Locking threads is a 1st ammendment issue!

Amendment I. Chess dot com shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition chess dot com for a redress of grievances.

The U.S. Constitution’s protection of freedom of expression embodies the notion that an individual’s ability to express himself freely — without fear of mod punishment — produces the autonomy and liberty that promote better Internet experience. Allowing members to openly discuss topics of public concern results in a more transparent and representative website, more tolerant ideas and a more stable society.

It now becomes rather self evident that the ruthless policy of enforcing the no religious/no political discussion is unconstitutional on many levels.  Not only are we subject to arbitrary lock-down with no recourse to due process (an impartial hearing before our peers) but it tramples on the right of free expression resulting in a more intolerant and unstable experience.

I know what you're saying, but a contractual agreement with chess.com exists.... You don't face legal proceedings from the United States.... You face consequences for breaking your contract with chess.com. And the United States government wouldn't support you..... Sort of like their house, their rules....

That may be the case however does chess dot com also have a legal obligation to abide by the constitution?  Does the 'our house our rules' principle overide the constitution of the United States of America, Surely not?  Furthermore it may even be proven that by advocating their policy as it stands it results in a more intolerant and less transparent web experience, fomenting ignorance and prejudice!

Chess.com is a private organization and can have any rule that you agree to abide by voluntarily. In other words for a private ownership it is permissble to discriminate.

You're confusing the idea of the rule of law. I'd submit this article or episode that discuss that the Rule of Law is a Myth.

10min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQkXVL5r4dI

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

really? Well thats that busted!  There must be some cases that have reached the courts where a plaintiff has challenged freedom of expression and invoked the first amendment even though they voluntarily agreed to abide by some terms of service.

Even in private organizations though Gringo there are some protected characteristics, at least in the UK, you cannot discriminate against for example race or religion.

Meh it seems that they are on pretty firm ground, mores the worst! and can lockdown, delete any content they like.

Its incredibly interesting, for although chess.com is a private organization its content is offered to the public at large and it is therefore responsible for the content, unlike a telecommunication company which is just a carrier, although media companies have sought to make ISP's responsible for preventing access to some websites. 

The first amendment has never protected what was deemed an obscenity, that is 'Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.'  It does not exclude all nudity though, Jenkins v Georgia, otherwise many of Europe's finest works of art would be deemed as obscene.

The idea was proffered that religious and political debate leads to more controversy and therefore more contention. Whether it is actually the case i cannot say, it appears to me to be a very immature approach.

In the US, freedom of speech only protects you from Government censorship of speech. Chess.com is not the government so they can disallow certain content if they want to.

Yes this is true Martin, however the rationale for it is being challenged.

Only by nincompoops  (I'll try to use a lighter term here) that don't understand that the amendment only applies to the government and not to individuals or corporations ...there is no way to apply the first amendment here at chess.com no matter how many hundreds of lawyers you could bring to the table.

You might as well argue that your boss can't ask you to work weekends because that would be like drafting conscripts into the military ...no, it wouldn't be like that at all, and there's no way it can apply, ever.  

Yes. You're right. Based on mores courts have sided with the weaker side a lot of times. If you go through the youtube link I've given above a few examples are given. Freedom of expression and free speech is on top of the list. There isn't much room for misunderstanding it, yet, it is legally curtailed at times with the consent of the people. 

It's the most fundamental violation of an amendment and it is openly accepted and done. Imagine the state of rules that are dubious to begin with. 

The link has the person explaining why rule of law is a myth as the Western rules are a combination of two sets of laws that evolved differently. One establishes the rule of precise mutual agreement while the other helps the weaker party. Based on what "seems" right the judges can pick any set to redress an issue. The rules support both sides in most cases. That's why it's the makeup of the judges and the society that determines which laws are upheld more often. As the majority of judges have similar educational background, from elite schools, generally, they have a similar outlook. Hence, it's not the rule of law but the personality traits of the judges that determine the outcomes of cases.

Actually you are not entirely correct. Congress has been able to act using a commerce clause to limit discrimination from private business and organisations if it is deemed that it is detrimental to interstate commerce.  

For example when civil rights were first drafted the government was able to successfully defend them on commerce grounds, limiting the ability of private businesses and organisation from certain acts of discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

As chess dot com is a commercial site I am looking into the issue of whether its discrimination against free speech is detrimental to commerce.  Naturally its rather tenuous to say the least for one would have to prove that discrimination against free speech is bad for business but its an interesting angle never the less.

Hmm I don't think of it in moral terms of good and evil, but more of the right of free expression, if indeed free expression is a natural right.  We should not treat chess dot come too harshly they need our help to reform them slightly by offering helpful suggestions for their continued improvement.

Actually, I am correct.  Is the commerce clause in the 1st amendment?  No, it isn't. 

Also, by definition, you can't discriminate against free speech, or anything else that isn't a human being or set of human beings.

You and the other conspiracy buff above are welcome to point out any supreme court case where discriminating against an idea or a non-sentient, well...anything...is upheld as unlawful.

Well we might as well lock down the thread now! meh it was going nowhere anyway.

No one has claimed that its in the first amendment you are slobbering.  What was actually claimed was that congress has been able to act to limit discrimination by private companies and organisations using the commerce clause as a basis.  I just did point out two cases where this happened, how you could have failed to notice I have really no idea and neither it seems do you.