Is the internet facilitating or impeding freedom of speech?

Bertie Woot

When the internet first became widely available many commentators heralded it as ushering in a brand new era of freedom of communication and expression. Regrettably, many social networking sites and forums have imposed a set of rules and regulations on posting, and whilst these rules are designed to act as a deterrent against bullying and harassment, what has actually happened is that a suppression of freedom of speech and expression on the internet has been the result. More often than not, you are not permitted to express your thoughts on another individual in a direct manner; as this is looked upon as an "ad hominem attack".

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Considering that state sponsored censorship and suppression of freedom of speech has been occurring and is ongoing in countries like China, Cuba, Iran et al., and the general consensus is that many Western social networking sites and forums are becoming increasingly over-moderated, the result being that it is now becoming increasing difficult to express oneself in an open, honest and direct manner, and in many instances, impossible to tell another person exactly what you think of them without fear of infraction; is the internet facilitating or impeding freedom of speech ?

hatrickpatrick

I think it's obvious that the internet is facilitating it. While some parts of the internet restrict it, the whole point is that you can start your own blog or Twitter or whatever and air whatever views you like on them.

In response to the growing tide of our (and other) governments trying to impose limits and restrictions on the internet, I predict we'll simply see a boom in the growth of protocols such as Tor and others which mask both the origin of a publication and its contents until it has been safely delivered.

The cat's out of the bag, any attempt now to reign in the freedom we have online is doomed to miserable failure.

Pete_Cavan

Bertie Woot wrote: »

When the internet first became widely available many commentators heralded it as ushering in a brand new era of freedom of communication and expression. Regrettably, many social networking sites and forums have imposed a set of rules and regulations on posting, and whilst these rules are designed to act as a deterrent against bullying and harassment, what has actually happened is that a suppression of freedom of speech and expression on the internet has been the result.

I dont believe moderating internet forums is a "suppression of freedom of speech and expression". Websites such as boards.ie offer a service and compete for users and, in order to attract new users and retain existing ones, they offer the service they believe people want. Boards.ie users dont want to be subjected to abuse (be it warrented or unwarrented), debate with people who make factual claims which they cant back up or see content which is deemed 'not safe for work'. If you dont like the rules one social networking site or forum enforces you are free to abuse, make crazy claims and post unsuitable content elsewhere on the internet. Social networking sites and forum are offering a product, if you dont like the product you can just use a different one, if you choose to use a site which you feel suppresses your freedom of speech and expression you are choosing to have your of freedom of speech and expression suppressed. You are not being forced to use a particular site, or any social networking sites or forums for that matter.

johnnyskeleton

Bertie Woot wrote: »

When the internet first became widely available many commentators heralded it as ushering in a brand new era of freedom of communication and expression. Regrettably, many social networking sites and forums have imposed a set of rules and regulations on posting, and whilst these rules are designed to act as a deterrent against bullying and harassment, what has actually happened is that a suppression of freedom of speech and expression on the internet has been the result. More often than not, you are not permitted to express your thoughts on another individual in a direct manner; as this is looked upon as an "ad hominem attack".

It has never been the law in any democracy that allows free speech that you can insult others with impunity. Even among friends, if you are rude and insulting you cannot insist that people sit there and allow you to make such comments towards them. So preventing abusive messages on the Internet is consistent with the real life right to free speech.

Considering that state sponsored censorship and suppression of freedom of speech has been occurring and is ongoing in countries like China, Cuba, Iran et al.,

This is not China.

and the general consensus is that many Western social networking sites and forums are becoming increasingly over-moderated,

Consensus among whom? I for one don't think social media and forums generally are over moderated.

the result being that it is now becoming increasing difficult to express oneself in an open, honest and direct manner, and in many instances, impossible to tell another person exactly what you think of them without fear of infraction; is the internet facilitating or impeding freedom of speech ?

You are perfectly free to set up your own website with whatever opinions you want to put up there. If, however, you want to benefit from the popularity of someone else's website (such as boards.ie), then you have to abide by their rules. A website designed for polite and rational discussion is entitled to remove impolite or irrational postings, just as a website for man united fans is entitled to remove postings from Liverpool fans.

Bertie Woot

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I dont believe moderating internet forums is a "suppression of freedom of speech and expression". Websites such as boards.ie offer a service and compete for users and, in order to attract new users and retain existing ones, they offer the service they believe people want. Boards.ie users dont want to be subjected to abuse (be it warrented or unwarrented), debate with people who make factual claims which they cant back up or see content which is deemed 'not safe for work'. If you dont like the rules one social networking site or forum enforces you are free to abuse, make crazy claims and post unsuitable content elsewhere on the internet. Social networking sites and forum are offering a product, if you dont like the product you can just use a different one, if you choose to use a site which you feel suppresses your freedom of speech and expression you are choosing to have your of freedom of speech and expression suppressed. You are not being forced to use a particular site, or any social networking sites or forums for that matter.

You miss the point of "freedom of speech". Under the above human rights legislation we are permitted to express our thoughts and opinions on any and every social networking site or forum, so long as we are not being "abusive". Definitions of "abuse" are arbitrary, and what might be termed "abuse" on one site may be viewed as light-hearted banter by another. Within forums moderators have differing perceptions too, and what one mod may view as an abusive posting may be viewed as benign by another. Impartial and objective moderation is an elusive concept, and if you find yourself on a site which is suppressing freedom of speech, that is an abuse of human rights as outlined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). You should not have to leave that site to exercise freedom of speech, as you are not in the wrong.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It has never been the law in any democracy that allows free speech that you can insult others with impunity. Even among friends, if you are rude and insulting you cannot insist that people sit there and allow you to make such comments towards them. So preventing abusive messages on the Internet is consistent with the real life right to free speech.

What if you are not insulting anyone, but are just telling them what you think of them? Like if I perceive someone as a liar, pretentious, phony or intolerant, is it insulting or abusive to call them "a liar, pretentious, phony and/or intolerant"? Is that being rude or just plain honest?

Consensus among whom? I for one don't think social media and forums generally are over moderated.

Perhaps you haven't used many forums.

You are perfectly free to set up your own website with whatever opinions you want to put up there. If, however, you want to benefit from the popularity of someone else's website (such as boards.ie), then you have to abide by their rules. A website designed for polite and rational discussion is entitled to remove impolite or irrational postings, just as a website for man united fans is entitled to remove postings from Liverpool fans.

You shouldn't have to set up your own website or blog to be able to freely express your own opinions. If you came round to my house and when you entered I gave you a list of things which you could and could not say, not only would you think that very strange, but perhaps unreasonable and unfair. If one of my rules was that you must under no circumstances express personal opinions on the people in my house in terms of how they behave and how you perceive them, and then in the course of the discussion you referred to my wife as "opinionated" and/or "self important", that is not abuse, rudeness, impoliteness or irrationality, it's simply your opinion of my wife, and it may be valid. But because you have broken the rule that no personal opinions are permitted, then I must ask you to leave my house, and in doing so, I am suppressing freedom of speech and violating your universal human right to freedom of speech and expression in all milieu.

johnnyskeleton

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You miss the point of "freedom of speech". Under the above human rights legislation we are permitted to express our thoughts and opinions on any and every social networking site or forum, so long as we are not being "abusive".

You misunderstand basic concepts such as what human rights are. Your right to freedom of speech does not mean you have an entitlement to express your views on someone else's social networking site. If they allow you to use their site, you must agree to abide by their rules. Justis because you have a right to free expression, does not give you the right to hijack other people's vehicles for expression. In the same way that your property right to own a car does not entitle you to take as much of my petrol as you feel like.

Definitions of "abuse" are arbitrary, and what might be termed "abuse" on one site may be viewed as light-hearted banter by another. Within forums moderators have differing perceptions too, and what one mod may view as an abusive posting may be viewed as benign by another.

Ok. But you can choose which website has the best moderation for you and if there are none such, you have the freedom to set up your own site.

Impartial and objective moderation is an elusive concept, and if you find yourself on a site which is suppressing freedom of speech, that is an abuse of human rights as outlined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). You should not have to leave that site to exercise freedom of speech, as you are not in the wrong.

Again, you misunderstand what freedom of expression is. If I don't like your views on religion, for example, I can't stop you telling people on the streets about them. However, if you are in my house and start saying things I disagree with, ican ask you to leave. Even if I'm being over zealous, even rude, I'm not breaching your human rights. I'm not denying you your right to express yourself, I'm just saying you can't do it on my private property.

What if you are not insulting anyone, but are just telling them what you think of them? Like if I perceive someone as a liar, pretentious, phony or intolerant, is it insulting or abusive to call them "a liar, pretentious, phony and/or intolerant"? Is that being rude or just plain honest?

With the exception of calling someone intolerant, yes it is rude to say those things to someone else.

You shouldn't have to set up your own website or blog to be able to freely express your own opinions.

So you mean other people - like the private owners of boards or Facebook for example - have to provide a mechanism for you to express your views? Why should they be forced to spend time and money facilitating your views but you don't have to go to any effort to do so?

If you came round to my house and when you entered I gave you a list of things which you could and could not say, not only would you think that very strange, but perhaps unreasonable and unfair. If one of my rules was that you must under no circumstances express personal opinions on the people in my house in terms of how they behave and how you perceive them, and then in the course of the discussion you referred to my wife as "opinionated" and/or "self important", that is not abuse, rudeness, impoliteness or irrationality, it's simply your opinion of my wife, and it may be valid. But because you have broken the rule that no personal opinions are permitted, then I must ask you to leave my house, and in doing so, I am suppressing freedom of speech and violating your universal human right to freedom of speech and expression in all milieu.

I would think it strange, not because I'm getting a list of those things, but that you feel the need to tell me to comply with basic courtesy. However, the Internet, especially anonymous posting, can lead to misunderstandings and conflict far more easily than the real world does. So they have to put up a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviours. However, if I came around to your house I would instinctively know not to insult people. You are not breaching my rights because I can still express my opinions. But you no longer have to listen to me in your own home, which is fair enough, no?

Don't get me wrong, the Internet can be annoying, especially when in a heated debate, for example, a moderator overlooks their friends personal insults and infracts instead the person being insulted. But that isn't a breach of your human rights its just poor moderation. My advice is not to continue to post in such fora. Which is what I do in such circumstances.

Pete_Cavan

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You miss the point of "freedom of speech". Under the above human rights legislation we are permitted to express our thoughts and opinions on any and every social networking site or forum, so long as we are not being "abusive". Definitions of "abuse" are arbitrary, and what might be termed "abuse" on one site may be viewed as light-hearted banter by another. Within forums moderators have differing perceptions too, and what one mod may view as an abusive posting may be viewed as benign by another. Impartial and objective moderation is an elusive concept, and if you find yourself on a site which is suppressing freedom of speech, that is an abuse of human rights as outlined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). You should not have to leave that site to exercise freedom of speech, as you are not in the wrong.

OK, so under your interpretation is a kkk member allowed to express his opinions across the front wall of your house in 10ft letters with red paint? Would you stopping him result in you surpressing his right to freedom of speech and therefore be in breach of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Not allowing someone to post something on an internet forum isnt denying them the right to freedom of speech, it is just not facilitating them to express their opinion on one part of the internet. They are of course free to express their opinions elsewhere, where they have been facilitated to do so, and if no one else facilitates them, they can simply set up their own website on which to do so, therefore the right to express themselves is not denied.

K-9

If somebody is finding it problematic posting on social networking or discussion sites, the problem mightn't be the sites, it maybe the posters social interaction.

People also have rights as regards racism, sectarianism etc. plus there are defamation and libel laws. The right to speech isn't just a sole right, there are other ones to consider.

KyussBishop

If you just straight out call someone dishonest/pretentious/phony etc., that's an ad-hominem, but if you quote them and point out the inconsistency in their arguments, and explain in detail precisely how the argument is dishonest or whatnot, that's not ad-hominem but a legitimate criticism.

Usually that is fair game, but it certainly heats up the debate somewhat, so isn't always appropriate.

It is a fine line, because often another posters method of debate totally warrants being pointed out, and is fully relevant to the discussion; it is critically important that it is allowed in fact, as it exposes the explicit method and inherent dishonesty of their fallacious arguments, and forces them to either acknowledge that in trying to defend it, or (since it's often impossible to defend after exposure) stops them from being able to make such arguments now that they are exposed; but you also can't just go around accusing other posters of e.g. trolling (even when they outright are trolling), because that's something mods need to sort out, and is going to devolve pretty quickly if people are just calling each other trolls.


If speech was 100% unimpeded on the forum, that would paradoxically make it impossible to actually debate anything because the signal-to-noise ratio would be too low (endless trolling and spam), but it's very hard to setup rules to contain all of that, without also occasionally impeding on some amount of legitimate speech; that's not an easy balance to get right.

Bertie Woot

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You misunderstand basic concepts such as what human rights are. Your right to freedom of speech does not mean you have an entitlement to express your views on someone else's social networking site. If they allow you to use their site, you must agree to abide by their rules. Justis because you have a right to free expression, does not give you the right to hijack other people's vehicles for expression. In the same way that your property right to own a car does not entitle you to take as much of my petrol as you feel like.

Why shouldn't you be allowed to express your views wherever you want? If ownership of a forum or networking site is the only avenue to freedom of speech and expression, that means every single individual who uses the internet would have to create their own forum/social site to freely express their views unimpeded, and that is not only impractical, it is unfair. Ownership of a piece of cyberspace should not provide licence to suppress and penalise freedom of speech, so long as you are responsible with your freedom.

And the car-petrol analogy is a very poor one and inapplicable. You could have chosen much better.

Ok. But you can choose which website has the best moderation for you and if there are none such, you have the freedom to set up your own site.

See above.

Again, you misunderstand what freedom of expression is. If I don't like your views on religion, for example, I can't stop you telling people on the streets about them. However, if you are in my house and start saying things I disagree with, ican ask you to leave. Even if I'm being over zealous, even rude, I'm not breaching your human rights. I'm not denying you your right to express yourself, I'm just saying you can't do it on my private property.

If you prevent me from expressing my views and opinions you most certainly are violating my human right to freedom of speech and expression. You are denying my right to express myself, and you are doing it on your property.

With the exception of calling someone intolerant, yes it is rude to say those things to someone else.

If a person genuinely is phony, pretentious etc., and consequently that is your perception of them, then referring to them as "phony" and "pretentious" is not rude, it is an accurate description of how they are.

So you mean other people - like the private owners of boards or Facebook for example - have to provide a mechanism for you to express your views? Why should they be forced to spend time and money facilitating your views but you don't have to go to any effort to do so?

If owners of any social platform deny me the freedom to express my views, they are suppressing freedom of speech and are therefore in breech of human rights legislation. Free speech is a common law right in the UK (I live in NI which is part of the UK), it also has a statutory basis in “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights“, which has been incorporated into UK law by the “Human Rights Act 1998“. In fact, Article 10 of the Convention goes beyond “free speech" and guarantees “freedom of expression”; which includes not only the spoken word, but written material, images and other published or broadcast material.

I would think it strange, not because I'm getting a list of those things, but that you feel the need to tell me to comply with basic courtesy. However, the Internet, especially anonymous posting, can lead to misunderstandings and conflict far more easily than the real world does. So they have to put up a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviours. However, if I came around to your house I would instinctively know not to insult people. You are not breaching my rights because I can still express my opinions. But you no longer have to listen to me in your own home, which is fair enough, no?

This is not about "insulting people", it is about the right to freely express an opinion of another person, and freedom of speech includes the right to offend people and tell them what they do not want to hear.

Don't get me wrong, the Internet can be annoying, especially when in a heated debate, for example, a moderator overlooks their friends personal insults and infracts instead the person being insulted. But that isn't a breach of your human rights its just poor moderation. My advice is not to continue to post in such fora. Which is what I do in such circumstances.

It's poor moderation and a breech of human rights. If you have been banned for being on the receiving end of abuse, and the people who have been ganging up on you are not penalised and are allowed to remain, not only have you been treated very unfairly, your human rights have been violated.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If owners of any social platform deny me the freedom to express my views, they are suppressing freedom of speech and are therefore in breech of human rights legislation. Free speech is a common law right in the UK (I live in NI which is part of the UK), it also has a statutory basis in “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights“, which has been incorporated into UK law by the “Human Rights Act 1998“. In fact, Article 10 of the Convention goes beyond “free speech" and guarantees “freedom of expression”; which includes not only the spoken word, but written material, images and other published or broadcast material.

The Irish Times' owners refuse to publish my 5,000-word treatise on why Sesame St is inferior to the Muppets. Which court do I take them to so I can get my free speech back?

And while you're at it, can you answer this earlier post too?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

OK, so under your interpretation is a kkk member allowed to express his opinions across the front wall of your house in 10ft letters with red paint?

Bertie Woot

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

OK, so under your interpretation is a kkk member allowed to express his opinions across the front wall of your house in 10ft letters with red paint? Would you stopping him result in you surpressing his right to freedom of speech and therefore be in breach of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

I live in NI. There are no KKK members here that I a aware of. If there were and they expressed their opinions in red paint on my house, that is criminal damage to my property and thus an indictable offence. If they expressed their opinions to me verbally, they are exercising their fundamental human right to freedom of speech, and even if their opinions are abhorrent and I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Article 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Not allowing someone to post something on an internet forum isnt denying them the right to freedom of speech, it is just not facilitating them to express their opinion on one part of the internet. They are of course free to express their opinions elsewhere, where they have been facilitated to do so, and if no one else facilitates them, they can simply set up their own website on which to do so, therefore the right to express themselves is not denied.

Denying someone freedom of speech on one part of the internet is a breach of human rights legislation as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (above). If anyone denies you freedom of speech, whether it be on a small piece of cyber-space or universally, they are denying you your human rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Bertie Woot

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you just straight out call someone dishonest/pretentious/phony etc., that's an ad-hominem, but if you quote them and point out the inconsistency in their arguments, and explain in detail precisely how the argument is dishonest or whatnot, that's not ad-hominem but a legitimate criticism.

Agreed.

It is a fine line, because often another posters method of debate totally warrants being pointed out, and is fully relevant to the discussion; it is critically important that it is allowed in fact, as it exposes the explicit method and inherent dishonesty of their fallacious arguments, and forces them to either acknowledge that in trying to defend it, or (since it's often impossible to defend after exposure) stops them from being able to make such arguments now that they are exposed; but you also can't just go around accusing other posters of e.g. trolling (even when they outright are trolling), because that's something mods need to sort out, and is going to devolve pretty quickly if people are just calling each other trolls.

If no-one but you has noticed that a poster is trolling, it is not your duty to point out the trolls behaviour, but it would be useful to do so and to bring it to the attention of the moderators, who may or may not take action.

If speech was 100% unimpeded on the forum, that would paradoxically make it impossible to actually debate anything because the signal-to-noise ratio would be too low (endless trolling and spam), but it's very hard to setup rules to contain all of that, without also occasionally impeding on some amount of legitimate speech; that's not an easy balance to get right.

True.

humanji

Is all of the Declaration of Human Rights legally binding? There's a paragraph from the website that says:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

From this, it doesn't sound like the listed rights are written into law. And there's several countries that don't accept certain sections (like capital punishment vs the right to life). So does each country write sections of this into their own constitutions, or is there some other legal method being used to implement it?

Bertie Woot

humanji wrote: »

Is all of the Declaration of Human Rights legally binding?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights.

There's a paragraph from the website that says:

From this, it doesn't sound like the listed rights are written into law. And there's several countries that don't accept certain sections (like capital punishment vs the right to life). So does each country write sections of this into their own constitutions, or is there some other legal method being used to implement it?

International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.

Through ratification of international human rights treaties, Governments undertake to put into place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and duties. The domestic legal system, therefore, provides the principal legal protection of human rights guaranteed under international law. Where domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses, mechanisms and procedures for individual and group complaints are available at the regional and international levels to help ensure that international human rights standards are indeed respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml

Aka Ishur

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I live in NI. There are no KKK members here that I a aware of. If there were and they expressed their opinions in red paint on my house, that is criminal damage to my property and thus an indictable offence. If they expressed their opinions to me verbally...

Actually it would only be criminal damage if you did not permit them to paint your house. Therefore once they asked your permission to paint said motifs on your property, you would be obligated, under your understanding of 'freedom of expression', to permit them to carry on, and no crime would have taken place...

Bertie Woot

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Actually it would only be criminal damage if you did not permit them to paint your house. Therefore once they asked your permission to paint said motifs on your property, you would be obligated, under your understanding of 'freedom of expression', to permit them to carry on, and no crime would have taken place...

There is no legislation under current UK law to obligate a home owner to permit anyone to deface their property upon request. If you can provide proof of any existing law which obligates a home owner to have his property defaced upon request, please provide a link.

johnnyskeleton

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Why shouldn't you be allowed to express your views wherever you want?

Seriously? Because there comes a point when your views become offensive to others and they are entitled not to have to listen to you. My freedom of conscience means I don't have to listen to you if I don't want. That doesn't in any way impede you expressing yourself to someone who does want to hear what you have to say.

If you prevent me from expressing my views and opinions you most certainly are violating my human right to freedom of speech and expression. You are denying my right to express myself, and you are doing it on your property.

No I'm not. You can still express your views, you just can't force me to listen. I have my own right to freedom of expression, and that means I don't have to host your views on my website if I don't want to. Surely you can see that?

If a person genuinely is phony, pretentious etc., and consequently that is your perception of them, then referring to them as "phony" and "pretentious" is not rude, it is an accurate description of how they are.

So calling someone fat, ugly, stupid, weak, etc is not rude provided it is accurate?

If owners of any social platform deny me the freedom to express my views, they are suppressing freedom of speech and are therefore in breech of human rights legislation. Free speech is a common law right in the UK (I live in NI which is part of the UK), it also has a statutory basis in “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights“, which has been incorporated into UK law by the “Human Rights Act 1998“. In fact, Article 10 of the Convention goes beyond “free speech" and guarantees “freedom of expression”; which includes not only the spoken word, but written material, images and other published or broadcast material.




This is not about "insulting people", it is about the right to freely express an opinion of another person, and freedom of speech includes the right to offend people and tell them what they do not want to hear.



It's poor moderation and a breech of human rights. If you have been banned for being on the receiving end of abuse, and the people who have been ganging up on you are not penalised and are allowed to remain, not only have you been treated very unfairly, your human rights have been violated.

Ok, we'll let's just say we have different views on what freedom of expression is and how that interacts with other people's property rights. However, if you want to base your argument on law I'd suggest that you do a bit more research into it. Common law has no express right to free speech (other than as part of the constitutional papers). It does however have many circumstances where people making offensive and insulting comments are prohibited such as assault, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional suffering.

Aka Ishur

Bertie Woot wrote: »

There is no legislation under current UK law to obligate a home owner to permit anyone to deface their property upon request. If you can provide proof of any existing law which obligates a home owner to have his property defaced upon request, please provide a link.

Likewise there is no obligation on a private company to allow you to deface their property (the website) with your opinions.

humanji

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights.

So the UDHR isn't legally binding. It's the treaties that refer to it that are binding? In which case, then there will surely be written in those treaties more detailed version of applicable rights, and these would also only apply to those states which sign those specific treaties.

The Irish and US versions of "Freedom of Speech" can be different, for example.

Bertie Woot

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Seriously? Because there comes a point when your views become offensive to others and they are entitled not to have to listen to you. My freedom of conscience means I don't have to listen to you if I don't want. That doesn't in any way impede you expressing yourself to someone who does want to hear what you have to say.

There is nothing under the UDHR pertaining to freedom of speech which excludes the right to express views which are not popular. If you disagree with what someone has said or find it offensive you have the right to forward your objection, but you do not have any right to obstruct anyone from exercising FOS and expressing their opinion. This has nothing to do with your, mine, or anyone else's "conscience".

No I'm not. You can still express your views, you just can't force me to listen. I have my own right to freedom of expression, and that means I don't have to host your views on my website if I don't want to. Surely you can see that?

There is a battle currently taking place between website/forum owners and the people who post there. The owners say that they have the right to delete posts they find objectionable, and fraction/ban posters for breaching "their site rules", whilst many posters view these rules and infractions/bans as placing an obstruction in the way of FOS, and that infractions/bans are tantamount to arbitrary censorship of freedom of expression; surely you can see that?

So calling someone fat, ugly, stupid, weak, etc is not rude provided it is accurate?

If some was genuinely fat, ugly, stupid, weak etc. and you wished to avoid risk of offending, you could be euphemistic and call the person in question "obese, unattractive, unintelligent and impotent" etc. This is the problem; on many forums any description of another poster is viewed as "an ad hominem attack", when all you are really doing is describing someone as you perceive them. Descriptions are not attacks.

Ok, we'll let's just say we have different views on what freedom of expression is and how that interacts with other people's property rights. However, if you want to base your argument on law I'd suggest that you do a bit more research into it. Common law has no express right to free speech (other than as part of the constitutional papers). It does however have many circumstances where people making offensive and insulting comments are prohibited such as assault, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional suffering.

Property rights V's the right of the individual to exercise his or fundamental human right to freedom of expression is what we are dealing with here. Hitherto, it would seem that cyber-property rights are trumping the individuals' right to freedom of speech as outlined in above legislations, and that shouldn't be the case. It is this notion of cyber-space as 'property' which is permitting people with the financial capacity to effectively colonise pieces of cyber-space and dictate rules and regulations on FOS which is impinging on and thus undermining and diminishing human rights pertaining to FOS and expression.

Defamation and slander are not excused or legitimised by the UDHR and other human rights legislation, and are not permitted on virtually all fora, as that has legal implications for the site owner/administrator. But describing a pretentious person as "pretentious" is neither slanderous nor defamatory, it is an accurate description and should be permitted as exercising FOS, and even if the (usually unaware ) described person finds such description objectionable and/or offensive.

If freedom of speech means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. It also means the right to offend people.

Bertie Woot

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Likewise there is no obligation on a private company to allow you to deface their property (the website) with your opinions.

Expressing opinions on a website is not defacement. It is exercising FOS and is a basic human right.

humanji wrote: »

So the UDHR isn't legally binding. It's the treaties that refer to it that are binding? In which case, then there will surely be written in those treaties more detailed version of applicable rights, and these would also only apply to those states which sign those specific treaties.

The Irish and US versions of "Freedom of Speech" can be different, for example.

China's is different again. That doesn't mean that China's hitherto blatant suppression of FOS is right.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Hitherto, it would seem that cyber-property rights are trumping the individuals' right to freedom of speech as outlined in above legislations, and that shouldn't be the case. It is this notion of cyber-space as 'property' which is permitting people with the financial capacity to effectively colonise pieces of cyber-space and dictate rules and regulations on FOS which is impinging on and thus undermining and diminishing human rights pertaining to FOS and expression.

Cyber-property is property. The server space and hosting software belongs to the site owners as much as the front of your house belongs to you. You no more have the right to "deface" their property than I do to deface the front of your house. You also have no more right to have your opinions published on a site owned by somebody else than you do to have your opinions published on the front of the Irish Times.

Zombrex

Bertie Woot wrote: »

When the internet first became widely available many commentators heralded it as ushering in a brand new era of freedom of communication and expression. Regrettably, many social networking sites and forums have imposed a set of rules and regulations on posting, and whilst these rules are designed to act as a deterrent against bullying and harassment, what has actually happened is that a suppression of freedom of speech and expression on the internet has been the result. More often than not, you are not permitted to express your thoughts on another individual in a direct manner; as this is looked upon as an "ad hominem attack".

You have no right to express your opinion on another persons publication. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google+, Boards.ie etc are all private companies that offer a service to the public. The public has no right to freespeech on these platforms.

You do have the right to free speech on the Internet (or at least you should), but it is your responsibility to provide the publishing of your opinions through something like your own website.

This has always been the case, free speech did not mean you could march into the editor of the Irish Times or the New York Times and demand that he published your story on his front page.

What it meant is that if you wanted to you could start your own news paper (which many did) that published your ideas and the government could not close it down.

And given that the Internet has been a huge benefit in facilitating freedom of speech by greatly lowering the costs involved in publishing your own material.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

the result being that it is now becoming increasing difficult to express oneself in an open, honest and direct manner, and in many instances, impossible to tell another person exactly what you think of them without fear of infraction;

Only on these private publishing systems, which again has always been the case. If you don't wish to abide by the rules of the pubishing system you are using, you are free to use another one or start your own. Private publishing companies exercising editorial control and moderation is not a breach of freedom of speech.

Bertie Woot

Zombrex wrote: »

You have no right to express your opinion on another persons publication. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google+, Boards.ie etc are all private companies that offer a service to the public. The public has no right to freespeech on these platforms.

You do have the right to free speech on the Internet (or at least you should), but it is your responsibility to provide the publishing of your opinions through something like your own website.

This has always been the case, free speech did not mean you could march into the editor of the Irish Times or the New York Times and demand that he published your story on his front page.

What it meant is that if you wanted to you could start your own news paper (which many did) that published your ideas and the government could not close it down.

And given that the Internet has been a huge benefit in facilitating freedom of speech by greatly lowering the costs involved in publishing your own material.

If the owners of forums and social sites are not prepared to tolerate freedom of speech and consequently the expression of viewpoints and opinions which may run counter to theirs, that's like saying that "you can only come into my house and speak if everything you say is in agreement with everything that I say and you do not oppose anything that I say", and that says more about the insecurity and/or megalomania of a site owner than anything else.

Only on these private publishing systems, which again has always been the case. If you don't wish to abide by the rules of the pubishing system you are using, you are free to use another one or start your own. Private publishing companies exercising editorial control and moderation is not a breach of freedom of speech.

If based upon observation I express the opinion that another poster on a site I am using is "greedy, selfish, phony, egotistical" or any other perfectly valid descriptor, and I receive a warning/infraction/ban for expressing that perfectly valid opinion, I look upon that as a gratuitous suppression and penalisation of freedom of speech and a human rights violation, as I am not abusing the right to freedom of speech by describing someone as their behaviour has presented them.

Over-moderation is strangulating freedom of speech on the internet. Cyber-property rights have been elevated as more important to the fundamental human right to freedom of expression.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Cyber-property is property. The server space and hosting software belongs to the site owners as much as the front of your house belongs to you. You no more have the right to "deface" their property than I do to deface the front of your house. You also have no more right to have your opinions published on a site owned by somebody else than you do to have your opinions published on the front of the Irish Times.

The purpose of internet forums is to provide a platform for discussion, argument and debate. Someone may well own that platform, but if they are not going to tolerate views which are ultimately the antithesis of their own, there is no point in providing such a platform, as the culture dictated by the site owner is counter-productive to the the free-flowing of opinions in polemic.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The purpose of internet forums is to provide a platform for discussion, argument and debate.

That's an entirely made up definition. I can just as easily say that the purpose of the front of your house is to display my message. Site owners get to decide what their property is for, not users

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

That's an entirely made up definition. I can just as easily say that the purpose of the front of your house is to display my message. Site owners get to decide what their property is for, not users

If the purpose of a forum, such as this one for example, is not to provide a platform for argument, debate and the expression of opinions, what is it then?

Your analogy with the front of my house is absolutely implausible. You know that and I know that. The front of my house is not for anyone to spray paint their opinions on, but the purpose of internet forums is to provide a means to which engage in polemic and express opinions; opinions which others shall disagree with, thus fulfilling the purpose the forum and providing it with the fuel it needs to sustain itself. If everyone just agreed with everyone else there would no forum activity and the forum would quckly fold.

To provide and sustain a forum you must allow people to disagree with eachother, and this inherently means permitting the expression of opinions which others do not agree with.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If the purpose of a forum, such as this one for example, is not to provide a platform for argument and debate, what is it then?

It's to provide a platform for discussion within parameters defined by the site owners

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Your analogy with the front of my house is absolutely implausible. You know that and I know that. The front of my house is not for anyone to spray paint their opinions on, but the purpose of internet forums is to provide a means to which engage in polemic and express opinions; opinions which others shall disagree with, thus fulfilling the purpose the forum and providing it with the fuel it needs to sustain itself. If everyone just agreed with everyone else there would no forum activity and the forum would quckly fold.

It's actually exactly the same. You want to use someone else's property for a purpose which they do not wish to allow.

If you refuse to engage on that analogy, what about the Irish Times one? Why are the owners of the Irish Times not obligated to provide a medium for free speech to anyone who wants it?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

To provide and sustain a forum you must allow people to disagree with eachother, and this inherently means permitting the expression of opinions which others do not agree with.

It does not inherently mean the absolute right to say what ever you want on someone else's property

K-9

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If the owners of forums and social sites are not prepared to tolerate freedom of speech and consequently the expression of viewpoints and opinions which may run counter to theirs, that's like saying that "you can only come into my house and speak if everything you say is in agreement with everything that I say and you do not oppose anything that I say", and that says more about the insecurity and/or megalomania of a site owner than anything else.

Well for boards the main rule is don't be a dick, Wheaton's Law. That supercedes any right to insult or be abusive to others. It helps the quality of the site as we don't want vitriolic debate here. There are other places that cater for that demand, you've the right to choose, you don't have the right to make sites change to meet your particular view.

If based upon observation I express the opinion that another poster on a site I am using is "greedy, selfish, phony, egotistical" or any other perfectly valid descriptor, and I receive a warning/infraction/ban for expressing that perfectly valid opinion, I look upon that as a gratuitous suppression and penalisation of freedom of speech and a human rights violation, as I am not abusing the right to freedom of speech by describing someone as their behaviour has presented them.

Some of that would be allowed on certain parts of the site but you'd need something to base it on that was relevant. We don't want loads of posters just shouting "greedy, selfish" etc. at people they disagree with.

Over-moderation is strangulating freedom of speech on the internet. Cyber-property rights have been elevated as more important to the fundamental human right to freedom of expression.

Tbh most of that is down to time and the widespread availability of the net, it isn't a plaything of gamers or IT professionals anymore.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

It's to provide a platform for discussion within parameters defined by the site owners

In other words: restricted polemic. In effect, the suppression of freedom of speech.

It's actually exactly the same. You want to use someone else's property for a purpose which they do not wish to allow.

It is not the same. If someone scribbles their views on the front of another person's house they are committing criminal damage which is an indictable offence. If someone types their views on an internet forum they are doing exactly what the site was designed for.

If you refuse to engage on that analogy, what about the Irish Times one? Why are the owners of the Irish Times not obligated to provide a medium for free speech to anyone who wants it?

You'd need to take that one up with the owner and/or editor of the Irish Times, or perhaps the Irish government. If newspaper owners are censoring freedom of speech or simply not offering it, then perhaps like forum owners they too are in the same business of suppressing freedom of speech.

It does not inherently mean the absolute right to say what ever you want on someone else's property

If you are going to offer a platform for expression, offering conditional expression is a form of oppression.

Let me ask you this: as you are so obviously in favour of cyber-property rights and the consequent suppression of freedom of speech, do you feel that your human rights as outlined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being upheld? That you are being allowed to express yourself without impediment? Or shall you concede that by restricting and suppressing freedom of speech, cyber-property owners are in effect violating human rights?

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It is not the same. If someone scribbles their views on the front of another person's house they are committing criminal damage which is an indictable offence. If someone types their views on an internet forum they are doing exactly what the site was designed for.

An internet forum is designed to do what the owners want it to do. Your house is designed to do what you want it to do. You disagree with the purpose of the owners' site. I disagree with the purpose of your house. So whoever owns those properties gets to decide what their purpose is.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You'd need to take that one up with the owner and/or editor of the Irish Times, or perhaps the Irish government. If newspaper owners are censoring freedom of speech or simply not offering it, then perhaps like forum owners they too are in the same business of suppressing freedom of speech.

Why would I take it up? You are the one who is demanding that media owners must provide a platform for all free speech. Why are you not demanding the Irish Times gives you the front page to highlight this breach of your human rights?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If you are going to offer a platform for expression, offering conditional expression is a form of oppression.

No, it is not. You would be more "oppressed" if no platform existed at all

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Let me ask you this: as you are so obviously in favour of cyber-property rights and the consequent suppression of freedom of speech, do you feel that your human rights as outlined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being upheld? That you are being allowed to express yourself without impediment?

Yes, my rights are fully upheld. At any stage, I can go set up a website and say whatever I want. That is freedom of speech. You can not force me to give you a platform to say whatever you want

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

An internet forum is designed to do what the owners want it to do. Your house is designed to do what you want it to do. You disagree with the purpose of the owners' site. I disagree with the purpose of your house. So whoever owns those properties gets to decide what their purpose is.

And by that logic you in effect agree that suppression of freedom of speech by site owners is permissible.

Why would I take it up? You are the one who is demanding that media owners must provide a platform for all free speech. Why are you not demanding the Irish Times gives you the front page to highlight this breach of your human rights?

Because I live in a part of Ireland which is a part of the UK and I don't read the Irish Times.

No, it is not. You would be more "oppressed" if no platform existed at all

Providing a platform where conditional and restricted expression is only permitted is an infringement of human rights pertaining to freedom of expression.

Yes, my rights are fully upheld. At any stage, I can go set up a website and say whatever I want. That is freedom of speech. You can not force me to give you a platform to say whatever you want

Your rights are not upheld, they are violated. You are not being permitted to exercise freedom of speech on a certain site and are thus having to resort to setting up your own site in order to do so. If you'd read the legislations I have referred to ITT pertaining to FOS you shall understand that under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights freedom of speech must be permitted in all environments (including cyber) and regardless of national boundaries.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

And by that logic you in effect agree that suppression of freedom of speech by site owners is permissible.

In exactly the same way that you are suppressing my free speech by not allowing me to use your house to express my opinions

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Because I live in a part of Ireland which is a part of the UK and I don't read the Irish Times.

:rolleyes: Do you think you could maybe extend that logic to, say, any newspaper?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Providing a platform where conditional and restricted expression is only permitted is an infringement of human rights pertaining to freedom of expression.

It is not

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Your rights are not upheld, they are violated. You are not being permitted to exercise freedom of speech on a certain site and are thus having to resort to setting up your own site in order to do so. If you'd read the legislations I have referred to ITT pertaining to FOS you shall understand that under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights freedom of speech must be permitted in all environments (including cyber) and regardless of national boundaries.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the right to free speech is. Nothing in the UDHR says anything about someone being forced to provide a platform for free speech. Article 20 says "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association": Does that mean you are required to host any meeting I wish to hold in your home?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

In exactly the same way that you are suppressing my free speech by not allowing me to use your house to express my opinions

This is a nonsense argument. In fact, it's just nonsense and not even an argument, and your persistence with it just makes you look foolish.

It is not

And that's the totality of your argument

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the right to free speech is. Nothing in the UDHR says anything about someone being forced to provide a platform for free speech. Article 20 says "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association": Does that mean you are required to host any meeting I wish to hold in your home?

You have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what the right to free speech is", and you repeatedly demonstrate this by consistently attempting to denigrate the right to FOS with nonsense comparisons with a house.

And I don't know why you are quoting article 20, when I have made it clear that it is article 19 of the UDHR which is pertinent, and which states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Not only did you quote the wrong article, you obviously failed to grasp the relevant article.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. In fact, it's just nonsense and not even an argument, and your persistence with it just makes you look foolish.

And yet you haven't addressed it. You think freedom of speech is an absolute right through all media. The front of your house is as much a medium as a website. The only reason I can't use it is because it is not my property. The reason you can't use any website as you see fit is because it is not your property

Bertie Woot wrote: »

And I don't know why you are quoting article 20, when I have made it clear that it is article 19 of the UDHR, which states:

It's called a comparison. If Article 20 was interpreted the same way you are interpreting Article 19, it would be my right to hold a meeting in your house. It's a ridiculous interpretation.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Any chance of you explaining why a newspaper is not required to publish any opinion in their paper?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You obviously fail to grasp this simple article.

And yet, absolutely no-one shares your interpretation of this "simple article"

johnnyskeleton

Bertie Woot wrote: »

There is nothing under the UDHR pertaining to freedom of speech which excludes the right to express views which are not popular. If you disagree with what someone has said or find it offensive you have the right to forward your objection, but you do not have any right to obstruct anyone from exercising FOS and expressing their opinion. This has nothing to do with your, mine, or anyone else's "conscience".

Udhr is not binding. Even still Iccpr has clear Limits to free speech, as does the constitution, as does the echr. It is always recognized that free speech is not absolute, and can be curtailed in order to respect the rights and reputations of others.

http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/PSB/02.%20ICCPR%20[UN].pdf

There is a battle currently taking place between website/forum owners and the people who post there. The owners say that they have the right to delete posts they find objectionable, and fraction/ban posters for breaching "their site rules", whilst many posters view these rules and infractions/bans as placing an obstruction in the way of FOS, and that infractions/bans are tantamount to arbitrary censorship of freedom of expression; surely you can see that?

No, I don't see that because I understand and accept the terms that boards.ie offers me. If I don't, I can set up my own forum.

If some was genuinely fat, ugly, stupid, weak etc. and you wished to avoid risk of offending, you could be euphemistic and call the person in question "obese, unattractive, unintelligent and impotent" etc. This is the problem; on many forums any description of another poster is viewed as "an ad hominem attack", when all you are really doing is describing someone as you perceive them. Descriptions are not attacks.

Why do I have to point out someone else's flaws at all? I can get my views across without describing other posters. You should read up about the ad hominem rule - in polite fora you play the ball not the man or you can attack, criticize or describe the argument however you want, but there is no reason to attack criticise or describe the person making the argument. I can call your argument wrong, which might or might not be true, but I have no reason to make personal criticisms of you because of that.

Property rights V's the right of the individual to exercise his or fundamental human right to freedom of expression is what we are dealing with here. Hitherto, it would seem that cyber-property rights are trumping the individuals' right to freedom of speech as outlined in above legislations, and that shouldn't be the case. It is this notion of cyber-space as 'property' which is permitting people with the financial capacity to effectively colonise pieces of cyber-space and dictate rules and regulations on FOS which is impinging on and thus undermining and diminishing human rights pertaining to FOS and expression

It's not a question of balancing rights because it is not legislation or laws we are dealing with - it is private discussions.

If freedom of speech means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. It also means the right to offend people.

Fine, but they have a right not to listen.

K-9

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. In fact, it's just nonsense and not even an argument, and your persistence with it just makes you look foolish.

It's a surreal point, but he is testing how much you value freedom of speech vs. property rights.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

And yet you haven't addressed it. You think freedom of speech is an absolute right through all media. The front of your house is as much a medium as a website. The only reason I can't use it is because it is not my property. The reason you can't use any website as you see fit is because it is not your property

Continue with this nonsense if you wish. It's a non-comparison.

It's called a comparison. If Article 20 was interpreted the same way you are interpreting Article 19, it would be my right to hold a meeting in your house. It's a ridiculous interpretation.

I am not referring to article 20, it is article 19 which is relevant. You are attempting to introduce the next article to obfuscate the issue.

Any chance of you explaining why a newspaper is not required to publish any opinion in their paper?

Newspapers provide news, they are not a debating forum.

And yet, absolutely no-one shares your interpretation of this "simple article"

You are not everyone, and even if everyone did disagree, that does not make them right.

I understand you've been on this site for 8 years and have thus had plenty of time to hone your trolling abilities. Regrettably, a good troll has the ability not to make his trolling obvious; something which you have failed to do.

Bertie Woot

K-9 wrote: »

It's a surreal point, but he is testing how much you value freedom of speech vs. property rights.

Oh, so he is "testing" me, and is not an obvious troll?

So glad you pointed that out. I'm always in need of testing, and by a non-troll.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Continue with this nonsense if you wish. It's a non-comparison.

Why?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I am not referring to article 20, it is article 19 which is relevant. You are attempting to introduce the next article to obfuscate the issue.

It is a comparison. I thought that was quite clear in the first place, and pretty crystal when I explicitly stated it

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Newspapers provide news, they are not a debating forum.

Are you saying newspapers are not a form of media? You claim article 19 means all media. Where does Article 19 provide an exception for "news" media?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You are not everyone, and even if everyone did disagree, that does not make them right.

Ah, not "everyone" then. Just every website owner, every newspaper owner, every other poster in this thread that has expressed an opinion on it, and the legislators and judiciary in every 1st world country. Oh, and the United Nations themselves, since they have a Google+ page and a Facebook page, both of which are moderated

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I understand you've been on this site for 8 years and have thus had plenty of time to hone your trolling abilities. Regrettably, a good troll has the ability not to make his trolling obvious; something which you have failed to do.

Any chance of actually addressing the points I'm raising instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Why?

Why what?

It is a comparison. I thought that was quite clear in the first place, and pretty crystal when I explicitly stated it

Please elaborate.

Are you saying newspapers are not a form of media? You claim article 19 means all media. Where does Article 19 provide an exception for "news" media?

What?

Ah, not "everyone" then. Just every website owner, every newspaper owner, every other poster in this thread that has expressed an opinion on it, and the legislators and judiciary in every 1st world country. Oh, and the United Nations themselves, since they have a Google+ page and a Facebook page, both of which are moderated

Provide links to all sources mentioned so as to substantiate your point and re-state your point, clearly and accurately.

Any chance of actually addressing the points I'm raising instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Any chance of desisting from trolling?

nesf

Bertie Woot wrote: »

And by that logic you in effect agree that suppression of freedom of speech by site owners is permissible.

There's a problem when people come online. They think they're still down the pub. If you say something in a pub, you're liable for what you say. If you defame an individual that's your problem and no one else's. All fine. Then you go online and start posting on an Internet forum. What you say is no longer your problem alone. The site becomes liable too (or well, the legal opinion seems to be that an internet forum is as liable as a newspaper is for what's on it, unless we get more clarity from case law or the Government this is all still unclear).

It's not just permissible for site owners to suppress freedom of speech in certain ways, they are legally expected to! Now personally I don't like this, I think if you say something defamatory on here that should be your problem not boards' but since that's not the case I can't moderate as if it is.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Why what?

Why is it not a valid comparison?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Please elaborate.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly". If that's an absolute right in the same style as you claim Article 19 is an absolute right, then I have the right to assemble in your living room

Bertie Woot wrote: »

What?

You claim Article 19 means an absolute right to freedom through any media. Why are newspapers are exempt?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Provide links to all sources mentioned so as to substantiate your point and re-state your point, clearly and accurately.

My point was clearly and accurately stated. No-one agrees with your interpretation of free speech which states that a website must provide an un-moderated, un-censored platform for whoever wants to use it. As for the sources:

• This thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056910270
• A sample of various major websites' terms and conditions, all of which cater for moderation:
• http://www.irishtimes.com/policy-and-terms/community-standards
• http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
• http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
• http://www.boards.ie/content/terms
• http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-service.html

I obviously can't prove a negative when it comes to legislation, so it's up to you to provide a single example of a law or case that states a website must provide an un-moderated, un-censored platform for anyone to use as they see fit

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Any chance of desisting from trolling?

See the post I just made? That's called addressing points. Answered everything you asked. Engaged in discussion. Something you've been actively avoiding for most of this thread, and now you've descended to ad-hominem attacks. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the matter at hand

K-9

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Oh, so he is "testing" me, and is not an obvious troll?

So glad you pointed that out. I'm always in need of testing, and by a non-troll.

If you think somebody is trolling, I can't believe I'm saying this, report the post to the mods.

Anyway, why are you ignoring Article 20? Is Article 19 more important?

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

Why is it not a valid comparison?

*yawn* Like I've already stated, the fronts of houses were not designed to accommodate opinions. Forums such as this however, were.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly". If that's an absolute right in the same style as you claim Article 19 is an absolute right, then I have the right to assemble in your living room

If that is how you choose to interpret that article, that is your interpretation. But try to focus on article 19, as that one is relevant.

You claim Article 19 means an absolute right to freedom through any media. Why are newspapers are exempt?

The term "freedom of the press" does not necessarily translate to freedom of speech. "Freedom of the press" may refer to media magnates actually suppressing freedom of speech eg. cases where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech so as to maintain editorial control. Judith Lichtenberg has argued that "freedom of the press" is simply "a form of property right summed up by the principle no money, no voice".

Money controls and regulates "freedom of the press" in the Western media (eg. Murdoch), and many newspapers by regulating and imposing conditions upon FOS are in effect suppressing FOS and are thus in breach of article 19 of the UDHR.

My point was clearly and accurately stated. No-one agrees with your interpretation of free speech which states that a website must provide an un-moderated, un-censored platform for whoever wants to use it. As for the sources:

• This thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056910270
• A sample of various major websites' terms and conditions, all of which cater for moderation:
• http://www.irishtimes.com/policy-and-terms/community-standards
• http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
• http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
• http://www.boards.ie/content/terms
• http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-service.html

I obviously can't prove a negative when it comes to legislation, so it's up to you to provide a single example of a law or case that states a website must provide an un-moderated, un-censored platform for anyone to use as they see fit

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court partially overturned the law.[43] Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:

"The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:

.."We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."

..The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[50] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies".[51] According to the Reporters without Borders (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Facebook, Boards.ie, NYTimes et al. could be looked upon as "closed societies", where freedom of speech as defined in the UDHR is not being adhered to.

See the post I just made? That's called addressing points. Answered everything you asked. Engaged in discussion. Something you've been actively avoiding for most of this thread, and now you've descended to ad-hominem attacks. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the matter at hand

See that post I've made, that's called addressing points, and with legislative facts. This argument is about cyber-property rights V's the rights of the individual to exercise freedom of speech as outlined in the UDHR. By your sentiments you are obviously on the side of the cyper-property owners, and the property owners are in breach of the terms of the UDHR by imposing conditions upon posting in their privately owned pieces of cyberspace, and by sustaining a virtually arbitrary system of forum moderation where obvious violations of "their" posting rules committed by some forum regulars are not penalised, whilst minor indiscretions committed by other posters are punished with infarctions and bans.

In 2013 we have much more freedom of speech in everyday life than we do on the internet.

28064212

Bertie Woot wrote: »

*yawn* Like I've already stated, the fronts of houses were not designed to accommodate opinions. Forums such as this however, were.

And like I've already stated, forums were not designed to accommodate any statement that anyone wanted to make. They are designed to accommodate opinions that are in line with the terms and conditions that the owners specify.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The term "freedom of the press" does not necessarily translate to freedom of speech. "Freedom of the press" may refer to media magnates actually suppressing freedom of speech eg. cases where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech so as to maintain editorial control. Judith Lichtenberg has argued that "freedom of the press" is simply "a form of property right summed up by the principle no money, no voice".

Money controls and regulates "freedom of the press" in the Western media (eg. Murdoch), and many newspapers by regulating and imposing conditions upon FOS are in effect suppressing FOS and are thus in breach of article 19 of the UDHR.

None of which actually addresses the point. You claim that anyone providing a platform for expressing opinions must provide that platform to anyone who wants to use it. Forums don't do this. Newspapers also don't do this. Why are you not complaining about newspapers refusing to publish all and sundry opinions on request?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) .... Vietnam.

Not a single mention of any legislation which states a website must provide an un-moderated, un-censored platform for anyone to use as they see fit. The points raised do not make any mention of anybody's right to freedom of expression on someone else's property.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

See that post I've made, that's called addressing points, and with legislative facts. This argument is about cyber-property rights V's the rights of the individual to exercise freedom of speech as outlined in the UDHR. By yur sentiments you are obviously on the side of the cyper-property owners, and the property owners are in breach of the terms of the UDHR by imposing conditions upon posting in their privately owned pieces of cyberspace, and by sustaining a virtually arbitrary system of forum moderation where obvious violations of "their" posting rules committed by some forum regulars are not penalised, whilst minor indiscretions committed by other posters are punished with infarctions and bans.

I'm just curious, do you actually want this version of the internet to come about? Who do you think will pay for these unmoderated, uncensored sites where there are no rules? Or is this just an intellectual exercise?

T runner

Bertie Woot wrote: »

When the internet first became widely available many commentators heralded it as ushering in a brand new era of freedom of communication and expression. Regrettably, many social networking sites and forums have imposed a set of rules and regulations on posting, and whilst these rules are designed to act as a deterrent against bullying and harassment, what has actually happened is that a suppression of freedom of speech and expression on the internet has been the result. More often than not, you are not permitted to express your thoughts on another individual in a direct manner; as this is looked upon as an "ad hominem attack".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Considering that state sponsored censorship and suppression of freedom of speech has been occurring and is ongoing in countries like China, Cuba, Iran et al., and the general consensus is that many Western social networking sites and forums are becoming increasingly over-moderated, the result being that it is now becoming increasing difficult to express oneself in an open, honest and direct manner, and in many instances, impossible to tell another person exactly what you think of them without fear of infraction; is the internet facilitating or impeding freedom of speech ?

I think freedom of speech is fair except when it comes into conflict with another right, when it can be limited such as in libel cases, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime etc. It must be said that Law needs to catch up in these above situations: trying to put the onus on the media provider is missing the point IMO.

Regarding bullying i guess bullied youngsters particularly find themselves in a dilemma: Remove your account to avoid bullying and you are excluded (or perceive it) from your social group. Stay and you are bullied.
Educating users is the obvious solution.

The claim that social media can cause a suicide is not founded. Politicians attacking it after the Meath East TDs suicide was ludicrous. There exists more serious issues than a little abuse on the internet if a family man commits suicide. The Taoiseach and other politicians rowing in here with what could be interpreted as "State" views was worrying. Social media empowers the citizen: when state condemns it and church calls it a sin its time to face them down.

The strange media glorifying of this type of suicide is clearly more dangerous than any social media. This media blindness where suicide is involved is not just related to suicides blamed on social media: A man who recently violently drowned his daughter before committing suicide was glorified by many media as "a tragic dad" who had wanted to bring "his little princess" with him. This conclusion without any knowledge of the circumstances of the murder being known. If he had survived to explain his actions i imagine less sympathy would be forthcoming, however i fear "more tragic" dads might find this option attractive now.

This re-iterates to me that educating the people who use the media is more important than the actual type of media itself. Education is the most important single tool to minimise these perceived issues. Where crimes are committed they must be easily detectable obviously. But a culture who deals with these problems honestly and head on through education will have generally encounter less problems. As implied above Politicians and journalists expecially should not be exempt from this educating process.

Bertie Woot

28064212 wrote: »

And like I've already stated, forums were not designed to accommodate any statement that anyone wanted to make. They are designed to accommodate opinions that are in line with the terms and conditions that the owners specify

The terms and conditions specified by site owners are designed to protect the site owners from allegations of hosting slanderous, defamatory and/or libellous comments, but they also in practice enable site owners and their foot-soldiers (moderators) to impose restrictions on freedom of speech and to penalise FOS. People have received warnings/infractions/bans for simply describing another poster as they are eg. pretentious, self important, a troll etc. Many sites state outright that "there is no freedom of speech on this site", with others, you find that out for yourself.

None of which actually addresses the point. You claim that anyone providing a platform for expressing opinions must provide that platform to anyone who wants to use it. Forums don't do this. Newspapers also don't do this. Why are you not complaining about newspapers refusing to publish all and sundry opinions on request?

Nowhere have I stated that "anyone providing a platform for expressing opinions must provide that platform to anyone who wants to use it". Your words not mine. What I have said is that by imposing rules, regulations and penalising cyber-interaction many sites are suppressing FOS. Many forums (and newspapers) do not allow FOS, by creating this thread I am pointing this out. If fora and newspapers did allow FOS then they would cease inhibiting it.

Not a single mention of any legislation which states a website must provide an un-moderated, un-censored platform for anyone to use as they see fit. The points raised do not make any mention of anybody's right to freedom of expression on someone else's property.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

That means that under the UDHR you are free to exerecise FOS wherever you want. I know this is a point you are having extreme difficulty with, and for reasons known to no-one other than yourself.

I'm just curious, do you actually want this version of the internet to come about? Who do you think will pay for these unmoderated, uncensored sites where there are no rules? Or is this just an intellectual exercise?

A site where everyone makes a contribution to the maintenance of the site could facilitate FOS with unmoderated fora. I was on an unmoderated site for 2 years, and whilst the interaction could be brutal at times, it provided bonafide freedom of expression, and there were no unfair petty warnings/infractions/bans for speaking your mind and telling another poster what you thought of him.

People who fear freedom of speech and expression are well protected in moderated fora, as are the site owners; but the down side to this is that the restrictions imposed on cyber-interaction stifle the expression of honest and open opinion.

oscarBravo

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I was on an unmoderated site for 2 years, and whilst the interaction could be brutal at times, it provided bonafide freedom of expression, and there were no unfair petty warnings/infractions/bans for speaking your mind and telling another poster what you thought of him.

So there's another website where you can insult people to your heart's content, but that's insufficient for you, because you want to practice your alleged freedom of speech on any website, whether or not that website wants to allow you to insult people?

If your alleged right to free speech is fully allowed on that other site, why is it necessary that every website allow you to say whatever you want in order to preserve that alleged right? How can you claim to be denied freedom of expression when you have the freedom to express yourself somewhere else?

Is it your position that your alleged right to insult people on a website owned by someone else supersedes the right of the owners of that website to prevent you from doing so?

Bertie Woot

oscarBravo wrote: »

So there's another website where you can insult people to your heart's content, but that's insufficient for you, because you want to practice your alleged freedom of speech on any website, whether or not that website wants to allow you to insult people?

If your alleged right to free speech is fully allowed on that other site, why is it necessary that every website allow you to say whatever you want in order to preserve that alleged right? How can you claim to be denied freedom of expression when you have the freedom to express yourself somewhere else?

Is it your position that your alleged right to insult people on a website owned by someone else supersedes the right of the owners of that website to prevent you from doing so?

Telling someone what you think of them does not necessarily mean "insulting" them. That is just your negative interpretation.

In that vein, is it your position that suppressing honest, open and direct opinions facilitates authentic discourse?