By The Way. . . Do We Still have "Freedom of Speech. . . or is that banned too?

[HoustonMilfDebbie]

By the way, I am not a "communist", just a free thinker

I think I may be banned, so you can reach me at my personal email or just google me. . .see you later alligator!

[Worldtravler]

It's banned too. Nothing is free anymore.

After awhile crocodile!

[Grace Preston]

Freedom of Speech means that you cannot be pursued by the government. It does not apply to a privately owned board. A privately owned board can censor any way it deems fit.

Freedom of Speech also does not imply Freedom from Consequences.

[pyramider]

As long as you do not violate the rules of icky there is nothing to fear .... How about posting some taint photos ....

[HoustonMilfDebbie]

Originally Posted by pyramider

As long as you do not violate the rules of icky there is nothing to fear .... How about posting some taint photos ....

That's called "bribery".

[joesmo888]

this site has a lot of rules for sure but so does every other site

[HoustonMilfDebbie]

Originally Posted by joesmo888

this site has a lot of rules for sure but so does every other site

Great sales pitch.

[sketchball82]

Apparently the ban-hammer has come down.

But a couple thoughts:

1. If this isn't an idle rant, it would probably be better asked in the "A Question of Legality" (or similar) forum below. That's where the lawyers rant and answer these kinds of questions.

2. Freedom of speech is not without limit. There are several categories that are not protected by freedom of speech, such as defamation, obscenity, avocation of committing a crime, fighting words, threats, etc. Further, there are a handful of special circumstances that kick in when your relationship with the government is not strictly citizen-sovereign, such as when you are a guest in the US prison system, are in the military, or when you are a Federal employee, etc. In those circumstances, the government gets special exceptions.

3. As noted above, freedom of speech does not extend to private groups, like eccie.

[Bijou Neko]

Originally Posted by GracePreston

Freedom of Speech means that you cannot be pursued by the government. It does not apply to a privately owned board. A privately owned board can censor any way it deems fit.

Freedom of Speech also does not imply Freedom from Consequences.

So many people seem to not understand this. No privately-run venue is obligated to grant anyone "freedom of speech". It comes down to "their playground, their rules".

[pyramider]

MILF Debbie does not understand the concept of free speech.

[DangedDragon]

Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

By the way, I am not a "communist", just a free thinker

Scratching head...

Since when did communists believe in freedom of speech, freedom of press, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..????

You'd be more correct to say an anarchist.

[Koontz]

Originally Posted by GracePreston

Freedom of Speech means that you cannot be pursued by the government. It does not apply to a privately owned board. A privately owned board can censor any way it deems fit.

Freedom of Speech also does not imply Freedom from Consequences.

While this statement is technically true, it is a dangerous road to travel. I advise thinking about the consequences of your Consequences. I must admit, this board is a special circumstance. I am still feeling this thing out, so I don't have a real opinion on censorship here.

However, out there in the regular ole straight world, free speech is all but gone. Sure, you are technically allowed to say what you want. No one is sewing your mouth shut. If you're willing to accept the consequences, speak away. Unfortunately, to live a modern American life, you MUST get money. The most common way to do this is to have a job. Most of us are lucky to have jobs where the employer isn't checking us out to see what we say when we are not at work. That's great, but as soon as your employer takes an interest in what you're saying outside of work, it's over. This interest is increasing around the country, year by year.

Since you have to have money, you have to have that job. If your words mean no job, the words have to go bye-bye. Consequences, right? In my opinion, this is not free speech. When we allow our lives to be shattered by speech used OUTSIDE of the workplace, we have given away free speech. You can do it, but the consequences are too great to do it.

In this same context, if you wanted to be a murderer, you could be. You are free to murder, but there is law against it. The consequences are there. When it comes to free speech, there are no laws against sharing your opinions, but the consequences make it so that you're not truly free to share them. It may be an extreme comparison, and I am in no way condoning murder.

I am simply trying to convey the message that "free speech" with the threat of harsh consequences is not free speech at all. I get consequences.. Really I get it, but please consider the severity when it leads to suppression.

***Maybe this doesn't belong here since I believe y'all are speaking just about free speech on this board, but it's one of my favorite topics so I rant, lol. Sorry!

[Guest110516]

That's not how freedom of speech was meant to work. It's pretty much there to protect you from the government, not your boss. However, 200+ years ago, more citizens (this distinction might matter) were self-employed. If you want "true" freedom of speech, you are free to be self-employed, but it's probably harder than it was 200+ years ago. Anyway, I've never had the freedom of speech you are writing about, and it certainly doesn't apply to this site. Others have already explained why.

[Koontz]

Originally Posted by emptywallet

That's not how freedom of speech was meant to work. It's pretty much there to protect you from the government, not your boss. However, 200+ years ago, more citizens (this distinction might matter) were self-employed. If you want "true" freedom of speech, you are free to be self-employed, but it's probably harder than it was 200+ years ago. Anyway, I've never had the freedom of speech you are writing about, and it certainly doesn't apply to this site. Others have already explained why.

That's the thing though. It's more complex than your employer's right. Government and corporations have worked together to push narrative that targets free speech. The pressure trickles down to the little guy. This problem is not from nowhere. Social engineering is a real thing. Don't underestimate money's influence as it leaks down the barrel. Without the social engineering, things would be different.

Maybe it would be worse, lol. Who knows! That depends on what you value more. Peace or freedom.. ?

Either way, I believe this "intended to protect from government" thing has become merely a loophole in free speech. Their effect pours through regardless.

[sketchball82]

@Koontz

What? No offense, but you're coming across as a conspiracy theorist meets anarchy-driven devil's advocate.

Nothing ever has or ever will give any person the right to say what you want without consequences. There are even consequences for absolute monarchs and dictators saying inappropriate things, for example slighting another monarch or uttering something as simple as "let them eat cake".

Again no offense, but have you even read the text of what you're discussing?

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.

... importantly:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... .

That is the totality of the constitutional right. It doesn't say anything about freedom of speech having a right to say what you want without consequences to anyone (i.e., employers). It does not say you can call your boss a dickhead and still except to get respect. It merely states that congress cannot legislate your silence.

To this day, there are no penalties from speaking your mind by statute (i.e., US law) or case law, other than the few (understandable) exceptions I noted above. Therefore, I fail to see how the "government and corporations have worked together to push narrative that targets free speech." The US Code honors the constitution.

There are other rights that I would agree 100% have been eroded by congressional and legislative policy shift, but free speech has not. For example, fourth amendment rights (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); i.e., "Terry frisks") and fifth amendment rights (Salinas v. Texas, 369 S. W. 3d 176 (2013), cert. affirmed-- silence can be used against you before a Miranda warning is given unless 5th amendment is explicitly evoked) have eroded substantially.

Please clarify: what specifically do you think has changed over the last couple hundred years regarding free speech?