answer is, "What about it?"[/quote] http://whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2008/01/freedom-of-speechlet-me-tell-y ou-what.html
Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 I don't understand why you put a big stone on you toes. In one of the paragraph, that one said: A website cannot infringe on your free speech rights (unless it's operated by a governmental entitity). Another user on a message board or in a forum cannot infringe your free speech rights (unless he acts "under color of law", representing some governmental entity). A restaurant owner cannot infringe your free speech rights...you get the idea, right?
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 You apparently misunderstand the English. Thry don't mean can't as in not allowed to. They mean can't as it is impossible for them to because they have no constitutional requirement to protect your free speech. On the recommendation of a friend perhaps I can point you to somewhere that may educate you on what Freedom of Speech really is. http://www.popehat.com/
Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 They mean can't as it is impossible for them to because they have no constitutional requirement to protect your free speech. So they can prohibit my free speech if they have constitutional requirement to protect my free speech? I think it's you who misunderstand the English. And in the site you mentioned, I only saw someone complain about bad game content in his homepage.http://www.popehat.com/ (It's provided by you) It'll be better if you give me accurate page links to those support your opinions.
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 But they don't they being citizens. Only the government has that responsibility and they protect in only on publicly owned property. Which this is not. This is a private website and a private forum. You have no more right to free speech here than you would in my living room where I may kick out or restrict the speech of anyone I please. I think your misunderstanding comes from thinking that this is a public place like the park or something. It isn't this is a privately owned forum to support a privately owned game. You can have more than your speech restricted you may be refused service (playing of the game) just because you used the word puppies and the owner told you not to.
Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 Do you know why a game needed to have the stages of closed-beta' open-beta and formal running? Because with different degrees of openness, the game company may or may not need to take responsibility to the loss of the game's participant. As being a public-opened forum, even it's your living room, it's restricted by the law. When the boss chose to make it public, he is restricted by the law as it's he who chose to let it be public(no one force him to do so like no one will force you to let your living room opened to the public). And, as I said, ToS is Tos, as long as its terms conflict with law or constitution or even a administrative order, it's effect-less. Do you think if the ToS says "everyone register or log in means they agree to be my slaves", it has any meaning? So (1):It's the boss of RJ chose to let here transfer from private-closed forum to public-opened forum, so he has to keep the law concerned to restricting people's behavior in public. (2):Even the boss write some words conflict with the law' constitution or administrative order, as long as it has no effect, people can ignore it as they register or log in. (3):Since people's behavior is restricted and protected by the law in public places, people here have the rights from the law and constitution. A public place means people can freely enter, as long as they keep the law. The forum is a public place since all its ToS have to obey the law, so no matter what inside the ToS people agreed with, the forum is still a public place(when they agreed with ToS, they just obeyed the law).
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Jun 7, 2012 Free Speech Online For many of the online sites where you may think free speech is protected, you’re required to contractually agree to limit your free speech rights. You actually don’t have the same right to free speech that you would in a truly public forum. This is true of Facebook, Twitter, and pretty much all the major social media sites I’m aware of. Review their Terms of Service and see for yourself. In most cases the restrictions are reasonable and maybe even necessary for maintaining a quality service. It depends on who’s running the service. While it may seem that you’re entitled to free speech just the same as you would in a public forum, in actuality you waived that right when you joined the service. That was a condition of your registration. Some online services are quite liberal when it comes to restricting your free speech rights, while others are more restrictive. The Catch-All Clause Many online services also include some kind of catch-all clause which basically gives them the right to censor you however they see fit. For example, Twitter’s Terms of Service includes the following sentence: “We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services and to terminate users or reclaim usernames.” So according to those terms, they can nuke your account and content whenever they want. Since I’m a Twitter user myself, Twitter could disable my account and delete all my Tweets on a whim. They have the right to do that because I agreed to their Terms of Service. Now if they actually went around doing this sort of thing, it would likely generate some bad PR for them, but because I agreed to their ToS, I don’t see that I’d have a strong legal case if I tried to fight them on it. The legal reality is probably more complicated than what I’m expressing here, but as far as I can tell, I do have a valid contract with Twitter where I willfully agreed to restrict my free speech rights when it comes to using their service. Consequently, I know that when I post updates to my Twitter account, I have no entitlement to free speech. I’ve signed away that right in exchange for the privilege of using their service. And yes, it is a privilege. Tweeting is not a guaranteed right under the law. I include a catch-all clause for the discussion forums on my website as well. It says, “The owners of Personal Development for Smart People Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.” In addition to that, you also have to agree to follow our forum etiquette rules. You can’t post messages in our forums unless you agree to our Terms of Service. So in order to post your own messages on my website, you must also waive your right to free speech. If you think you can post whatever you’d like with impunity, you’re sorely mistaken. This certainly isn’t unique to my website — not by a long shot. The phrasing I use came standard with the forum software I installed. A simple Google search can verify that thousands of other forums use similar phrasing. http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/09/free-speech-in-online-communities-th e-delusion-of-entitlement/
Svaha Woodhouse RJ: Svaha CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 27 Karma: 50 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Jun 8, 2012 Try ask them if they censor someone's words because that one is a black, are they still legal? Those company say they keep the rights is because their competitors may sabotage them sometimes, and people may abuse the service for many reasons they yet to figure out. They just paced a way for themselves if someday a new abuse occurred, they can deal with it before they figure out proper ToS. Those are firm in believing that they didn't abuse the service can always complain to consumer protecting officers, and the company will reveal the proof to the officer and the officer will judge if it's true that those got banned do abuse the service or break anyone's right. If not, the officer will force the company to restore those people's accounts. This happens frequently in my country. Of course in a country leading the world like America won't let people's right be poorer than my country. I believe this, don't you?
Guy McMoney RJ: Guy McMoney Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 8 Karma: 12 Joined: Apr 12, 2012	Posted on Jun 8, 2012 Freedom of Speech only applies to government censorship, so right away you're just wasting everyone's time. Talking about murdering people as a form of censorship shows you really, really don't understand Freedom of Speech as defined by the US constitution. I don't know what Freedom of Speech means in your country, but you seem to be under a misunderstanding about what it means in the US. And even if Freedom of Speech somehow applied to a privately run internet forum, Freedom of Speech simply means you have a right to speak. It does not require anyone to listen. Walking by the street preacher while I plug my ears is not censorship of the preacher. Listen, your posts are still available, they've just been labeled not worth reading by people using the forum rating system. If I want to read your posts, I can modify my filters and they will appear. Or I can simply click on individual posts to view them no matter their rating. Now some people will use the rating system for nefarious purposes, which is another problem, but it's specific to the forum, and again, has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. I recommend a fun website that champions Free Speech to help you get a better understanding about what it means. It's a very clearly defined concept that can get muddled at times, but not in your case. Check it out. http://www.popehat.com/ Or just take a class on US Constitutional History.

You need to register or login to post a reply.

© 2012 Ratjoy.com Server Time: April 28, 2024, 7:32 PM