New Forum Policy: No Hateful Posts

"

Josephoenix wrote:

... It's more complicated than:

"freedom of speech"

You should understand that better than most

btw: welcome back... Have you already started planning your next vacation?

"

Chris wrote:

developers have feelings too

"

ntall1 wrote:

The "Freedom of Speech", part of the American Bill or Rights, that everyone so commonly speaks about technically only applies to laws enacted by the Congress of the US. But this amendment also speaks of peaceable assembly, something that is not possible when free speech abusers assume it is their right to defame, slander, and incite the masses.

"

mazul wrote:

"

ntall1 wrote:

The "Freedom of Speech", part of the American Bill or Rights, that everyone so commonly speaks about technically only applies to laws enacted by the Congress of the US. But this amendment also speaks of peaceable assembly, something that is not possible when free speech abusers assume it is their right to defame, slander, and incite the masses.

Given that people here come from so many different countries, I think that they are referring to the general concept of "freedom of speech" and not a specific country's implementation of that concept.

"

ntall1 wrote:

"

mazul wrote:

"

ntall1 wrote:

The "Freedom of Speech", part of the American Bill or Rights, that everyone so commonly speaks about technically only applies to laws enacted by the Congress of the US. But this amendment also speaks of peaceable assembly, something that is not possible when free speech abusers assume it is their right to defame, slander, and incite the masses.

Given that people here come from so many different countries, I think that they are referring to the general concept of "freedom of speech" and not a specific country's implementation of that concept.

And I understand that. In fact I questioned bringing it up in the first place due to the fact this community spans many countries. However, the term "Freedom of Speech" very commonly refers to the American Bill of rights version and the UN declaration of Human Rights version. Neither of which promote defamation, or slander.

"

cronk wrote:

"

mazul wrote:

There is a Swedish site called "flashback" which is a forum with extremely high "freedom of speech"; you are allowed to post that you wish this and that people to be exterminated without being censored, you are allowed to call someone an idiot, etc.

Well, on 'moderated' media you're allowed to express all kinds of torture upon people who break the law - all murders should get the death penalty, all rapists/pedos should be castrated, all lazy people should have to work for their benefits etc etc - this is all hate speech directed at a specific group regardless of individual rationality - and is the age-old problem of the hypocrisy of good intentions.

Isn't 'correct' and 'incorrect' freedom of speech just another form of total censorship and complete control, regardless of whether it's dressed up as or titled 'freedom of speech'?

If someone cannot have the opinion that all XYZ should be executed, then there is no complete 'freedom' of speech.

Perhaps a new phrase should be invented which doesn't demand hypocrisy?

Such as 'this is a social speech website', in that the phrase 'social speech' would imply the consideration of others, where as 'freedom of speech' does not.