Misunderstanding your Rights - Freedom of Speech and the Online World

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
Misunderstanding your Rights - Freedom of Speech and the Online World
By Bob Hubbard


Recently, events on several discussion boards, and online communities have left me shaking my head, yet again, in disbelief. It seems that too often, when someone is moderated on a discussion board, or mailing list, or chat room, that they start screaming about their "rights" being violated. As if they are somehow allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want, without worry of censure, or repercussion. Often, these complaints bring up the American Constitution, more specifically the First Amendment, as the reason why these comments should be allowed. Other times, it is used as the reason why an online rant, vent or other such scree should be allowed, and the poster held not-liable for its contents.

I am going to cite one such comment here. I am not singling this person out, there have been many such comments made. Few however actually take the time to cite the actual Amendment.

"Disclaimer: The following LJ entry falls under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights states, "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." With that said, by clicking on the LJ cut, you understand that you cannot file any lawsuit or press any charges against me."

Ok. Let us take this apart, piece by piece.

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Translation: Congress will make no law saying you cannot worship as your believe.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

Translation: Congress cannot deny you the right to say or print your mind.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"

Translation: Congress cannot deny you the right to gather together as long as you remain peaceful.

" and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Translation: Congress cannot deny you the right to contact your representative and tell him about your problems.

Here is the misunderstanding. Congress, and by meaning, the Government, cannot do this. It does not deny private enterprise the right or ability to do this however.

If I, as a private enterprise, decide that I will not allow swearing, you may not swear while having dealings with my enterprise.

If I decide that I do not want you to discuss certain biological acts in the presence of my 5 year old, that does not "violate your First Amendment Free-Speech rights".

If I decide that no discussion of Floppyology will be tolerated on this site, then, one may not discuss Floppyology here.

Too often, ill informed, poorly educated, and the outright stupid seem to think that the US First Amendment means they can say whatever they want.

It Does Not.


As I wrote several months ago in response to one such claim: "We aren't Congress. The people who scream the loudest about this right being violated, seem to constantly be those who understand it the least. Simply put, it doesn't apply on a web board. The only rights as to what may be said on a private board, are the rights granted to you. Our rules are pretty clear on what is not allowed, and we allow a great deal of leeway as to what you may discuss and how. All we usually ask is that you do it in a friendly way. Before screaming at us about your rights being violated, you may want to take some time to actually understand just what rights you have, and the responsibilities they require of you."

If I as a newspaper, or magazine, or book, or e-zine publisher refuse to publish what you wrote, I am not violating your 1st Amendment Rights. It may be censorship, it may not be. It may simply be that the publishers of said publication feel that your comments do not fit with their target. For example, an anti-war piece may be excellently researched, well formed, and well presented. But a very poor fit in a magazine about bunnys. The editor of "Bunny Weekly" would be within their own rights to not run your piece.

The First Amendment applies to US Citizens, and protects them from Government Censorship.
It does not protect you from Private Censorship.
It does not protect you in a foreign nation.
It does not apply to non-US Citizens.

It is designed, specifically to prevent the US Government, from denying certain rights to US Citizens. Period. It doesn't stop a newspaper from pulling a story and it doesn't stop a web forum from removing a post. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". You have the right to free speech. You also can be held accountable for its use.

The writers closing comment "With that said, by clicking on the LJ cut, you understand that you cannot file any lawsuit or press any charges against me." is what is considered a "click-through" license. It does not magically forgive libel or defamatory comments. IF you write libelous and defamatory statements, regardless of any "click through licenses", "waivers" or their ilk, you may still be guilty of libelous statements. You may still be sued by the wronged party. You may still be liable for damages. You may still go to jail.

This may look like I am targeting 1 individual. I am not. I have been dealing in the "online" world now for 20 years. For 5 years I have been running numerous online communities, full of interesting and wonderful individuals. There is sadly a trend it seems however, when someone is moderated, or suspended, or even banned from a forum or list, or simply doesn't get their way, that they scream about their rights being trampled upon. Before one goes on about their rights being suppressed, one should take the time to see not just what those rights really grant, but also what responsibilities those rights demand of the holder.

Otherwise, you run the risk of not simply looking foolish online, but of losing those rights altogether in todays world of ever encroaching government abuse.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] ===
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bob Hubbard is an administrator of the popular martial arts sites MartialTalk.com and KenpoTalk.com. He is president of SilverStar WebDesigns inc., a web site design and hosting company specializing in affordable solutions for martial artists. A student of all the arts, he is currently studying Modern Arnis. Bob can be reached at [email protected]. More of Bob's articles can be found at rustaz.net. Copies of this article are free to distribute, provided all text is retained intact. It and other articles can be found at rustaz.net
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright 2006[/FONT]
 
OP
Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
Comments, slings and arrows welcome and appreciated.
:)
 

monkey

Brown Belt
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
468
Reaction score
23
Location
chico ca
Way cool post.By the way did you recieve the dvd on Remy donig the 80s Arnis?
 

Bigshadow

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
4,033
Reaction score
45
Location
Saint Cloud, Florida
I agree.

My thoughts are as follows, I believe the intent of free speech was not meant to be as broad as it is seen by most today. The two things they wanted to ensure when they wrote it was that people could worship how they pleased (although the majority were christian of some sort) and that the people could openly speak out against the established authority (governement). They certainly could not speak out against the king or they were punished. However, I don't believe it meant to protect things like... protesting at funerals, burning flags, slinging **** on a wall and calling it art, and some the other controversial things that people talk about.

Just my opinions.
 

Andrew Green

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
452
Location
Winnipeg MB
Bingo :)

Basically a website is a privately owned website, on a privately owned server. The owner can do whatever he wants, let how we wants in and kick who he doesn't want out with absolutely no reasons needed.

Freedom of speech? You got the freedom to go rent your own space and say what you like there :D
 

Blotan Hunka

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
20
You are not the government. People seem to get this 1st amendment stuff confused with that fact quite a bit.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,275
Reaction score
9,390
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
But how can you stop me from posting on MT because I consider that cruel and unusual punishments that infringes on my 8th amendment rights :)

Just kidding...

There are a lot of laws that had to be rewritten just to cover computer crimes, but as far as I know the Bill of rights does not enter into it here on MT.

Great post Bob thanks

And since I mentioned it, here it is and posting on MT applies to this just about as much as the first amendment does

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 

Grenadier

Sr. Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
10,826
Reaction score
617
Well stated. I used to run a good sized forum that dealt with a popular mod for the game "Half-Life," and had to deal with certain individuals who tried to scream "Freedom of Speech" when I banned them.

I only wish you had come out with that statement, so that I could have borrowed from it, and worded the rules a bit more kindly. Instead, we went ahead with the somewhat hard line of:

"This is not a democracy. Freedom of speech does not exist here. You do not have the right to say what you want to say."
 

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
It just seems common sense to me. The goverment can't shut you up, but no one else has to provide a forum at their expense for you to get that message out.

Boycotting movies or sponsers is not an infringement of freedom of speech. A goverment shutting down a newspaper because it publishes unflattering stories about the dictator is an infringement.

Maybe this should be a sticky. Maybe before people are allowed to post they should signal that they have read it and understand it.
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
Good post. I have always understood that Freedom of Speech refers to the government, not private enterprise; the place where I see this happen the most would be on craigslist, where, if enough people ding a post, it will automatically be removed (moderators can also remove posts) - thus, the board is somewhat self-moderated. This does not stop people from screaming when they post threads or items specifically prohibited in the TOS about their freedom of speech being abrogated.... but it does lead to some interesting attempts to educate!
 

modarnis

Purple Belt
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
357
Reaction score
16
Location
Connecticut
Well put Bob. The only change I would add is that your web board grants people privileges, not rights. Most people don't understand the significant distinction between rights and privileges
 

pstarr

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
12
Location
Council Bluffs, IA
I agree. Speaking here as on any other privately owned site is a privilege. And as with most other privileges, it comes with responsibilities...
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
Harmful speech is not proctected. The most common example is you can not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre just because you feel like it. People may panic as a result, stampede to get out, and get injured in the process. If what you say or write is harmful it is not protected speech.
 

Latest Discussions

Top