Freedom of Speech on Wrong Planet

Post Reply New Topic

Is it just me, or has there been a whole lot more freedom of speech on Wrong Planet? In the Random Discussion subforum, at least, there have been some PPR type topics which have been debated in, even with slightly heated debate. I've noticed no tattle tales in the Moderator Alert thread and there has been no action against these "out of place" threads. Has the current usership of Wrong Planet actually a spine now, which it didn't have two years ago? Or have the moderators loosened up on the moving of threads? Or a combination of both? Or what is going on?

I wouldn't know, I'm not a mod but I have seen many stuff going against WP rules that aren't moved or warned against periodically and then there does seem to be periods in which the subject matter seems heavily moderated. I remember for instance many of the topics that got locked that had been here for a while. I was totally shocked and then I noticed it was done by the owner of wrongplanet that had made a visit.

I guess it depends on the mod and how many are on duty at the time. But again, I don't know because I've never been a mod nor know enough on how they work and what compromises they make. So it also confuses me not that I care too much since there are other aspie sites that're full of freedom in speech and others not so much.

Don't know I avoid the general discussion thread for the very reason you have outlined. There are some views which have a foothold in that thread that really give me the s**ts, and I have had a couple of warnings so I just stay clear of the place.

There's an important distinction between moderating to protect others and moderating to protect a given point of view.

It's a very fine line for moderators to walk and it's not easy.

The moderators do their best, sometimes we overstep the mark, sometimes we're too lapse.

Freedom of speech is an important right which must be protected but not at the cost of other people's basic freedoms.

private websites arent covered by freedom of speech. theyre covered by forum rules.

people have probably been keeping the rules.

Freedom of speech pertains to limiting government censorship and interference with expression and public action to protest government policy. It does not restrict a private individual from restricting speech or expression within a domain that he owns. Thus the owner of an auditorium can refuse its use to any party whose message he is opposed to. A newspaper can refuse to print any story it so chooses.

The only restraint on free expression by private parties is the ability to sue for damages from libel and slander and it is very difficult to get a judgment in such cases.

ruveyn

As a generality, if speech is limited to those with the means to disseminate it and that means is not available to the public at large then speech is not free. There is a false assumption that if a government does not limit speech but if the media are controlled by a few powerful plutocrats, then speech can be considered free. Obviously that assumption is false because speech is not a matter of useless blather but as a means to initiate action and if that action is severely limited by an elite group through ownership of the means of dissemination then the illusion of free speech is simply a useless concept.

It's true that contracts can be made in which free speech is restricted. A contract is just like making a law, right?

However, I think it would be extremely useful to society if there were a forum where we could express whatever thoughts we wanted without fear of ban or government arrest. We might actually witness a reduction in crime if we do so.

There are plenty of places where that is so. You could try 4chan for a start.

Well, most people see a difference between a social contract, and one that people agree to. We mostly choose to enter our contracts and generally have a lot of freedom(relatively) to leave them, but our social contracts are just changed on us by fiat and are difficult to get out of, and also apply on a larger scale than any individual contract.

When we speak of free speech, or free press or free expression we mean free of prior legal constraint, not free of economic cost. It costs money to make your views known far and wide and even more money to target a specific audience to deliver one's views.

The fact that all of us do not own newspapers or auditoriums does not mean we do not have free speech, etc.

Fortunately, the internet has provided a way for those with limited means to express and disseminate a viewpoint with little or no restraint, prior or post facto.

ruveyn

What if someone came to your church and interrupted the mass with Hindu sacraments? I don’t know people cannot grasp what freedom of speech means. I think that because people are given some privileges they eventually assume they have a right to publish using someone else's forum against their will. I am all for more permissive, even anarchistic forums. However freedom of speech is much more about whether you have access to these means not the forum itself.

Never fails....

Not sure, I just registered about an hour ago. But as someone who has been banned from forums two-hundred odd times over free-speech issues, I'll give it a test and get back to you...

^^ thanks for the heads up, Vana

I don't understand why some would be bothered by opinions when the media is censored to control the masses. Why not go against them rather than be bothered by individual opinion?Unless of course you are against individual opinion? In that case why come here, to this forum?

I totally love ice cream. Chocolate and Vanilla is my favourite.