lol
Free Speech on chess.com
Sort:
MustangMate wrote:
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 ? (Club leader) - SG
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 is about civil liberty; but not for the gay student who joined the club; but about the club being able to have standards related to their statement of faith, and leaders which agree with them. This student disagreed with the clubs constitution and by-laws. As such, they wouldn't allow them to be a leader. While not expressed in either of the articles, having been a student on a state university campus, my guess is this was an orchestrated effort by the student to bring a legal challenge. - SG
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.
Here's an article that discusses the case for those interested. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/education/2019/02/06/university-iowa-christian-student-group-religious-beliefs-court-business-leaders-in-christ-tippie-ia/2796463002/
A federal court upheld the position of the club involved.
Jan 28, 2020
0
#164
SquirrelGravy wrote:
Hey Josiah, are you a student at the U of I? Just curious...
No, I'm only 14. I plan to go there later in life. I've got a sibling who goes is a student at the U of I at the moment, however.
josiahpower wrote:
SquirrelGravy wrote:
Hey Josiah, are you a student at the U of I? Just curious...
No, I'm only 14. I plan to go there later in life. I've got a sibling who goes is a student at the U of I at the moment, however.
Cool. Was just curious. Since you are in that area and your sibling goes there, you are probably more familiar with the court case mentioned above. Go Hawks! (Although I am a Cyclone 
)
If u like free speech ?....set it free. if it doesnt come back to you ?....hunt it down and make skwerel gravy.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
If u like free speech ?....set it free. if it doesnt come back to you ?....hunt it down and make skwerel gravy.
Lol...it is the best gravy in the world
Jan 29, 2020
0
#168
Everyone or group is citing their right to "free speech" is being trampled on these days. Both sides of disputes are seen raising the flag. As I related earlier, it's very evident, most often the disputes are really about agendas, about people getting one's own way when it is thought unfair restriction is placed upon their personal beliefs.
We see the OP stating "my guess this was an orchestrated effort by the student to bring a legal challenge" while admitting no knowledge of the students motives are in evidence. This point is made to illustrate he is quite the same as most everyone when it comes to such issues - assumptions get made, issues are viewed from a singular view, rhetoric ultimately becomes a priori by nature. Any issue becomes one of a violation of the"right to free speech." A catchy phrase invoked by people and lawyers in attempts for their will to prevail. Often a literal interpretation of a few lines in the 1st Amendment becomes supporting evidence, completely ignoring all other pertinent references in the Bill of Rights.
Mt viewpoint - 90% is hypocritical from both sides of contesting issues when matters as religion and politics are involved. Disputes are really about having one's agenda not being interfered with. Citing free speech is merely a convenient catch phrase, one that invokes passion, one that is used by both sides. Application of the principles of individual rights is seldom the real concern. How is this known? Because these principles are rarely objectively understood. The whole picture (communities, individuals, organizations, existing guidelines, public and private institutions etc) is rarely of concern.
"Everyone's else's rights can go up in smoke, just as long as I get mine" !
They say the Bill of Rights is a bill thats right. and that its 1st amendment is justa fight bwtn freedom to and freedom from. makes sense.
pass the gravy
All people delete your comments
Mustang, so for the case in question. Let's not use a Christian or an LBGTQ person for the example, but a different example.
Say for instance there is student club for socialists...they have a constitution and bylaws which say any leadership has to agree with their position - that socialism is a better form of gov than others. Let's say a student joins their club who believes that a democratic republic is the best form of gov...and he vocalizes that he disagrees with their beliefs. If he runs for a leadership position in the club, they aren't going to allow him to get the leadership position because he doesn't agree with their philosophy and won't represent the club appropriately.
That's what the lawsuit and controversy were about. Or...let's use a different faith Group.
Let's say it's a Muslim group, and a member wants a leadership position who doesn't agree with some tenet of the Islamic faith. Should he or she get the position?
Free Speech is something sent from heaven to worry the he!! outta you.
Jan 30, 2020
0
#173
Not going to participate in the direction the OP proposes, turning this into debate between ideologies.
The Iowa case is NOT about free speech.
The request made here by the OP to allow religious discussion in Off topic is NOT about free speech.
As I've reiterated, the catchy phrase "free speech", one that evokes emotions and inherently comes with preconceptions get's invoked by people with an agenda to pursue and not to discuss what civil liberties are about. Just because lawyers shout "violation of free speech rights" does not make the issue as such. All of the examples presented are of similar nature, none of which are that of an individuals right to freely speak their opinion in settings that community guidelines deem acceptable.
Trying to drag the topic into such waters as debating the issue of who should be allowed into specific groups is an unnecessary distraction. The issue originally presented was the OP made claim free speech was not truly free unless religious discussion were to be allowed in this setting. This is preposterous imo. His rights to free speech, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are in no way being violated by such policy. Examples of very similar policies were made that are in place throughout communities, organizations, public and private entities. As a matter of fact, the very argument the OP is making regarding restricting specific persons from joining groups can be used to counter his argument here. CC has every right to restrict where religious discussion can take place on it's site. His "free speech" is not being violated, the principles of free speech remain in full force. It's nothing more than misinterpreting the meaning of civil liberties, when, where and how they are applied.
Jan 30, 2020
0
#174
MustangMate wrote:
Not going to participate in the direction the OP proposes, turning this into debate between ideologies.
The Iowa case is NOT about free speech.
The request made here by the OP to allow religious discussion in Off topic is NOT about free speech.
As I've reiterated, the catchy phrase "free speech", one that evokes emotions and inherently comes with preconceptions get's invoked by people with an agenda to pursue and not to discuss what civil liberties are about. Just because lawyers shout "violation of free speech rights" does not make the issue as such. All of the examples presented are of similar nature, none of which are that of an individuals right to freely speak their opinion in settings that community guidelines deem acceptable.
Trying to drag the topic into such waters as debating the issue of who should be allowed into specific groups is an unnecessary distraction. The issue originally presented was the OP made claim free speech was not truly free unless religious discussion were to be allowed in this setting. This is preposterous imo. His rights to free speech, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are in no way being violated by such policy. Examples of very similar policies were made that are in place throughout communities, organizations, public and private entities. As a matter of fact, the very argument the OP is making regarding restricting specific persons from joining groups can be used to counter his argument here. CC has every right to restrict where religious discussion can take place on it's site. His "free speech" is not being violated, the principles of free speech remain in full force. It's nothing more than misinterpreting the meaning of civil liberties, when, where and how they are applied.
They aren't being violated. We're currently discussing (unless I missed something) whether or not it should be allowed, not whether the policy is violating our first amendment rights.
Jan 30, 2020
0
#175
And the Title of the thread is ...
Please go back and read the OP's opening statement. His request is based on the premise -
"Erik, this is a request for you to remove the 'religious/political' ban on the off topic forum. Free speech is how humanity learns and grows. In today's online world, it is important to engage in free debate in our chosen online communities. Arguing is not bad; it is constructive. Free speech is not free unless allowed in the public forum (not just clubs.)" - OP
He invoked "free speech" as the issue. I've written all along that this notion is misguided.
Free Speech is telling a icky dictator that u hate him to his ugly face (....in sign language).
To summarize my thoughts so far without responding to anyone in particular....
1. Chess.com is a "private forum" (not public). Erik and crew can create whatever rules they wish regarding discussion in forums. However, my original point is that a community is richer with open dialogue in off-topic forums (and all forums...but this post was directed at the off-topic forum).
2. Free speech in the public forum is an entirely different matter. It is not anything like speech in private forums which can be restricted (the links I've posted from Cornell Law and the ACLU discuss this thoroughly, for anyone who cares to read them.) And this is perfectly acceptable since private forums are privately funded and owned.
3. The discussion regarding free speech has gotten muddled significantly to the extent that the proverbial forest cannot be seen because of the trees. All the discussion about park hours, inciting riots, agreed upon topics (in public places), event management and permits is completely missing the point of the 1st amendment and free speech which is that a citizen can discuss any topic he or she wishes in a public forum without fear of retribution, restriction or repression by the government.
4. I've listed sites which allow religion and politics in the 'off-topic' forum. These sites have engaging discussion with various rules and moderation. I need not list more, anyone can go find them. The fact that religion and politics ARE allowed on these sites is significantly different than chess.com where those topics can only be discussed in clubs; although certain posters refuse to recognize this difference.
5. The Iowa court case is about freedom of speech on public university campuses. The issue of the particular club was a side-note of the case. This was brought up by another poster, which I responded to his post, but he didn't want to engage...I did not bring up that issue to begin with but was contributing to the discussion.
Finally, with that in mind, No campus club is going to allow a person in leadership if they fundamentally disagree with the constitution and values of the club. And guess what, the court upheld that position.
On a side note...I appreciate the moderators allowing us to have this discussion. Since, it basically is a discussion about a political issue. The fact that we have been able to have a civil conversation supports my original post that these types of topics deepen the culture within an on-line community not hinder it...shoot we've even discussed religion a bit...in a civil manner.
Jan 31, 2020
0
#179
I have no problem with a private site restricting certain topics, but chess.com is not even handed on chess clubs with communist intentions that dox people.
On the whole chess.com is very good on most matters but swims in the political milieu that requires it to make a profit. The whole of the western world is corrupt.
And as they say :"in before the lock"...
SquirrelGravy wrote:
On a side note...I appreciate the moderators allowing us to have this discussion. Since, it basically is a discussion about a political issue. The fact that we have been able to have a civil conversation supports my original post that these types of topics deepen the culture within an on-line community not hinder it...shoot we've even discussed religion a bit...in a civil manner.
✅
Hey Josiah, are you a student at the U of I? Just curious...