Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[laklak]

Forums, except for a few like 4Chan, aren't free speech zones. There's an FUA you agree to abide by as a condition of your membership. That FUA can state anything it wants. Stormfront could say "no niggers, spics or chinks" and enforce it, and they'd be perfectly within their rights. Free speech does not apply in the workplace, witness teachers getting fired for posting unflattering comments about students online. It doesn't apply to the military, Private Manning is learning about that the hard way. Free speech is only germane in a political context, on a societal level.

[Red Celt]

Forums, except for a few like 4Chan, aren't free speech zones. There's an FUA you agree to abide by as a condition of your membership. That FUA can state anything it wants. Stormfront could say "no niggers, spics or chinks" and enforce it, and they'd be perfectly within their rights. Free speech does not apply in the workplace, witness teachers getting fired for posting unflattering comments about students online. It doesn't apply to the military, Private Manning is learning about that the hard way. Free speech is only germane in a political context, on a societal level.

In the workplace... aaaand no other example (the army is also a place of work). There are reasons for that - none of which can be flippantly applied to forums, as if an online society can't operate the same as an offline society. It's a shame, really; but you take the bad with the good in every non-utopian setting.

[Pappa]

How do you feel about censoring people on internet forums? Accusing people of IMT and threatening suspension for posting unpopular ideas?

I'm not going to harp on that point, just posting it as a thought to reconsider.

I think that's a loaded question. It strongly implies people are suspended for posting "unpopular ideas".

[Coito ergo sum]

How do you feel about censoring people on internet forums? Accusing people of IMT and threatening suspension for posting unpopular ideas?

I'm not going to harp on that point, just posting it as a thought to reconsider.

Free speech is free speech... regardless of where it happens - including forums. But, alas, we don't have that utopia here.

Not really.

The liberty of speech and expression is a liberty against governmental intrusion, not private intrusion.

You come to my house, you'll be polite or I'll kick your ass out. I determine what is appropriate on my property, whether it is speech, religion, gun bearing, or anything else.

That concept extends to workplaces and online forums, because someone owns them. In my office, which I own, you can't just show up and start mouthing off -- well you can, but I have the right to kick you off my property. You can say what you want, but not on my property.

Same goes for online forums. Someone owns them, so they have the right to control what, if anything is said.

That being said, if I claim to be a bastion of rational thought and freethinking, open debate forum, and I arbitrarily censor ideas, I might well be subjected to criticism for being a hypocrite, or not following the principles I espouse. That has nothing to do with the right of free speech, though. That's the ApeLust example. I mean, they have the right to control what goes on in their forum -- but if they claim to be skeptics and freethinkers, but censor unpopular ideas, then everyone else has the right to criticize them for it.

[Red Celt]

You come to my house, you'll be polite or I'll kick your ass out. I determine what is appropriate on my property, whether it is speech, religion, gun bearing, or anything else.

And if a thousand people enter your house? Is it still your house, or is it a place for communal gathering? The people aren't there, because the house is yours. They're there, because they like the company of the inhabitants. Of course, the "owner" of the property can enforce their own rules, but I'm not big on the whole ownership idea. Hey... all property is theft, comrade...

[Coito ergo sum]

You come to my house, you'll be polite or I'll kick your ass out. I determine what is appropriate on my property, whether it is speech, religion, gun bearing, or anything else.

And if a thousand people enter your house? Is it still your house, or is it a place for communal gathering?

It's my house. If they've entered it without my permission, then they are trespassing.

The people aren't there, because the house is yours. They're there, because they like the company of the inhabitants. Of course, the "owner" of the property can enforce their own rules, but I'm not big on the whole ownership idea. Hey... all property is theft, comrade...

Nonsense idea.

But, you've illustrated exactly why the right of property, and economic rights in general, are critical to the concept of liberty. Without the right of property and economic liberty in general, the rest of our fundamental liberties inevitably die.

[Red Celt]

It's my house. If they've entered it without my permission, then they are trespassing.

Woah! (wooooooosh) Excuse me for a sec, while I hold onto my hat. The sudden tangential surge caused quite a backdraft of air. I said nothing about people being invited or not invited.

But, you've illustrated exactly why the right of property, and economic rights in general, are critical to the concept of liberty.

A world with zero property rights could be more liberal than your conservative little imagination could ever dream of.

Property rights are the domain of the chimpanzee. Evolve, already.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's my house. If they've entered it without my permission, then they are trespassing.

Woah! (wooooooosh) Excuse me for a sec, while I hold onto my hat. The sudden tangential surge caused quite a backdraft of air. I said nothing about people being invited or not invited.

Well, they've either been invited, or they haven't been. Is there a third option?

But, you've illustrated exactly why the right of property, and economic rights in general, are critical to the concept of liberty.

A world with zero property rights could be more liberal than your conservative little imagination could ever dream of.

Property rights are the domain of the chimpanzee. Evolve, already.

You'll need to explain what you mean by "liberal" in this context. If you have no property rights, then anyone who wants to can come into your house at any time and take your things. If you call that "liberal" then I guess I just have to disagree with you there. It is sort of essential to a free society that I be allowed the reasonable expectation that my neighbors can't just take my car and my sprinkler system and A/C unit without asking.

Rather than a snappy little insult, why don't you describe how your property-right-less society would function. It'll be a hoot.

[Red Celt]

Rather than a snappy little insult, why don't you describe how your property-right-less society would function. It'll be a hoot.

Imagine a world with no property. No ownership.

In that world, you are free to do whatever you want to do, so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of other people doing what they want to do. That is a liberal world... quintessentially so, according to the liberal poster boy - John Stuart Mill.

But there is no property.

Claiming that property and liberalism are somehow inexplicably connected is a nonsense... for un-evolved people who have more in common with our chimpanzee cousins. Call it a "snappy little insult" if you like, but once you've touched the obelisk, you'll see how ridiculous it is to base something like liberty on such a backwards concept as ownership.

I mean... millions of years pass without your existence, during which objects exist. You pop into existence and claim that things that pre-existed you (for some reason) belong to you, only you, and nobody else. Then you die... and millions more years pass by, with those things in existence without you... not "owned" by you.

If that makes sense to you, here...

[Coito ergo sum]

Rather than a snappy little insult, why don't you describe how your property-right-less society would function. It'll be a hoot.

Imagine a world with no property. No ownership.

O.k., and I'll assume it is also a world populated by human beings.

In that world, you are free to do whatever you want to do, so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of other people doing what they want to do. That is a liberal world... quintessentially so, according to the liberal poster boy - John Stuart Mill.

But there is no property.

So, people can come in your kitchen while your sleeping and make a sandwich? If you have an empty room, they can sleep there? As long as they don't impinge on your rights, right? If they need your car, they can borrow it?

Claiming that property and liberalism are somehow inexplicably connected is a nonsense... for un-evolved people who have more in common with our chimpanzee cousins. Call it a "snappy little insult" if you like, but once you've touched the obelisk, you'll see how ridiculous it is to base something like liberty on such a backwards concept as ownership.

You haven't described how the society will function. Will there be money? Will it look like the society we live in now, with people having their own houses and yards, and such, and people working jobs?

You're not explaining it. Just saying "imagine a society with no property rights where everyone just does what they want as long as it does not impinge on someone else's rights," is a statement of principle, not an explanation for how that principle works in the real world.

[Red Celt]

So, people can come in your kitchen while your sleeping and make a sandwich? If you have an empty room, they can sleep there? As long as they don't impinge on your rights, right? If they need your car, they can borrow it?

Not grasping the whole "no property" aspect, are you?

You also seem to be in danger of assuming that this model is one I'd necessarily ascribe to. Perhaps it is... perhaps it isn't. The point is, whatever you think of such a world, it can exist with no loss of liberties to those who inhabit it.

[Robert_S]

So, people can come in your kitchen while your sleeping and make a sandwich? If you have an empty room, they can sleep there? As long as they don't impinge on your rights, right? If they need your car, they can borrow it?

Not grasping the whole "no property" aspect, are you?

You also seem to be in danger of assuming that this model is one I'd necessarily ascribe to. Perhaps it is... perhaps it isn't. The point is, whatever you think of such a world, it can exist with no loss of liberties to those who inhabit it.

Ha!

Sorry to say this, but the right to do stuff with at least some stuff of your own is going to be necessary for very much of that liberty to be worth anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, people can come in your kitchen while your sleeping and make a sandwich? If you have an empty room, they can sleep there? As long as they don't impinge on your rights, right? If they need your car, they can borrow it?

Not grasping the whole "no property" aspect, are you?

I think I do have a firm grasp of it. But, perhaps if you explain in some detail what you mean by it....

Do I own the house I live in? Can I keep people from camping in my garage? Can I exclude them from the food in my refrigerator or not?

You also seem to be in danger of assuming that this model is one I'd necessarily ascribe to. Perhaps it is... perhaps it isn't. The point is, whatever you think of such a world, it can exist with no loss of liberties to those who inhabit it.

Not in the way you've described it so far, but you are being very vague and general, and you seem to be either unwilling or unable to describe what you mean in any practical sense.

[Robert_S]

Can I read you diary?

[Red Celt]

I think I do have a firm grasp of it. But, perhaps if you explain in some detail what you mean by it....

Do I own the house I live in? Can I keep people from camping in my garage? Can I exclude them from the food in my refrigerator or not?

How can you say that you have a firm grasp of the idea of non-ownership when your first question involves ownership? Actually, all 3 of those questions involve ownership. I mean, jesus fuck, man...

...nobody owns anything.

Nobody can do to other people what they wouldn't want done to them. This is a liberal society, remember? Your right to do anything you want only stops when it impinges on other people's right to do what they want.

If your next reply involves the words "own", "have", "my" (or any other similar word which involves someone owning anything) I'll just have to assume that you're deliberately trolling. Take some time to think about the whole idea, if you like. Again, this isn't a world model I'm trying to sell. I'm describing a world model which involves liberty and no ownership. If you can accept that such a world could exist, you might (in future) not try and claim that liberty requires ownership.

Ever the optimist.