Freedom of Speech exemptions in the United States and in Canada (Page 3)

Lumpenproletariat: The rules are a bit ambiguous, addressing something to a mod (hopefully one with an open-mind) will be helpful for case by case issues. Example the one with: 'no mod bashing', one person's criticism may be viewed as 'bashing'. Another example is 'no provoking conflict or flaming' will this mean that a person must now tread on their toes to not provoke another? - Of course it'd not mean this but it opens the way for people to report needlessly, the role of a mod should be someone who will look at the whole picture without bias (unfortunately human nature will allow for some bias).
It'd be good if everyone be allowed into rooms regardless of their personal opinion, when they 'break the rules' then it is up to the other person to report and block. That report will be assessed to see if it was/wasn't against any rules. At least that is how it works offline.

Robot Seb: Non-biased mods mean we play no favorites and treat everyone that breaks the rules equally. Wire is a clean community which encourages politeness and respect for all members which has rules in order to keep a peaceful atmosphere is all. Constructive criticism is definitely welcome, even appreciated, as it helps us improve. Negative criticism or passive aggressiveness is what might lead to conflict and isn't condoned.

Lumpenproletariat: - I will disapprove of passive aggressiveness and opt for aggressiveness. Not sure on the negative criticism part, if someone says something stupid it is hard not to criticise their statements, that criticism may be accepted negatively. When a person speaks in a certain manner they naturally get responded back in that manner..It's a bit difficult to say since there are different scenarios

Robot Seb: I agree, interpretation is a big aspect. I gave 2 examples though in the reply post which cover this exact topic.

"Try not to think of these as limits or censorship as it's just placing limits on what you allow yourself to express. Instead think of these as "non-applicable" so Free Speech works but it doesn't apply to the stuff mentioned.

This is where being constructive comes into play as you can still express the idea you want to express as long as it's supported by facts, reasoning, and logic. Here's an example:

Bad approach
- "That person is a **** for buying an electric car and taking it for a drive out in the desert then getting stuck, what the hell was he thinking?!"

Good approach
- "Due to the lack of e-vehicle recharging stations in the region, the decision to venture out into the unknown eventually lead to the vehicle running out of power which showed a lack of foresight in locating a charging station within the vehicle's range of travel beforehand."

One approach is insulting and a bit degrading thus wouldn't be published while the other approach is supported by facts and logic which would be allowed to be published. It's all about how the message is conveyed that makes a big difference."

MichaeI: Nobody is excluded from the Religion room based on their faith or lack there of. We simply expect the conversations to be polite and respectful. An argument can be made without saying something like, "Jesus is a douche." That's not being constructive at all and is trying to cause a fight which we don't condone.

There are some highly intelligent people on Wire and they don't have to be belittled in order to get your point across. Challenge people all you like but just be intelligent about it. That's not too much to ask for.

If the stars fell: agreed michael

GreaseMonkey: There are *NO* fucking exceptions listed for Freedom of Speech in the Constitution of the United States!

People should remember that.

soylent_green_1973: That's an interesting opinion you have there, GreaseMonkey, but in the words of theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "it's not even wrong".

Firstly, the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections only restrict government. For example, Mcdonalds can legally demand that staff and customers not discuss politics on its premises. Burger King can ban all Harry Potter novels from its outlets.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has ruled the the First Amendment is not absolute in regards to freedom of speech. The government can restrict your freedom of speech if it incites "imminent lawless action", or if it breaches child pornography laws, or if it is judged obscene under the Miller test. The government can also regulate advertising.

Thirdly, Wireclub isn't even a U.S company, and it isn't based in the USA. Even if the First Amendment applied to private companies, which it doesn't, it would not apply to Wireclub.

GreaseMonkey: All I'm saying is that I'm sick and tired of Libtards who want to piss all over the Constitution.

And I quote:

"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."

End quote.

It's right there, plain & simple in black & white. There is no room for interpretation, whatsoever. There is no room to alter or change it at all.

I don't like the "..petition the Government for a redress of grievances." part, but that's too damn bad for me. It's in there and we need to abide by it.

SOME people want to alter the Constitution to suit them or their dim-witted interpretation.

Let's see what happens:

Amendment 2 states that the right to keep & bear arms is only necessary for the militia, so everyone else, turn em in.

Amendment 3 states that no soldier shall ever be quartered (housed) by any citizen unless prescribed by law. Well, the Gov't is hard up for money, let's make it a law that you have to feed & house some soldiers.

Amendment 4 Search & seizure without probable cause. Well, you're challenging the Constitution. That's probable cause (in some people's eyes) for you to be a traitor and/or a Terrorist, so there goes your privacy!

Amendment 5 We're going to charge people with crimes without providing evidence, charge them for it twice, force them to bear witness against themselves, take their belongings for public use, and we ain't gonna compensate them for it.

Amendment 6 Say goodbye to your speedy & public trial. From now on, Court proceedings will take an ungodly amount of time & be private. There will also be a Jury comprised of persons who are biased against the accused (for any reason). You will *NOT* know what you are accused of. Nor shall you be able to face your accuser, present witnesses on your behalf, or be represented by legal counsel (a lawyer).

Amendment 7 Common law: The value in controversy exceeding $20, we're going to throw "trial by jury" out the window, & these cases may now be re-examined as many times as necessary.

Amendment 8 Bail will be imposed at insane numbers, Fines will be ridiculously high, and cruel or unusual punishments are now favored.

Amendment 9 The Constitution will now be used as a weapon to deprive people of their rights.

Amendment 10 All powers not specifically listed in the Constitution will be wrenched from the people or the states, and surrendered to the Federal Government.


You want to change the Bill of Rights to suit your needs? Fine! I would prefer most of the Bill of Rights to read something like this, anyways.

It is unadvisable to "interpret" the Constitution of the United States of America. It's all right there, cut & dried. Like it or not, them's the rules.

As far as Freedom of Speech in other countries.... Let them figure it out for themselves. It is their right as a Nation to decide for themselves, the same way that Americans did.

soylent_green_1973: Wait...you think it's liberals who want to piss on the constitution? You think it's liberals who keep insisting Jesus helped write the Constitution? Amazing.

near50ohoh: the constitution is only there for the guilty because it has to be for the innocent. i cant speak to your such cases but in canada, we've had a few cases now where people have spent 20 yrs plus in prison for crimes they did not commit. and how do you give them their lives back? names? david milgaard, guy paul morin, etc. i know one more just cant think of his name.
and although wire is not a usa company, in order to be available to american citizens there are things they have to follow. another example is; drug companies outside of north america have to have minimum testing standards. if they wish to sell their products within american boarders. and in the usa, the fda monitors this, probably more stringently than they do usa companies.
how does this apply to free press and freedom of speech? (the two most commonly work together) .because big business and govt have shown a long and complex history of needing a watchdog and whether or not it does so, the press is supposed to do that.
i'm not up on yours, but our constitution says that its "for the people by the people". and if everything is done behind closed doors, it doesnt fulfill its obligations to the people represented, does it?
as for Jesus helping write the constitution? well.... most of the authors were Christian men so.... hmmmm?
since when is it partisan to either liberal or conservative to protect the country, its citizens and its trade venues by showing itself to be of good moral fibre?
and how does this apply to wire members being allowed to mouth off with not many limits? because its the people who run things en masse, its in the constitution. now if we could only get the people to behave in large groups?!!

Robot Seb: As soylant mentioned, Wire isn't based in America and not under its jurisdiction. Wire isn't a public place either such as a mall, park, or other location. Wire is a privately owned domain which is under Canada's jurisdiction and has it's own laws not to mention Wire's terms of service which stipulates what is applicable as far as what's allowed and what isn't.

near50ohoh: so its a service, and as a company under cdn law subject to the terms of trade agreements between usa and canada. a common ground. a common value system.

MichaeI: "By using our service you waive your rights to sue us for any reason whatsoever. " We all agreed to that when signing up.

near50ohoh: who mentioned suing?

soylent_green_1973: It's always funny to watch Americans try to wrap their minds around the fact that the USA isn't the world.

Robot Seb: lol nobody mentioned suing near50, I think the focus on what mich mentioned though is waiving the rights (whether applied to litigation or not). There are many sections within the ToS that explain that rights are wavered upon agreeing to the contract. The agreement goes into effect the moment the account is created and active.

Wireclub is not a business, it's a privately owned domain (domain = website) and all domains are under jurisdiction of the laws based on the location they are based at. In this case, Wireclub is under B.C. Canada law.

near50ohoh: thx so its a service. i have worked in health care so i get that difference. np. and knowing ur obliged under my country's laws, makes it easier for me to understand this discussion.

i gotta reraise the hate mongering issue then. cuzz i stepped back when i didnt know that.
my concern was about some people expressing opinions which may misrepresent a group's character or needs and do harm, possibly cost lives because of their negative and/ or threatening statements about the members and/or group.

one issue raised recently in threads is gay marriage. some of the statements have been inaccurate to say the least and cruel to put it bluntly. the people were ignorant and didnt wish to learn to the dismay of others. knowing what i know (little that it is ) about how hard won self esteem is and how sensitive it can make esp gay teenagers about such discussions, i was surprised some of the remarks were allowed to stand unedited. the remarks appeared to incite gaybashing to me at least.

cdn law allows for inciting or contributing to harm to others, as well as doing harm as criminal charges.

then i wonder about wire's responsibility or duty of care to the gay teen who may wander thru and read such drivel and go on to hurt themselves, thinking if this person says it the world is hostile. what is wire's responsibility to that teen?then can you say that yes the one member may say what they wish but in the interests of the younger members we must at minimum put a declaratory statement saying what the truth is, for the protection of the teen the site or domain has care for, for its more vulnerable members.

it isnt then just the legal but also the ethical responsibility that i wonder about here. so far every person who works as a mod that ive interacted with seems nice and caring. how would you people feel knowing that teen went home and hurt themselves because of what they saw as hate or venom here? but didnt have to. or at least not in isolation? or were beaten by someone reading it?

GreaseMonkey: I'm assuming soylent's last comment was directed @ me. I'll have you know: I couldn't possibly care any less about the rest of the World's problems. I barely have energy left for America's problems after dealing with mine and those of the people around me.

I've always said: "This is America, not the world police dept. And not some global charity. We have our own problems to deal with."

I think if our country put half as much resources into solving our problems as we do for the rest of the world, then we wouldn't have any more problems.

As for our success rate throughout the world, that's a whole different story

MichaeI:

near50ohoh: thank you for making my point for me grease monkey. i could have saved myself typing and editing time had i known which ear to whisper in about half hour ago.

Robot Seb: Please keep the language clean, profanity and homophobia isn't cool. Thanks

GreaseMonkey: Sorry helper. Not trying to cause trouble, it's just an extremely sensitive subject for me.

Everybody's quick to defend them, but nobody has a voice to support heterosexuality.

End heterophobia today!!

Robot Seb: No worries, on Wireclub everyone is welcome as we're like 1 big family. Trust me, when it comes to censorship, it's something even our admins are against as they feel expressing one's self is important and healthy as long as the debates are civil and/or constructive in nature, minus anything inappropriate.