'Public' Online Spaces Don't Carry Free Speech Rights

I own a voice/chat server and I have to say it's one of the hardest things to deal with, but I love sharing the service with the online community. I am fairly open to allowing whatever people want to say. Where I draw the line and I don't care what people think, is when people try to take over rooms that people had already established with their own topic theme. I can only tell them they have to start their own room and set the theme for that space. But some folk don't respect that and want to disrupt other peoples rooms and create problems, or drive the original people who had the room away. It can be frustrating to say the least, but like I said in my title, I own the server, it's privately owned, but I share it publicly. You can make a million rules and regulations, but for whatever reason, being the internet, some folk feel like they own it and can do as they wish. When they can't abide by a few simple rules, then I have to be the ass and kick them out. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's how I deal with it. I have to concider a bunch of scenerios all the time, do I have minors on the server? Are there children and adults in the same room, do we talk to the parent(s)? If I were a parent and my kid had already started his/her own room and people come in and disrupted their space, swearing, vulgar, using sexually explicit language, I would be really angry. With that, there are billions of sites that cater to just about anyones needs. Some sites could care less what goes on, they're more interested in the number count and hits, or making money. I prefer the theme approach and try to make sure what themes people create are not destroyed by others.

-
Show your support on the Ron Paul Map !
People worldwide support Dr. Paul too :-)
http://www.pollingmatrix....

This website, and any other owned and operated by a private individual, is subject to market forces and decisions should be made based on that. If the editor refuses to intervene and censor comments and threads that would alienate a large part of the audience, he would soon find decreased traffic, decreased advertising power, and decreased influence. On the other hand, if he becomes too heavy handed in his censorship, that will also produce similar results. Since he bears sole responsibility to his advertisers and his own ideals, he bears the responsibility for deciding where to draw the line for censorship.

The first amendment restrains the government, the free market and economic realities will guide the use of private property.

This site is private property and you can regulate speech how ever you want. And I am glad for it.

The First Amendment is a limit on GOVERNMENT, not on the freedom of individuals to police their own property.

As a practical matter, does anyone really feel like There is nowhere on the internet for them to speak freely? Nearly ALL the restrictions I am aware of stem from government regulations seeping in, because the subject is off topic, or the poster is an ass. There are a few that are not - Ebay's ban on gun auction for example - but there are always alternatives available. In fact, the gun auction sites probably only exist BECAUSE of ebay's policy. Censorship on one site creates a niche for another to enter.

The bottom line is that if you can't find someplace on the internet where your speech is tolerated, if not welcomed, you had better take a good look in the mirror because the human race as a whole is trying to tell you something.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Two parts: "Congress" and "shall make no law"

The way I read that, it means this amendment only pertains to Congress...States and property owners can abridge free speech as much as they want. It also means that Congress has absolutely NO authority to abridge free speech in any way (i.e. FCC, etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal
rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson

The Freedom of Speech protects our speech from regulation or interference by government. It is that way (even though the Constitution does list some specific guaranteed rights) because the purpose of the Constitution is to place limits on the government.

Private property owners, both offline and online, have the right to eject you from their property if they do not like or agree with your speech.

Private property is not public property. Government should not regulate private property to make sure people have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't apply on private property, unless the owner of the property wants it to. That's what "private" is all about. This is something we should be celebrating, not lamenting.

If I had a website similar to this, I would likely delete and ban where and when necessary also. It may be here for open public viewing and public use, but it is owned and maintained by an individual, not the public, that is given the privilege of using it. I would only see it fair that a site owner or company has the right to manage its site as they see fit. The content of the site can reflect on the person or company owning the site. The way I see it is, if you want full 'freedom of speech rights' on the web, create your own website on your own server. There, they would apply. Using another entity's site, you are bound by their decisions, as per you do not own the site.

Hell, if you came to an open to the public party I held at my house or on my property and stepped out of line of generally accepted conduct, I'd tell you to mind your P's and Q's or throw you out if I felt it necessary. No difference here on the web.

If you went to McDonalds and held up nazi banners in the dining room, they would have every right to throw you out.

I have seen some of my rougher comments here disappear and I never bitch about it. I chuckle, and say to myself "Oh well, I guess that one didn't go over." It isn't my site to make that decision.

Posters on that site, however, are on "private property" and can be censored/deleted if the owner chooses to do so.

Either way, we need to fight the government's intrusion on the net.

As an aside, Michael, I'd add a disclaimer to the footer of Daily Paul to the effect that "the Daily Paul, nor its owners, are responsible for the content of individual posts on this website" and then add a link to the "rules" page.
___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

There are not two sides to this issue.

You own the site. It reflects what you want it to.

There is a difference between what you as the owner of the site are 'allowed' to do by right and what you 'should' do regarding your site.

As the owner, in a free country, you have a right to free speech, and those you allow to use your site are allowed free speech because you allow them to speak through your site.

But it is the province of ethics which determines what you 'should' allow on your site. First you determine your own values and then you enforce those values through you control of the site. All moral, assuming your values are moral.

How should one determine what is moral? By subscribing to a moral philosophy. I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a great starter.

I have objected to the tribal and collectivist posts here; Ron Paul's essay on Racism is very close to Ayn Rands essay on the same topic. Racism, the judging of a man by the color of his skin is immoral. Every person has the right to do this, but it is not moral to do so.

There is a difference between a right and what is right, morally. I have found many posts here about Jews etc which in many ways seek to subtley inject the notion of the inferiority of Jews. These should be deleted, just as if the poster said the same thing about blacks. They have the right to their own opinions and to publish what they want, but not on Your site. You own the site.

Finally your comment says you 'feel' justified, and there are two sides to the issue. This tells me you have not yet discovered the source of or definition of your ethics. This must be done first; then the answer to your post will be self evident.

When I read this article before I saw it posted here, the first thing that sprang out in my mind was just how little the author had any clue whatsoever about just what a constitutional right is. Your constitutional rights end when you enter another person's property. From that point on the owner of the property is the supreme dictator and you have no rights at all except what HE decides. If you don't like it, then you can just leave. Remember, government's rightful role is to PROTECT rights, not to IMPOSE them. When someone comes into your house, they have a right to bear arms only if YOU say so. They have a right to speak their mind only as long as they don't offend YOU. In FACT, you can even make them take their shoes off before they come in or impose any sort of unreasonable rule that suits you. Their choice is to abide by your rules, or go away. Just in case anybody missed the point: When you go onto somebody's web site, you are entering their property. They don't really have to have what you consider a valid reason or reasonable rules. It's their property; they decide.

www.paulforronpaul.com

just check out www.ronpaulwarroom.com by Alex Jones.

For a short while, you could actually get useful information from the site. However, after a while it became overrun with posts about the gov't covering up aliens and ufo's, fluoridated water, troll posts about how RP is a puppet of the Masons, etc...

Yes, I know that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, and so it comes as no surprise that there would be posts about 9/11 and some other hot topics, but when user "ABC123" posts the same YouTube video about Roswell every day for a month, you start to wonder if you should bother clicking that bookmark.

Seriously, would any of you still visit this site if the front page had NO Ron Paul or other Liberty/Constitution restoration content?

But, as far as comments go, they should be freer. I really don't care if someone's post merely says: "Ciborium you're an idiot!" or other insult.
I don't really care if they write a 2 page essay on how much of an idiot I am because I have a certain view. But if I see a post that says: "Visit www.truthaboutX.com" every three posts, maybe we should consider censoring replies.

I think it is wrong to think that online-businesses are a threat to free speech. They aren't, as long as government doesn't get involved. Companies like yahoo are interested in an high number of users, and censoring some of them would lead to a loss of customers, who will go to another website which is not censoring the content. And as long as there are no general (governmental) rules of censorship, everybody can start a new page for any topic he likes. As you have freedom of movement in the internet, you will always find a place to share your thoughts. An enforcement of the freedom of speech (no censoring on privately owned sites) would have exactly the opposite effect. The "Ultra conservatives" would go on "liberal" websites and would spam the site until it isn't usable anymore, and the "left" would do the same the other way around. It would be a world wide mess. Private censoring is essential for free speech, because this makes it possible for topics to be discussed thoroughly. Not the fact, that one should be able to speak his mind anywhere on the net would make it a tool for free speech, but the freedom of movement ensures that, because you also have the freedom to create websites for every topic you like. And the freedom of speech doesn't imply the freedom to force others to listen, so an enforcement against censoring on private sites is not an option.

In fact, i think the yahoo example of this article shows how well freedom of speech works in the internet. The fact that yahoo has no exact rules on how they censor their content makes it possible to convince them with rational arguments to lift an injust censorship. Never forget, those businesspeople are only humans, their goal is to maximize their profit, but they also make errors. If they see, they made an error, they will correct it, because it ensures the satisfaction of the customers. If on the other hand, they would narrow themselves on a predefined set of unchangable rules, you can bet they would opt for the "safe card" and preferably create strikt rules, thus censoring a lot more than without rules.

And if some customers are mispleased of what others say on the site, if they want to convince the owners of the website to censor the others, two possiblilities arise: The owners rule against censorship and loose the "pro censorship" folks, or rule for censorship and loose the other group. But these two possiblilities are fundamentally different. If the website defends free speech, it stays on a global course (and i think that's yahoo's goal), and the lost customers are not prevented to return to the site later on. In this case the website managers keep their options open. In the second case, this is different. Here, the website specializes on topics, loosing the global appeal. This of course is not wrong, and many businesses will choose the path, where demand is higher, which ensures, that both groups will be satisfied in the end (as long as the ones wanting to censor the others are only satisfied when the censorship is enforced, in which case we are back to square one: defending our liberties.

Of course a site can be biased, if the internet users mean views are biased. But contrary to the Government, which has no incentives to please it's "customers" and therefore is reluctand to start a discussion, even a reasonable one, a privately owned website has every interest to listen to reason, if that ensures the increase of users. In the long run, the only common ground of humanity is freedom and reason, and i think that this is exactly where the internet is heading.

But businesses DO censor. They will censor everything that will be bad for business. The consensus must be, therefore, for any website with the whole internet community targeted as potential customers, to be as free as possible, while ensuring that no one can misuse this freedom, to censor others on the site. Remember the philosophy of liberty? You are free to speak, as long as you do not infringe on the freedom of other to speak (shouting them down, spamming the forums). Those private businesses then even become the enforcer of free speech!

But if you retort, for example, that it could be possible, that _every_ provider/website/business starts to censor, lets say, the topic "Ron Paul", well, then we would start a new website, or provider, specifically for Ron Paul, wouldn't we? And as long as the Government doesn't start to censor that itself, no big corporation or politician can do anything about it, without using illegal means.

The freedom of speech on the internet is ensured by the freedom of everyone in creating new self owned content, and the freedom of movement between this content!

who owns the site? if its you, then its your choice. If I dont feel i have free speech on here its my choice not to participate.

A website is basically property and just like a person has the right to monitor what people do on their land, so do they on their websites.

However, that being said, I think it's slightly hypocritical that the sites goals are to return our country to the freedoms that our Founding Fathers instilled with the creation of the Constitution and people's freedom of speech is being curbed on one of the largest gathering areas for people of freedom.

Though I do understand the position that your taking, also that looking at the amount of freedom of speech that is able to be exercised here; i'm sure the comments your deleting probably deserve to be.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...

Thanks Michael!
I donated some money to DP and true to his promise, Michael sent me a bunch of RP stickers!!
I got 'em quick and Michael even hand wrote a "thank you" note.... you are a CLASS ACT Michael!!
Thanks!
DONATE FOLKS!!!
We must keep the DP alive!!

"Whether you think you can or think you cannot, you're absolutely right!"

I actually wish that the comments or posts wouldn't get deleted no matter how rude, ignorant, off-topic or petty they are. Even if there are TROLLS! I just feel like that because this is a website about freedom and it seems like a conflict of interest. At the end of the day, this is Michael's website, this is his private property and I respect that he can do whatever he wants on his private property. I just thought I'd throw that thought out there.
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul

The way I look at it is that this is YOUR online home. You invite guests in but you have the right, and responsibility, to set the guidelines for what you will accept in your “home” just as I do. I don’t allow just anyone in my home to do anything they might want to do and I don’t see why you should have to allow bad behavior from anyone. In your home that means you decide what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
People should remember to be thoughtful, courteous and considerate and that they are guests here.
Whatever happened to MANNERS?

Now what I am most concerned with is the future where it appears we all will be paying for the internet.

That is the real issue that must be worked through.

While at first glance it may appear these private companies have the "right" of property to charge, it seems to me that rather they are companies siting on the side of the freeway and getting to place toll booths up and charge for all the traffic that goes through.

That to me is NOT property and thus I am 100% against paying for the internet in this way.

I think we could open a thread on that to hash out the issues and delve into the details further. Most of all, I want an internet that is "Free of Charge".

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

Some may argue that because ALL space online is "PRIVATE PROPERTY", perhaps either the government needs to intervene with regulation in the same whay it does in restaurants and stores, or it needs to create public "parks" online where all can mingle and do as they please without fear of cencorship. either thought is scary IMHO. :(

Liberty is not free, It must be earned!

I think that's kind of a lame excuse that people use just so they can validate being annoying/rude.

This is private property.... otherwise you'd have to allow spam and other inappropriate/irrelevant posting. Besides, you're not telling us what we can say.... you're not editing all of comments. The appropriate/relevant posts aren't altered...

Ultimately, I wouldn't worry about it, for the first reason I described.

Yup, of course you can delete what you want, it is YOUR site.

What I enjoy about the Daily Paul (I am on it several times a day) is the diversified topics. Your site has brought people together from all over the world, with different views and insights. I have learned many interesting things on the DP.

If it was up to me, I would try not to be too heavy handed with the delete key, although some topics may at first seem "off topic" there is pretty much always the common thread of Freedom. Sometimes the posters get a little "heated", I am guilty as charged, but I have also seen a lot of hand shaking and apologies afterward. I really like the people on this site, even the ones I always disagree with.

So do what you feel is right I believe you have the respect of YOUR entire community. Thanks.

Privately-owned blogs and other web presences are private property, like a house. The owner can invite whoever he wishes and ban whoever he wishes. If people act rudely or in a manner that the owner dislikes, he can boot 'em.

There's also this: houses that have extremely strict rules will court fewer visitors. So there's a market reason to allow free and open discussion -- more people will feel welcome to come and participate. But the management decisions are rightly up to the site owner.

What I very much DON'T agree with is government intervention that pressures ISPs to behave in certain ways "or else." ISPs aren't going to risk their business for lawsuits (or worse) from the government, so in many cases, the ISPs are doing the government's bidding in tracking and keeping records and ultimately handing those records over to powers that be. (Just play nice, ISPs, and your government will make sure nothing happens to your business.) This bothers me far more than an individual owner exercising his right to control his site as he sees fit.

(OT: Have you dropped your "manystrom" moniker, Michael?)

I applaud your efforts to read through so much information every day. It must be a daunting task. This is your property. As such, you have the freedom to do whatever you want to do with it. I think that any website owner has the right to censor content as they see fit so long as users understand that this is a possibility. End-users often times take for granted the amount of effort that goes into maintaining a site for use by the general public. I, for one, am pleased with the job you do here, and, to this point, I trust your judgment where content is concerned. If I ever believe I'm being treated unfairly or targeted, I can always find somewhere else to go. I would much rather you make the decisions than government regulators.

Max

"A good End cannot sanctify evil Means; nor must we ever do Evil, that Good may come of it." -William Penn

DP and the Ron Paul revolution brings people together people of different view points...
are we striving for Liberty or censorship?
have lived in communist Poland and remember having to read in between the lines in official newspapers just to get a little bit of truth.

In Christ,
Dave

www.lionandlambministry.c...

www.lionandlambtv.com

You have the right to say anything you want. I have the right NOT to listen to it.

If you are paying for a website, YOU have the right to edit as you see fit.

If someone has something *offensive* to say, let them PAY for their own website.

Manny, I would like for you to delete threads that are not on topic, particularly creationism, 9-11, water for fuel, religion, and abortion.