Free Speech on chess.com

I interrupt this thread for summary observations…

When I started this thread, it was out of curiosity to the ban on ‘religious/political’ topics in the off-topic forum.  I had never seen this ban on other on-line communities in which I participate (not to say there are none).

The conversation has been limited; but interesting.  Since the thread is probably nearing it’s end I would like to interject my summary observations.

I am fascinated the extent to which people do not understand or appreciate the concept of free speech.  It is obvious that the true importance of it is very misunderstood by many.  The following paraphrases of opposition to free speech in the off-topic forum demonstrate this…

• Clubs with specific topics can be used to discuss your specific interests. (completely contrary to the definition of free speech)
• We want an atmosphere of positivity not negativity (as if nothing else causes negativity other than religion/politics)
• Do you believe you can shout ‘fire’ in a theater or elevator (never suggested that)
• Certain speech should be regulated to appropriate times and places (hmmm…who defines that in society? Perhaps those who only want their thoughts expressed (?))
• Politics and discussion always degenerate into bad behavior and name calling (one of the values of free speech actually – to call people out on their bad behavior – and so they can learn from it.)

Outside of chess.com, with no disrespect intended, free speech is a fundamental human right in free societies. Do you know where free speech is restricted? In the most repressive, brutal societies which exist. Countries where the populace is controlled by the government. Need examples, just look at rebellions squashed by tanks running over protesters.

Yes, I know, that is very dramatic.  But that is truly the end result of the repression of free speech.  Again, speaking outside of chess.com.

The vitriol against this subject is seen in the names I’ve been called and insinuations made…

• Troll
• Kid
• Too old
• Too young
• I’ve never been to college (untrue)
• I’ve never been in the military
• Negative force initiator
• Etc

And in the actions done as a result…

• Inviting me to the ‘Geezers’ club (no disrespect to them).
• Threats to lock the thread
• Seeming shock to my religious preference (only club I’ve joined! (?) – how terrible. Lol.)

Obviously, the generations old solution, to keep religion and politics to yourself or behind the walls of your preferred social settings was suggested. What if the founders of democratic nations and institutions would have ‘keep their opinions to themselves’?  What if they would not have had the freedom to speak and debate in public?

Freedom of speech, the press, and religion is one of the first and foremost natural rights among civilized humanity.

Or, of course, we can just discuss bunnies.

Thanks to those who have thoughtfully commented thus far.

I really don't get the off topic forum either

What I highlighted in green all seem like ad hominem attacks on you - they have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Even if you had hypothetically dropped a bomb on civilians (though you presumably haven't) it still wouldn't take away the strength of your argument.

YO MAMA SO FAT, HER BELLY HAS AN OZONE LAYER

free speech.

If only I knew some good 'yo mama' jokes.  Lol

Your summary is presented through a rose tinted lens.  Completely missing/slanting and outright misrepresenting relevant facts. 

Example: It was asked should public accusation of cheating be permitted under the guise of free speech? The OP's response was "Hadn't thought about it." Well, perhaps there are many things he hasn't thought about.

Point being if the principle of free speech is to be the foundation of permitting such topics, that free speech represents a right to express any opinion in any setting, then accusation of cheating must be also permitted on principle. Any and all subject must be allowed as an expression of free speech or undue censorship is being made.

If the OP can not find any such topic ... thinks no restrictions need apply - then his stance is consistent. But if there is any subject that he would agree does not belong here, then his whole argument falls by the wayside. Can't have it all your own way - btw ... you really do NOT understand the concept of freedom to express opinion, interpreting it as your right in choosing how to exert such at your pleasure.

Example: "Clubs with specific topics can be used to discuss your specific interests. (completely contrary to the definition of free speech) - OP

There is nothing contrary here. 

And the "definition" of "free speech" is ?

"the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions."

This is the foundation upon which the concept of free speech is built. 

A key word is "government". It plays the pivotal role in the 1st amendment. The government shall not place any restriction.

The amendment is not addressing Private institution, which maintains every right to restrict behavior that is contrary of their specific interests.

Don't like it? Your free to go somewhere else where you fit in. But living by another Government is quite different, not practical. Democracies propose certain "rights and freedoms" that they will not censor when the matter is under their auspice.

Has no bearing on the rights of private institution to impose restrictions on speech behavior. 

I completely understand your frustration not able to share the VERY GOOD word, but I know Erik is being also wise with a business set of rules for the happiness of those who pay or do not. Really bro.

Be it were your business that you owned I know you would be seeing things much differently my friend. “,

The definition of free speech according to Webster's..."the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

This has also been legally defined as being protected in the 'public form'.  Which is typically public areas - sidewalks, outside and inside of public buildings, parks, etc.  And yes, I completely understand that chess.com is not a public forum.  I believe the discussion is worth having as many similar sites do not have restrictions in their 'off-topic' forum.

And yes, I believe that accusing someone of cheating is free speech.  I believe that is happening in our news right now. The onus is then on the accuser to prove it.

And saying that 'free expression' should be excluded to clubs is like saying, a person can express any opinion they want as long as they only do it in their own home, church, or lodge.  That's not free speech.

Thanks Beer! I hope I have not come off as frustrated...but instead more like "curious".  I've spent a lot of time on beginnertriathlete.com in the past and a few other 'hobby' sites.  I've never seen these restrictions.  And although, there's been a lot of heat sometimes in discussions - the world hasn't come to an end. I actually own a business, and understand Erik's concerns.  I restrict the freedom of my employee's speech when around customers! (for the benefit of  my product quality and bottom line). So I do understand.

.  I believe the discussion is worth having as many similar sites do not have restrictions in their 'off-topic' forum. -OP

Please do give ONE example of a site that places no restrictions on what may be discussed - unless of course that site specifically states such discussion is permitted. 

You keep saying CC's policy is not the norm. Provide example otherwise. 

You've never responded to why you are taking this topic so personally?

Why the Ad Hominem attacks?

https://beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=103

The OP is very mistaken in his belief the site places no restriction on forum use. In fact, the site is very specific about what is/is not permitted in their forums. Unless discussion is directly related to their products and services, everything else is off limits.

Yes... perhaps you could contact Erik personally and see his point of view?

I would hope for certain he is growing close to God but, maybe he needs that to have such interest, and that certainly would help his perspective regarding. You are completely right each member should have the opportunity to discuss, yet not to cross their already beliefs and stand off from because how they have been developed what is their reality. I know Jesus would wish them of course to hear but if they wanted to hear and see such with their eyes and ears. Respectfully so. 

I spent a lot of time on beginnertriathlete.com a few years ago.  A community very similar to chess.com. (very specific hobby/interest).  We discussed politics and religion all the time in the off-topic forums.  There is not policy to post, because there wasn't one.

What you posted does not discuss a 'religion/politics' ban.  It's been a few years since I've been on there, but there were no restrictions at all regarding those topics.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/forum-posting-rules---be-nice--no-religious-or-political-debate  Erik's does

I would love that we were able to, but I also get Erik's viewpoint, and wishing to respect the others who've said their peace on the issue.

How have I not respected the rules?  I posted a topic to discuss about a ban on the site.  And my post did not include politics or religion, just a discussion about it's ban.