Freedom of Speech

[michel123456]

After some search, it looks you are right if you are in the U.S.

 

from this paper(author Stein, Laura)* at page 20-21, after analyzing some cases, the author concludes:

 

Although the Internet may have functioned as a forum for public expression since its inception, its status as a new medium has disqualified it from being a traditional public forum. Additionally, the deference given to the governments intent to limit speakers or speech online and the weakness of the reasonableness test has prevented the courts from categorizing these spaces as designated public forums. Consequently, the courts have conceptualized public property online as proprietary spaces in which the public speaks at the discretion of the government.

 

If you are in the U.K., as it seems, things may be different. IMHO you should ask a lawyer.

 

*Stein, Laura. "Speech Without Rights: The Status of Public Space on the Internet" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 22, 2008 <Not Available>. 2010-11-12 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p228714_index.html>

Edited January 8, 2011 by michel123456

[Marat]

The Canadian Federal Government regulates all media operating in or having an effect within Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Act (R. S., 1985, c. H-6) states in. s. 5:

 

"It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities, or accommodations customarily available to the general public:

 

(a) to deny, or deny access to, any such good, service, facility, or accommodation to any individual, or

(b) to differentiate adversely in realtion to any individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination ... ."

 

The Act then goes on to enumerate all the usual grounds of discrimination, such as race, ethncity, gender, etc. So here you have an example of a statute which extends an anti-discrimination right's protection to individual private actors even where there is no government involvement, but just any 'provision of services which are offered to the general public' by other private actors.

[michel123456]

(...)

Your right to freedom of speech ends at the moment you leave the public sidewalk. Once you enter private property you have no such rights.(...)

 

Yes, I didn't know that. I had a dream that a Human Right was like an aura surrounding a Human Being. As it looks, it is not the case.

So I was wrong when I said "that is not the case" in post #20

 

I should have stated:

 

Liberty of Speech does not exist in your house also, at work & at church. Otherwise it lis like saying entering a house, an enterprise or a church, you diminish your own rights, you become less human, and that is not the case.

 

-----------------------------------------------

Back to the legal issue:

From Forum Rules:

Section 1: Purpose Statement

ScienceForums.net is dedicated to providing a forum for the discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. We aim to provide all individuals, regardless of their education level, a forum to express their ideas and love of science.

 

I am not a lawyer, but that looks to me quite close to the definition of a Public Forum.

Edited January 9, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

I am not a lawyer, but that looks to me quite close to the definition of a Public Forum.

 

We can emulate a public forum and still reserve the right to enforce certain rules with regard to civility and relevance.

[zapatos]

Yes, I didn't know that. I had a dream that a Human Right was like an aura surrounding a Human Being. As it looks, it is not the case.

So I was wrong when I said "that is not the case" in post #20

 

I should have stated:

 

Liberty of Speech does not exist in your house also, at work & at church. Otherwise it lis like saying entering a house, an enterprise or a church, you diminish your own rights, you become less human, and that is not the case.

You make it sound like a right is an inherent human trait. You have no rights that are not given to you.

[Marat]

While governments must always officially acknowledge rights for them to have legal force, this does not mean that rights do not in some sense inhere necessarily in the nature of the kind of beings people are. The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) states, for example, in its initial stipulation of the legal rights that exist in Canada, that these rights "have always existed," even though they never had legal force prior to 1960.

 

Existentialists such as Sartre and Heidegger argue that the type of openness humans have to almost any type of existence implies that they are essentially defined by their capacity for freedom of choice rather than by any substantive good or concrete, defining, essential characteristic. This then implies that the type of being that humans have requires that any organized society in which they live must recognize the moral supremacy of their right to freedom of choice over their duty to choose any particular good (aside from avoiding harming others).

[ydoaPs]

I am not a lawyer, but that looks to me quite close to the definition of a Public Forum.

This is not a Public Forum. It is a privately owned discussion forum. Blike could decree that all posts must be in Haiku if he wanted to.

 

You have no rights that are not given to you.

Indeed. Well, can also get rights by taking them at the tip of a sword.

[zapatos]

While governments must always officially acknowledge rights for them to have legal force, this does not mean that rights do not in some sense inhere necessarily in the nature of the kind of beings people are. The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) states, for example, in its initial stipulation of the legal rights that exist in Canada, that these rights "have always existed," even though they never had legal force prior to 1960.

 

Existentialists such as Sartre and Heidegger argue that the type of openness humans have to almost any type of existence implies that they are essentially defined by their capacity for freedom of choice rather than by any substantive good or concrete, defining, essential characteristic. This then implies that the type of being that humans have requires that any organized society in which they live must recognize the moral supremacy of their right to freedom of choice over their duty to choose any particular good (aside from avoiding harming others).

In the examples you use, I see rights given to people by the Canadian Bill of Rights and by the ethical theories of Sartre and Heidegger. And the only useful rights are those that can be guaranteed in some way, such as by law. The rights given to me by Sartre do not mean much if I am somewhere that the rights cannot be exercised.

[swansont]

You make it sound like a right is an inherent human trait. You have no rights that are not given to you.

 

That's not the attitude in the US, and possible elsewhere. Certain rights are inalienable, and wile many think the Constitution is a source of rights, it is actually a descriptions of the limits and powers of government. Certain rights are delineated, but the are not granted by the government.

 

IOW, if the government can take it away, it's not really a right. It'a a privilege.

[zapatos]

That's not the attitude in the US, and possible elsewhere. Certain rights are inalienable, and wile many think the Constitution is a source of rights, it is actually a descriptions of the limits and powers of government. Certain rights are delineated, but the are not granted by the government.

 

IOW, if the government can take it away, it's not really a right. It'a a privilege.

I am not sure what you mean by the Constitution not being a source of rights. My right to free speech is granted in the bill of rights. Without that declaration I do not have that right.

 

And while the government cannot take away a right under the current constitution, it does have a method to take away rights through the amendment process. Meaning that the source of the right is in the Constitution.

[michel123456]

This is not a Public Forum. It is a privately owned discussion forum. Blike could decree that all posts must be in Haiku if he wanted to.

 

Yes, so it seems after investigation. That should be stated more clearly in the introductive purpose statement.

"

 

 

 

Indeed. Well, can also get rights by taking them at the tip of a sword.

 

The Human Rights declaration exists to protect humans. People have died for that. As it appears, there is legaly no Freedom of Speech here. It means all members have lost a part of their freedom when entering the Forum, they are less human than those circulating on the pathway.

 

Call me a dreamer, but I thought we could discuss here as if we were in open air on a public bench staring at the stars. But we are not.The only thing we can do on this Forum is discussing, and the only HR that corresponds to this situation has been taken away. It is very sad, don't you agree?

Edited January 12, 2011 by michel123456

[Mr Skeptic]

You make it sound like a right is an inherent human trait. You have no rights that are not given to you.

 

This is why there was opposition to including the Bill of Rights... that it would be taken to mean that you only have the rights listed. No, you have rights regardless of the government, the government cannot give you rights, and the government can't really take them away though they can threaten you not to exercise them. The constitution is a limitation on the government, so they don't try to punish people for exercising certain rights, among other things.

[michel123456]

(...)and the government can't really take them away (...)

 

But the Internet can.

[ydoaPs]

As it appears, there is legaly no Freedom of Speech here. It means all members have lost a part of their freedom when entering the Forum, they are less human than those circulating on the pathway.

No, it means the freedom does not apply. Freedom of speech is a protection from the government and SFN is not government run. You may as well complain about not being free to swim with the fishes because you're on an airplane.

 

Websites are the property of their owners. This isn't a government website; It's blike's toy and he can do with it what he wants. You don't have the right to post here. Blike just lets you share his toy.

 

But the Internet can.

Because the internet is not the government.

[swansont]

I am not sure what you mean by the Constitution not being a source of rights. My right to free speech is granted in the bill of rights. Without that declaration I do not have that right.

 

And while the government cannot take away a right under the current constitution, it does have a method to take away rights through the amendment process. Meaning that the source of the right is in the Constitution.

 

 

No; the rights are mentioned in the Bill of rights, but the document outlines them in terms of what the government is not allowed to do (Congress shall make no law, the right to do X shall not be infringed). The Declaration makes it clear that the attitude is that certain rights are inherent, and that the power of government coms from the consent of the governed. The method for amending the Constitution involves votes of elected officials of the states. The federal government cannot, by itself, take the rights away. The people have to agree to it.

[zapatos]

This is why there was opposition to including the Bill of Rights... that it would be taken to mean that you only have the rights listed. No, you have rights regardless of the government, the government cannot give you rights, and the government can't really take them away though they can threaten you not to exercise them. The constitution is a limitation on the government, so they don't try to punish people for exercising certain rights, among other things.

The opposition to including the Bill of Rights was fear that it would be taken to mean that you only have those rights listed as far as the government was concerned. But the government can at times clarify other rights you have that were not listed in the Constitution. This is done via other methods, such as the courts, for other rights, such as the right to privacy.

 

What rights do I have that are not given to me, via some type of man made legal, ethical, or social construct?

[michel123456]

No, it means the freedom does not apply. Freedom of speech is a protection from the government and SFN is not government run. You may as well complain about not being free to swim with the fishes because you're on an airplane.

 

Websites are the property of their owners. This isn't a government website; It's blike's toy and he can do with it what he wants. You don't have the right to post here. Blike just lets you share his toy.

 

 

Because the internet is not the government.

 

FYI read from page 11 (B. Internet governance and digital democracy)

 

Some extracts (emphasis mine)

"38. The creation of an international organization, which would govern Internet with a firm

human rights approach, is a priority for the United Nations and the international community at

large. Global rules to ensure that Internet can be developed, in a sustainable manner, as a

democratic medium of expression are essential for the international community to include the

promotion and the protection of human rights in the emerging era. Such an organization will

develop and apply, through the joint work of relevant national agencies, the private sector and

the civil society, shared principles, norms, rules, which will shape the evolution and the use of

the Internet. The enlargement of broadband communications systems in developing countries

will, to a great extent, help the diffusion of information and communication technologies related

economy."

 

"40. Political repression from Governments is only a component of the limitations to freedom

of expression on the Internet; other restrictions would have more subtle yet still insidious forms

and contents."

 

and HERE

 

"In a landmark 1997 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Internet is entitled to the highest free speech protections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution—the same level of protection afforded print media. The Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU extended this protection to the Internet because of its low barriers to access, abundance of speakers, lack of gatekeepers, and high degree of individual control."

Edited January 12, 2011 by michel123456

[ydoaPs]

Link is borked.

[zapatos]

No; the rights are mentioned in the Bill of rights, but the document outlines them in terms of what the government is not allowed to do (Congress shall make no law, the right to do X shall not be infringed). The Declaration makes it clear that the attitude is that certain rights are inherent, and that the power of government coms from the consent of the governed. The method for amending the Constitution involves votes of elected officials of the states. The federal government cannot, by itself, take the rights away. The people have to agree to it.

Ok, your description of the Constitution as a description of limits, etc. is a better way to describe it than what I said. But of course the flip side of the government's limitations, is my rights. So I'll have to stick with my contention that the source of my rights is the Constitution.

 

I recognize that the federal government cannot by itself take away rights. I was including state governments and should have specified.

[swansont]

Ok, your description of the Constitution as a description of limits, etc. is a better way to describe it than what I said. But of course the flip side of the government's limitations, is my rights. So I'll have to stick with my contention that the source of my rights is the Constitution.

 

I recognize that the federal government cannot by itself take away rights. I was including state governments and should have specified.

 

I suspect a lot of people also feel that way, and my own view is that the view is somewhat self-emasculating; if you view them as rights given to you by the government you might not fight as hard to keep them when the government tries to overstep its bounds. It's like they are taking something back. The "consent of the governed" view is that the rights were yours to begin with, and the government has no authority to take them back, since they were not the ones who granted them in the first place. My right to free speech is not contingent on the government being in a good mood and letting me speak my piece.

 

FYI read from page 11 (B. Internet governance and digital democracy)

 

Some extracts (emphasis mine)

"38. The creation of an international organization, which would govern Internet with a firm

human rights approach, is a priority for the United Nations and the international community at

large. Global rules to ensure that Internet can be developed, in a sustainable manner, as a

democratic medium of expression are essential for the international community to include the

promotion and the protection of human rights in the emerging era. Such an organization will

develop and apply, through the joint work of relevant national agencies, the private sector and

the civil society, shared principles, norms, rules, which will shape the evolution and the use of

the Internet. The enlargement of broadband communications systems in developing countries

will, to a great extent, help the diffusion of information and communication technologies related

economy."

 

"40. Political repression from Governments is only a component of the limitations to freedom

of expression on the Internet; other restrictions would have more subtle yet still insidious forms

and contents."

 

and HERE

 

"In a landmark 1997 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Internet is entitled to the highest free speech protections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution—the same level of protection afforded print media. The Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU extended this protection to the Internet because of its low barriers to access, abundance of speakers, lack of gatekeepers, and high degree of individual control."

 

 

Internet access ≠ access to an individual site of your choice.

 

D H has already pointed out the analogy of the newspaper. Ensuring internet access allows you to start up your own forum or blog and post whatever you wish, and you should be free of any fear that a government would shut you down. That's your freedom of speech.

[D H]

Ensuring internet access allows you to start up your own forum or blog and post whatever you wish, and you should be free of any fear that a government would shut you down. That's your freedom of speech.

For now, that is. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the outcomes of the Arizona tragedy is an attempt by the government to clamp down on internet speech. That has nothing to do with whether we evil owners, administrators, moderators, and science experts at Science Forums suppress your non-existant right to freedom of speech on this site. It has everything to do with your right to freedom of speech on a site or blog of your own making.

[zapatos]

I suspect a lot of people also feel that way, and my own view is that the view is somewhat self-emasculating; if you view them as rights given to you by the government you might not fight as hard to keep them when the government tries to overstep its bounds. It's like they are taking something back. The "consent of the governed" view is that the rights were yours to begin with, and the government has no authority to take them back, since they were not the ones who granted them in the first place. My right to free speech is not contingent on the government being in a good mood and letting me speak my piece.

I don't view them as rights given to me by the government. As I said the source of our rights is the Constitution. I agree that the rights were ours to begin with, but I believe the beginning was when we decided what rights we were going to grant ourselves and we spelled it out in the Constitution. Until we wrote it down and actively worked to ensure people could exercise those rights, they didn't exist under our government.

 

When I say that rights are given to us, I am not suggeting that they can only be given to us by government. I include that they can be given to us by us.

Edited January 12, 2011 by zapatos