Quwu wrote:
that is the point.
Free speech is an affront to social norms and expectations.
Free Speech on chess.com
Sort:
Mr.sock I believe that to be the most erudite thing you've ever posted! 
Proper education MOST DEFINITELY.
.....but.. then, you ask what do you find to be ‘proper education’, I presume.
When I went to school there only was one Teacher that fit the profile as one because his interest was FOR the student.
Teachers desperately need class for proper teaching.
Jan 26, 2020
0
#125
Nylonsock wrote:
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas, without fear retaliation, or censorship, or legal sanction
Freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm . Shouting “ fire 🔥 “ in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede would be an example.
Freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm . Shouting “ fire 🔥 “ in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede would be an example.
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to voice their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship or sanction by the government."
Jan 26, 2020
0
#126
MustangMate wrote:
Of course NFL owners can ban their players from protesting on the playing field. It is a non-question. The issue is not one of free speech. Your premise is faulty thinking as such.
Response from Squirrel Gravy: Yes, I agree with you. And fyi, I did not say I agreed or disagreed with NFL owners on this, nor did I make a premise about anything. I simply asked the question. Please read a post carefully before presuming intent.
The question seems to be for you is - SHOULD such speech be censored. You seem to under the impression that anything should be allowed. However, this is Not the issue that free speech addresses. (Actually it is...ANY topic should be allowed in a public forum, even one the hearers find incredibly offensive. See the ACLU's commentary here... https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech ) You are given the right of free speech in any setting where open discussion is taking place. (more accurately, you are given free speech, according to the law, in any public forum...sidewalks, parks,..as opposed to non-public forums.) All settings are not open platforms, especially when prior rules are in place. Your example is a very poor one to make make comparison to. Clearly, although claim is made otherwise, you remain unclear as to what free speech represents and it's meaning.
Anyone, and many do, can shout their right to free speech is being violated, not having a clue about the meaning of rights. They have a right to do this, to do that. They often find themselves in a slammer, ("slammer", that made me chuckle . I actually have been told to discontinue handing out literature on our city's metro buses. Seems they are a limited public forum as opposed to a public forum...thus, they can restrict free speech. However, a person can stand on the sidewalk outside the bus terminal and exercise free speech. ) having never learned.
What you are advocating is not free speech at all, but a right to express oneself however they choose in any public setting. (That is exactly what free speech is and what the 1st Amendment protects...the operative word is "public" setting; the restrictions on this are very narrow and according to the law do not include a restriction on religion or politics; in fact those are the freedoms intended to be protected) Never happen as it's very impossible such a mandate would last more than minutes, human nature being what it is. Your continued claim is that other sites allow such in their forums. The example given as been shown to be no different than the policies here. (This is incorrect - the example I gave is Beginnertriathlete.com...they ALLOW religion and politics to be discussed - I never said the topics were not moderated. And in doings some looking around, there are many, many sites similar to Chess.com that allow these topics. Dont' ask me to list them, readers can look for themselves...the Blizzard series of games is one I looked at - they allow religious discussion; but do not allow you to demean major world religions.) Moderation is made in all Forums that remain in existence. There is no such thing as the absolute lack of moderation. (I never claimed there was lack of moderation) Any attempt quickly results in it's demise.
Three full-time mods would be needed or more. Everyone would be offended differently, and the complaints would never end.
Offended for caring..... that’s rather odd, I’d say. (directed at Pawn355)
MustangMate wrote:
Two people chatting on a sidewalk may well be discussing any topic, using any language of their choosing. It is their right to free speech. (Correct - a sidewalk is a public forum)
The government places no restrictions on their mutual discussion. (Correct; although your stipulation of 'mutual' and 'agreed upon' are irrevelant, legally, to the 1st amendment) They have agreed to participate and share ideas. A stranger passes by on the sidewalk. Do these two people have a right to direct their ideas in the strangers direction? Yes - if they are acting in accordance with accepted standards. (your point of 'accepted standards' is irrelevant to free speech and the 1st amendment) Importantly, the answer is NO, if the language and behavior are offensive or threatening. ("offensive" - this is incorrect...see the ACLU post I made above. No one has the right to "not be offended" by someone elses speech; they do however have the right to not listen and to walk away. Again, this is assuming free speech in a public forum...which includes public sidewalks - your scenario. "Threatening" is a different matter and I don't know all the laws about "threats", but in general I presume you can't threaten anyone in a public or a non-public forum). They have lost that right of free speech when it crosses a line, a line that is agreed upon and understood by most people to exist when they enter the public domain.
You have made the argument repeatedly that free speech is guided by what is "agreed" upon (in a public forum - not this website or other non-public forums). This is incorrect and one of the reasons for the 1st amendment. Under this amendment...a person can go to a public forum, stand on a soapbox and talk about any topic they want, agreed upon or not, with anyone else around or not around, with any other event happening, offensive or not, etc.
Without this principle those who insist that topics must be "agreed" upon will censure ideas they don't want discussed. Again, we are talking about free speech in a public forum.
Jan 26, 2020
0
#131
What planet do you live on ???
Sure - you are free to go a park and stand on a soap box and shout anything you want. BUT IT WON'T LAST LONG if what you are shouting is (just 1 basic example) inciting a riot. For many cases, a permit is required. Some areas of the park may be open/closed for such activity. Content often must be reviewed if controversial requiring review of possible security measures to be taken.
What is agreed upon, are the rules and laws society has placed on what conduct is allowed without interference by the government. You and other individuals may not agree - but the community has. Hence you could be quickly removed from your soap box and placed. in the pokey unless you abide community guidelines. (Not what any single individual thinks should be allowed.)
That such a basic/simple principle can be so misinterpreted and twisted to mean otherwise ... oh well, obviously educating some people how the 1st Amendment is lawfully applied is a dead end.
(What is obviously indicated regarding "agreed upon" refers to the laws and regulations in place. Guidelines the community as a whole has agreed shall prevail. It does not mean two people agreeing or not with each other over content matter or whether or not they agree the laws are just. This concept is so basic it did not need explaining, but apparantly so.)
Jan 26, 2020
0
#132
You stated "Threatening" is a different matter. Well, of course it is. BUT, your premise began and ended with anything and everything must be allowed at any time if "true free speech" is to prevail.
So obviously, examples exist that are not included, can not be openly discussed in some situations. Restrictions do apply. The 1st Amendment is not an absolute "Right" to conduct oneself however they deem fit.
Setting up a soap box to discuss any topic is a protected Right. However, the community has it's rights to protect it's self interest. Content will not be banned, but if too controversial, procedures need following as time, location, security etc.
Reminds me of my 1st Marriage. The ceremony was in a beautiful park we had chosen. 100 guests. Half way through our vows, a Policeman approached and wanted to see our permit! Without one, we'd have to disperse !
So all of this is related. Chess.com and a public park conduct their business in very much the same way. Public parks and public Forums share similar guidelines and restrictions. Both are free to join/participate in. Perhaps part of a misunderstanding lies in defining terms. What does it mean to be "Public"? What does "Free" mean? Restrictions are always in place. Many do not realize/understand this fact. The community has placed many restrictions on the use of a public park where people are free to participate just the same as CC. Open discussion is allowed in the parks same as at CC. Parks place restrictions. as hours of operation, certain areas are limited in what activities are allowed, same as CC. Do this or do that - OK but under their guidelines and observation. Activities can take place under stated guidelines, content remains open and free, so long as agreed upon guidelines (voted in laws by example or TOA) are followed.
Jan 26, 2020
0
#133
Yep RJC. Often a too literal interpretation lies at the root of misunderstanding.
Free Spinach!
Shhhh, you can't mention the «T» word here.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/27/free-speech-on-campus-governor-kim-reynolds-bill-university-iowa-business-leaders-christ-ui-isu-uni/3288307002/
Regarding procedural issues related to free speech mentioned in this thread: things such as permits, security, event related issues regarding crowds, etc. All of those things are more related to events, and not the liberty an individual has to exercise free speech. No permit is required for an individual to stand in a public forum and exercise their right to free speech.
However, these same procedural arguments and similar ones have been used on campuses to restrict free speech. Consider for example, the case of Ben Shapiro being invited to University campuses. I will let readers look that up and research it, it is pretty easy to find.
Those arguments and related restrictions have led to recent laws being passed to ensure free speech is allowed thoroughly at public universities... including designating all outdoor spaces as public forums, not just so-called safe space areas. See the example in Iowa posted above.
And yes, I believe the founders meant for the 1st amendment to be taken literally. How else would you take it, metaphorically?
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
How do you take the bible Father..?
That is religious discussion which I would be glad to discuss in a private chat.
To answer the question above related to the definition of a public forum. From the Cornell Law School. Public forums and chess.com are completely different. "Content" cannot be restricted in a public forum (with exceptions I'll let the reader peruse). Content can be restricted on chess.com - thus the reason for this thread...to request the two restricted topics be reconsidered.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums
The concept of a Right to free speech was in response to a Government restricting speech/topic in any and all settings, usually political or religious. People could be punished for even the mere mention of a topic being expressed at any time, in any setting. It was a form of suppressing dissidence and protest.
Rights permitted people to gather and join together in a setting where their ideas are freely discussed. The right is not addressing the "where and when", except to say it shall also be permitted. It becomes open for interpretation. Clearly, adopting restrictions of some form need be in place. Freedom of assembly/speech is never absolute sans restrictions when it pertains to the where and when such activities take place.