A PSA...First Amendment Rights / Freedom of Speech

[BriarRosie]

He did, but he used a Penn name.

That is my favorite post in this thread. You're quick!

 

[catycatcat4]

It sounds kinda like German Chocolate, It may say its German but the meaning is not what it seems like.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I often hear about folks that visit the Dis who feel that their First Amendment rights are being violated when told they cant say certain things or their posts get deleted.

I can only assume they have never read the Bill of Rights.

For their education, I thought I should print the wording of the First Amendment, so that they can see that it has NOTHING to do with posting on a discussion board.

Amendment I

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.

Speaking of those who need a refresher course in the Bill of Rights Kevin.... Your actually pretty incorrect here. I love ya, but have to call you out.

The viewpoint flies in the face of 200 plus years of legal precedent in interpreting the constitution... especially over the last 100 plus years where speech protection is considered to cover cash expenditures in political campaigns, Art, written word, symbolic speech, etc. It is NOT nor was it ever INTENDED to be limited to just the spoken word.

Now, that being said, your point that people can be censored on the Dis is right; however your reasoning behind it is incorrect.

The Dis is a privately held website. As such, the Dis has the right to determine who can access the site and the code of conduct that people must follow. This is again covered by years of judicial precedent and is established. For the record, its similar to the arguments casinos use to ban card counters, even if it isn't cheating... they have the right to bar access to a private business.

Now of course someone COULD sue, but I doubt they'd win and who'd want to waste the money over a forum posting?

Now whether they SHOULD or not, is an entirely different debate... I'll decline to share my personal opinion at this time.

 

[dburg30]

Speaking of those who need a refresher course in the Bill of Rights Kevin.... Your actually pretty incorrect here. I love ya, but have to call you out.

The viewpoint flies in the face of 200 plus years of legal precedent in interpreting the constitution... especially over the last 100 plus years where speech protection is considered to cover cash expenditures in political campaigns, Art, written word, symbolic speech, etc. It is NOT nor was it ever INTENDED to be limited to just the spoken word.

Now, that being said, your point that people can be censored on the Dis is right; however your reasoning behind it is incorrect.

The Dis is a privately held website. As such, the Dis has the right to determine who can access the site and the code of conduct that people must follow. This is again covered by years of judicial precedent and is established. For the record, its similar to the arguments casinos use to ban card counters, even if it isn't cheating... they have the right to bar access to a private business.

Now of course someone COULD sue, but I doubt they'd win and who'd want to waste the money over a forum posting?

Now whether they SHOULD or not, is an entirely different debate... I'll decline to share my personal opinion at this time.

A scuba forum I frequent has an issue right now. You can read it or not, but it appears it was because of a 'forum posting'..

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...right-post-scubaboard-legal-defense-fund.html

 

[yitbos96bb]

This is such a pet peeve of mine. I can't stand when someone says something, a celebrity, politician, whoever and they get backlash from it and then they start spouting off about their freedom of speech. "But what about my freedom of speech?" No where in the constitution does it guarantee you that there won't be any consequences for saying whatever stupid thing comes into your head, it just guarantees you won't be arrested for it.

If I call my boss a big fat lazy stupid slob, I would expect him to fire me and I wouldn't expect the first amendment to protect me from that.

Why anyone would think it's a free pass to say anything they want on a message board, regardless of the message board's rules for posting, has always been completely beyond me.

You are kind of splitting your argument against two different principles... The constitutional protection afforded to citizens to express their thoughts, burn a flag in protest, spend soft money to express their viewpoint in an election, create societal and political satire and parody etc... vs the viewpoint of some that there should be no backlash against anything they say. A celebrity expressing a viewpoint about a political issue is within his right as are you to disagree with said celebrity. Hence, the irony of people who want to silence a celebrity from being able to express their viewpoint are indeed calling for a violation of that person's rights.

However, those people can boycott the celebrities works, speak against him, stop buying his merchandise, etc. The celebrity would indeed be ignorant to state that their reaction is a violation of his rights...

 

[yitbos96bb]

A scuba forum I frequent has an issue right now. You can read it or not, but it appears it was because of a 'forum posting'..

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...right-post-scubaboard-legal-defense-fund.html

Hmm... Well I guess there are people with the time or money to waste suing a forum board. I'm curious what they are trying to get out of it as unless the board isn't incorporated and run by a very wealthy person (which would not appear to be the case reading the post) there is no money to be won... I guess just petty revenge.

I'd be curious to actually see how a judge rules on something like this... my guess is it would be thrown out before even reaching trial, but I could be wrong. Of course Judges and Juries create all types of weird rulings so who knows.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Exactly.

It's not a good idea to yell, "movie !" in a crowded firehouse.

Lol... It's funny you wrote it that way... it's actually one of the most often misquoted rulings in history...


FUn fact - the ruling that Holmes wrote that oft misquoted phrase (people leave out the falsely yelling fire aspect...) (Schneck v US, was overturned in 1969 with Brandenburg v Ohio, which established the imminent lawless action requirement.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Board I admin I just tell people that dont like how we moderate, to make their own forums and let people say whatever they want. My board, my rules...

Sometimes I dont agree with how things are moderated on this board and others, but quickly remember it really doesnt matter what I think.

Well that's not actually true. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter, but from a consumer standpoint it certainly does.

Things like security, moderation etc have to be balanced. Too far to an extreme results in a negative experience with too much or too little of something. If enough people object, a site refusing to adapt would find its user base dwindling. So ignoring the user community's opinions if unwise.

It reminds me of security.... too little security and people can easily gain access to what they shouldn't. However, too MUCH security creates the same situation... a 15 character password isn't secure when people write it down and put it in their desk! You need to stike the balance between usability and safety.

With a few moderators as exceptions, for the most part a nice balance is struck here.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I often hear about folks that visit the Dis who feel that their First Amendment rights are being violated when told they cant say certain things or their posts get deleted.

I can only assume they have never read the Bill of Rights.

For their education, I thought I should print the wording of the First Amendment, so that they can see that it has NOTHING to do with posting on a discussion board.

Amendment I

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.

One thing I will say though....

Often times, the people doing the telling aren't really clear WHAT the problem was. It seems to be a canned response most of the time and while some are good at clarification (Webmaster Doc is especially great about it), others refuse to or act worse (such as retribution for asking why... it's rare, but it does happen). Again, its a small, small minority and the majority of moderators are great, but I think it would improve the site use if more followed Doc's lead in explaining a specific issue so that users can avoid repeating it again.

 

[DisneyKevin]

One thing I will say though....

Often times, the people doing the telling aren't really clear WHAT the problem was. It seems to be a canned response most of the time and while some are good at clarification (Webmaster Doc is especially great about it), others refuse to or act worse (such as retribution for asking why... it's rare, but it does happen). Again, its a small, small minority and the majority of moderators are great, but I think it would improve the site use if more followed Doc's lead in explaining a specific issue so that users can avoid repeating it again.

You are quite prolific...

You have a right to say what you want. No where does it state that someone else has to pay for that right.

By posting on these boards, you sign and agree to the Terms of Agreement.

You follow those terms or you dont post here.

You are welcome to stand in your front yard and scream at the top of your lungs, tattoo it on your forehead or start your own website, but the first amendment does not guarantee you the right to someone else footing the bill..

 

[dalt01]

This is such a pet peeve of mine. I can't stand when someone says something, a celebrity, politician, whoever and they get backlash from it

You are kind of splitting your argument against two different principles... A celebrity expressing a viewpoint about a political issue is within his right as are you to disagree with said celebrity. Hence, the irony of people who want to silence a celebrity from being able to express their viewpoint are indeed calling for a violation of that person's rights.

"backlash" or complaining as i call it is not an attempt to silence......it is just the other side of the coin expressing its opinion. you dont really "silence" anyone in this case because the offending statement has allready been offered up and will i assure you be repeated ad nauseum.......soooooooo.........i dont see where anyone is calling for a violation of anyones rights.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

The Dis is a privately held website. As such, the Dis has the right to determine who can access the site and the code of conduct that people must follow. This is again covered by years of judicial precedent and is established. For the record, its similar to the arguments casinos use to ban card counters, even if it isn't cheating... they have the right to bar access to a private business.

Well that's not actually true. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter, but from a consumer standpoint it certainly does.

Things like security, moderation etc have to be balanced. Too far to an extreme results in a negative experience with too much or too little of something. If enough people object, a site refusing to adapt would find its user base dwindling. So ignoring the user community's opinions if unwise.

It reminds me of security.... too little security and people can easily gain access to what they shouldn't. However, too MUCH security creates the same situation... a 15 character password isn't secure when people write it down and put it in their desk! You need to stike the balance between usability and safety.

With a few moderators as exceptions, for the most part a nice balance is struck here.

Yes, the DIS is a privately owned website. When people sign up, they are shown and must accept a detailed terms of service agreement. If not, they are not permitted to use this service.

I agree everything has to be balanced, but I also feel that things need to be looked at as a whole entity. The DIS is one microcosm of Dreams Unlimited Travel. It's a service provided for free that not only brings business to the company, but also provides thousands of members with free information they can use on their own. Keeping it balanced means that certain rules and guidelines must be adhered to. If they are not, the individual is going against what the owner of this privately owned website had as his vision.

I frequent many areas of the boards, but have never seen things overly negative on the part of the moderators. Instead, I see very patient people trying to deal with those who purposely push the envelope of what is and is not acceptable. If a thread has to be closed, it's because it is violating the terms of service. I can't see someone closing a thread just for the heck of it. There's reasons behind doing so. This is also why the DIS is such a popular site around the world: it is moderated very well so that things run as smoothly as possible.

Bottom line, if you agree to the terms of service for any site, you conduct yourself in a manner that is in line with what is expected. If you can't do that, you might need to reconsider where you spend your time. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about following the rules. Rules are made for a reason. Even though we have freedom of speech, we also have laws we must abide by. I feel that this is a similar scenario. Just my two cents.

 

[DisneyKevin]

The DIS is one microcosm of Dreams Unlimited Travel. It's a service provided for free that not only brings business to the company, but also provides thousands of members with free information they can use on their own.

Actually...the Dis and Dreams Unlimited Travel are two separate and distinct businesses.

They share an owner....but are two separate entities.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

Aren't they connected though? Maybe I worded that wrong. I stand corrected!

 

[WaltD4Me]

Hmm... Well I guess there are people with the time or money to waste suing a forum board. I'm curious what they are trying to get out of it as unless the board isn't incorporated and run by a very wealthy person (which would not appear to be the case reading the post) there is no money to be won... I guess just petty revenge.

I'd be curious to actually see how a judge rules on something like this... my guess is it would be thrown out before even reaching trial, but I could be wrong. Of course Judges and Juries create all types of weird rulings so who knows.

I don't understand what the guy is suing about? It appears the story is true and people are discussing it and warning other scuba divers away, is he trying to say it's libel or slander?

 

[WaltD4Me]

Hence, the irony of people who want to silence a celebrity from being able to express their viewpoint are indeed calling for a violation of that person's rights.

However, those people can boycott the celebrities works, speak against him, stop buying his merchandise, etc. The celebrity would indeed be ignorant to state that their reaction is a violation of his rights...

I didn't say anything about silencing the celebrity, my issue is with the celebrity (or whoever) who complains after making a statement that turns out to be controversial because they seem to think, because of freedom of speech, that no one should disagree with them or like you said boycott their work, stop buying their merchadise, whatever.

Case in point....Remember when the Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made some comment about then President George Bush at a London concert? People were upset, they stopped buying their albums and concert tickets, burned their CD's and radio stations stopped playing their music (due to customer demand ) Natalie Maines repeatedly whined about her freedom of speech (never mind that she was in London when she said it) like she believed she should be able to say whatever she wants without repercussions from people who disagree with her and have the same rights she does.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Other examples....

You can paint, draw, sculpt anything you want....no one is required to display what you've created.

You can write anything you want. No one is required to publish it

You can record anything you want. No one is required play it on the radio.

You can say anything you want. No one is required to print it.

No one is required to subsidize your freedom of speech.

 

[jcb]

I don't understand what the guy is suing about? It appears the story is true and people are discussing it and warning other scuba divers away, is he trying to say it's libel or slander?

People sue over true statements all the time. But here, the party suing is a travel agency who, so they claimed in the lawsuit, specialized in booking diving vacations to the Maldives and on one of those vacations, a diver died because of the way the tank was filled by the boat crew-member. This isn't the lawsuit over that death. This is a lawsuit (pending in Orlando) against the discussion board and several users (only one of whom is participating) alleging they defamed the travel agency.

The problem with the lawsuit is that it sues the discussion board in the same manner that it sues the posters. That is prohibited by provision in a federal law called the communications decency act. The provision prohibits suing the "interactive computer service" (which includes a discussion board) for what was posted on it by a user. The immunity from suit includes, one court held in a suit against AOL, allegations that the board was liable for failing to monitor, screen, or delete.

So, if I defame Kevin he can sue the pants off of me but his suit against Pete (strictly speaking Werner Technologies, LLC) for what I said (or because Pete failed to remove it) should be tossed. Now where it gets interesting is where the "interactive computer service" is designed to promote a illegal activity. So, if pool hooping were "illegal" (which it is not) and disboards.com promoted it (which it does not), then arguably a suit by Disney wouldn't be tossed.

And to be clear, this has nothing to do with the first amendment.

 

[yitbos96bb]

You are quite prolific...

You have a right to say what you want. No where does it state that someone else has to pay for that right.

By posting on these boards, you sign and agree to the Terms of Agreement.

You follow those terms or you dont post here.

You are welcome to stand in your front yard and scream at the top of your lungs, tattoo it on your forehead or start your own website, but the first amendment does not guarantee you the right to someone else footing the bill..

I'm not sure why this was in response to what I wrote... I said everything you just said that its not a relevant first amendment issue and mentioned the TOA... I do take issue with some saying that because message boards aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights specifically, that they aren't protected speech... that is incorrect... whether the speech is protected depends on the situation... public forum it is unless it creates an imminent danger... on a private forum it isn't. SO I'm a little confused why you quoted what you quoted... which was a reference to the work styles of certain people and had nothing to do with constitutionality or legality.

I'm just a little mystified since you essentially were agreeing with what I wrote earlier.

 

[yitbos96bb]

"backlash" or complaining as i call it is not an attempt to silence......it is just the other side of the coin expressing its opinion. you dont really "silence" anyone in this case because the offending statement has allready been offered up and will i assure you be repeated ad nauseum.......soooooooo.........i dont see where anyone is calling for a violation of anyones rights.

I wasn't considering complaining an attempt to silence. nor was I saying the poster was doing that.

It was a generic comment about the type of people who say that celebrities should be silenced... as in barred from talking, killed, etc. It wasn't in anyway directed to any DISer, but rather an example of the irony in someone exercising their first amendment rights by talking about permanently preventing someone from expressing theres.