Chess dot com doesn't violate (let alone control) free speech. They manage it 'cuz there are under 18's who enjoy playing this game.
Remember, they're out to make $ (good for them !)....that's why they called it a "com" (commerce ?).
This site is morally responsible and good policemen. We need it my love's.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't prohibit Chess.com from censoring material that you submit to their site.
Yeah, most people have no idea what the First Amendment really means. It does not prevent any person from restricting your speech in their home. It does not prevent any company or organization from restricting your speech on their property. This web site belongs to chess.com and they have every right to censor its content in any way they choose.
You're a guest in Erik's house, free speech rights do not apply.
When your in my house you may well expect to have your speech curtailed as well, if I feel it's not suitable for me and my family to hear.
No-one's actually stopping you from speaking your mind, either, by the way. The stance is simply that you must do it elsewhere.
If only you were here, I'd be happy to discuss my Second Amendment rights with you...
I'm English. We don't have the right to keep and bear arms... fortunately
(punchline in white text)
I have been involved in the chess community for 30 years. Chess.com is in it only for the money. Chess is not about money, chess has a higher purpose than profit. Chess.com will learn the hard way.
HAHAHAHAHA Sure buddy. If it weren't about money, why do the big tournaments offer monetary prizes? Why don't the players just play for free?
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't prohibit Chess.com from censoring material that you submit to their site.
Yeah, most people have no idea what the First Amendment really means. It does not prevent any person from restricting your speech in their home. It does not prevent any company or organization from restricting your speech on their property. This web site belongs to chess.com and they have every right to censor its content in any way they choose.
Not only that, but chess.com operates in a world wide space, not just the gun totin' USA, and !st Amendment rights don't apply.
I find that the best way to get around profanity restrictions is to use a higher form of language. Thus, when some idiot junior bank manager was giving me a hard time for casually swearing, I called her a cockroach straight out, but she couldn't take offence, because I used the taxonomic term, which is in Latin.
I set the bait and a lot of posters bit the entire hook, line and sinker. I am baffled by many of the comments. Why do human beings respond so dramatically to words. They are just words. It is what is in your mind that makes them offensive!
I set the bait and a lot of posters bit the entire hook, line and sinker. I am baffled by many of the comments. Why do human beings respond so dramatically to words. They are just words. It is what is in your mind that makes them offensive!
Dramatically? I just said ssssst (#6), lol.
Words are pretty important. e.g., if you say how you feel in the court of law, well, you'll learn a hard lesson.
I set the bait and a lot of posters bit the entire hook, line and sinker. I am baffled by many of the comments. Why do human beings respond so dramatically to words. They are just words. It is what is in your mind that makes them offensive!
My mistake. I'll have to remember that your words have no weight.
I mostly agree, except there are some "consequences" which are a violation of free speech.
"For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."
Off Topic
I set the bait and a lot of posters bit the entire hook, line and sinker. I am baffled by many of the comments. Why do human beings respond so dramatically to words. They are just words. It is what is in your mind that makes them offensive!
No, words can be pretty powerful. They can be used to put something in my mind. I agree that very little is worth getting offended over, and most of the time people take offense it is due to an act of internalization, but sometimes it's the speaker/writer.
"Freedom of Speech" by Immortal Technique. Check..It..Out.
OP: then why you are so "baffled" by the comments? Just words, right?
Gil Gandel: why "fortunately"? For most of 20 century your country has no firearm restrictions completely. Why this was bad?
I'm just as happy without them. The loss of freedoms is more than compensated for by the fact that a mass shooting is here a once-a-decade headline event, not just "ho hum, oh well, what's on the sports pages?" like it seems to be in some countries. But that's just my opinion and threatens to develop into a massive hijack.
But what if the Queen starts getting a little too pushy? How will you rebel?
An armed person intent on wreaking havoc with a firearm probably loves when his targets are unarmed and can't shoot back.
For instance, look at those puss hunters shooting animals.
That's all right. The army is not the "Royal Army" so she can't set them on us. And we have successfully got rid of monarchs we didn't want at least three times (Wars of the Roses, English Civil War, Glorious Revolution).
An armed person intent on wreaking havoc with a firearm probably loves when his targets are unarmed and can't shoot back.
For instance, look at those puss hunters shooting animals.
Yes, there have been no end of mass shootings in the States foiled by the intervention of an armed citizen. For instance...
...well, I'll leave that one up to you.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't prohibit Chess.com from censoring material that you submit to their site.