Free Speech on chess.com

free speech means always having to say you're sorry. (lol !)

✅

”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”

Amen, Selah 

"Content can be restricted on chess.com" - OP

Wrong.

Some content can only be discussed only in specific location. You are free to discuss politics and religion in CC Forums, but only where specified. There the discussion is freely and openly discussed. The "Clubs" are open for anyone to participate in. Perhaps the term Club is bothersome ... thinking it means private or exclusive. It does not. Just the sites choice of terms. Same as saying "only in a designated area." A soap box can not be set up blocking the entrance, where someone wants to attract the most attention. The speaker ends up shouting "breaking my right of free speech" thinking he has a right to speak at any location of his choosing. Of course, this thinking incorrect. (comparable to the highly visible forum at log in where someone would receive the most attention or being requited an extra click or two going to a less visible Open and Public Forum. 

In essence, this policy is no different than discussion that takes place in Public parks. There are restrictions of when and where such activity is allowed to take place. Only during open hours of operation, only in designated areas, may not interfere with other on-going activities, The fire marshall may restrict attendance, the police dept. may require a permit, security may be deemed necessary, approval of speakers may be required, etc. etc. You are not "free" to enter a public park, set up a soap box and begin shouting anything and everything. If community guidelines are broken, you lose that privilege and will be asked to leave.

.....now now... gallap’n stang.. you know what was meant, meant here in the forum topics it’s restricted. You know well he knows there’s groups. - thus the reason for this thread...to request the two restricted topics be reconsidered.  - OP

Of course he does. He simply disagrees that religion can only be discussed elsewhere, not on a highly visible page where the most traffic will be exposed to "Sermons". He's hiding the disagreement under the guise that such policy is restricting" "true free speech", that CC's policy is different than most all other online sites or the different than the public domain. It does not on either account.

Sermons??? Lol c’mon dude..... yo, he cares FOR you, fella.

.....is ONLY why his thread

Restrictions (must follow community guidelines) of when/where/how does not violate a persons right of expression/speech/assembly. The public domain may demand slightly different procedures to be followed for each and every case, but essentially they are stating the same thing.

Are you wishing me to believe Erik’s restricted?? Yeah, Erik being respectful to his multi millions and however many complaints, wishing to make all happy intends to be respectably so. I agree there.

Yeah .. not a stretch to understand the OP's motive behind requesting CC to alter their policy, to allow religious discussion where it would be highly visible and not restricted to a single room.

Point is, restricting certain discussion to a single room is NOT a violation of a person's right's of free speech. Public domain as "Parks" also place it's specific restrictions upon same activity.

.....is a simple request, yup .......respectfully so

.............

  A more accurate choice of words is "public forum" instead of Park. Obviously there are hour restrictions, not impeding traffic, and other regulations. However, there are very, very few regulations regarding topics.

And an individual absolutely does not have to get a permit to exercise free speech in a public forum or get permission regarding what topic to speak about. Again, note that I say "individual"... not religious or political rally, or event (wedding). If you believe that a permit is necessary to exercise individual free speech in a public forum, please post your source. And there definitely are not restrictions on religion and politics, as this is what the first amendment was designed to protect.

Reading the resources I posted earlier from the Cornell law School and the ACLU will show this. Your claim that you cannot set up a soap box in a public forum and speak on whatever you topic you want is absolutely incorrect. the ACLU has even defended klu Klux Klan members exercising they're hateful free speech successfully.

I have posted a video of Ray comfort exercising free speech in southern California in a private message to you.

You have misinterpreted my comments. Similar to interpretations made of the 1st Amendment. As RJC observed, much of the debate revolves about a strict and literal interpretation of terms by the OP. I merely mentioned a permit Might be necessary in some cases (true) as a type of community guideline to be followed and not that one is always necessary - as claimed.

" Obviously there are hour restrictions, not impeding traffic, and other regulations. However, there are very, very few regulations regarding topics.+ - OP 

So there it is - agreement with my perspective - that the Rights being discussed are not absolute, that ANY restriction becomes a violation of individual freedoms nor consequently do these rights become less than fully expressed.

That a person has the Right to discuss any Topic has never been the issue - only the where and when a community/website permits it. The two examples are much the same in that Laws and TOA's are made. Ray can set up his soap box in a designated area in the Park (not in the main entrance) and religion can be discussed (in a room found not on the log in page) at CC. Neither restriction places any burden on a persons right to discuss any topic. Quite simply, the right of free speech does not include a right to express ideas anywhere, at any time. Many people mistakenly think the two are inclusive.

 "Free speech is not free unless allowed in the public forum (not just clubs.)" OP's opening premise. Well, sir, free speech does not include any location at any time. Many may desire that religion be allowed in all public forum. The community has deemed such discussion can freely take place, but only in designated locations, both online and in the public domain. I'll suggest the issue is more centered around the right's of assembly. When and where people are permitted to gather and discuss their topic. It's not about what topic is being discussed but rather location and timing.

OK. End of repeating this particular point. 

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/controversial-topics-research-starter/

I'll have the honor of voting for Reynolds (Iowan) when I turn 18. I'm glad that she's protected freedom of speech on campus

Cool...nice to see a fellow Iowan on chess.com

There's at least a couple hundred at Team Iowa. Used to be a member, but it was pretty inactive. It's got a lot of good members, and the atmosphere is nice.

An interesting sub-plot to the newly proposed legislation at the Iowa Campus -

from the supplied link above -

During floor debate in the Iowa House this month, Democrats stressed that they support free speech but said one sentence in the bill kept them from voting for it.

That sentence would allow student groups that receive public university funding to bar certain students from leadership positions based on their identity, Democrats argued. The professors' group also takes issue with the section.

Versions of the Iowa law have been debated for years, but lawmakers doubled their efforts after a federal court ruled in favor of a Christian group that argued it was discriminated against by the University of Iowa.

The group, Business Leaders in Christ, was accused of barring a student from a leadership position because he is openly gay.

So the people who claim their rights of free speech have been discriminated against, their right of religious discussion on campus, also include in the new bill a right to restrict a student "gay" from being elected as one of the schools leaders ?

Don't this just beat all sensibilities ! Clearly, when it comes down to it, matters center around agendas and have little to do with upholding civil liberty for all.

This observation is not meant to start any political debate. ONLY to point out, an issue of free speech is never cut and dry, that often personal agenda is at the for front rather than real concerns for an individuals rights.

...yeah.. ran in a Church

That's freedom of religion. And they were fine with gay members of the group, just not leaders. Gay people (as well as everyone else) have worldviews. These are different from Muslim worldviews, Christian worldviews, etc. They aren't compatible with one another; Christians believe that being gay is inherently sinful. (Both biblical views of marriage and what the apostles said on that topic conflict with homosexuality.) While I don't think it is the government's role to stop people from doing that on their own (though I don't believe it's marriage), I think that Christian groups, Muslim groups, Jewish groups, etc. should be able to choose who are members.