| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Leb wrote: |
| I'm not sure what correlation there is between land and the internet, however. The internet is subject to laws, just as a person is even on their own private property. Drapes aside, we are all held accountable for our actions-- internet or not. |
I never said they weren't subject to any laws, I said that US constitutional rights don't apply to the internet. Thus, things like "Free speech" don't really have the meaning they do in publicly owned places. There's a big difference in how speech laws apply on private property and that's what the internet has been treated as in law to this point.
The correlation is there because that's how internet sites have been interpreted, as private property, like a shopping mall or private university. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've understood your point all along, Leb, and I appreciate it. But yes, let's drop it.
I just made the connection between land and the internet to make a point.
Anyway, the U.S. Constitution (and all other constitutions, depending on where you live) applies on the internet, just like any other medium. I already made an example of where individuals have been prosecuted under U.S. law for doing illegal things on the internet, so you are incorrect to say that it has been treated as purely private.
It doesn't matter if the internet has been treated as a purely private matter anyway. You aren't allowed to play music (which can be seen as a form of speech) as loud as you want on your property, so even the idea of "free speech" has a few limits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jowy Atreides wrote: |
I've understood your point all along, Leb, and I appreciate it. But yes, let's drop it.
I just made the connection between land and the internet to make a point.
Anyway, the U.S. Constitution (and all other constitutions, depending on where you live) applies on the internet, just like any other medium. I already made an example of where individuals have been prosecuted under U.S. law for doing illegal things on the internet, so you are incorrect to say that it has been treated as purely private.
It doesn't matter if the internet has been treated as a purely private matter anyway. You aren't allowed to play music (which can be seen as a form of speech) as loud as you want on your property, so even the idea of "free speech" has a few limits. |
First: I never said no laws apply, I said certain aspects of the constitution don't apply, such as free speech. There's a big difference. That's fact, a website owner can restrict any speech he wants. The government doesn't have reign to attempt to determine what racist speech occurs over private sites. What can or can't be said on the internet is determined by the website owner. The Bill of Rights works on public property, and that's what internet sites have been treated as.
Secondly: Not all law is constitutional law. In the US, constitutional law overrides civil law (hence why laws can be, and have been, ruled unconstitutional and overturned by the courts). They are quite distinct and shouldn't be mixed. Constitutional law is, in fact, found in the constitution, usually ratified into amendments. Laws that aren't are statutory or common. There's nothing about obscenity or child pornography in the constitution. They are not constitutional laws, they are statutory. The Bill of rights not applying to a privately owned shopping mall doesn't mean a person can walk into a mall, pull out a gun, and begin shooting it into the air. I never said it did, so claiming that I was saying it is quite wrong.
Finally: Equating noise laws to violations of free speech is quite ridiculous, really, and shows a lack of understanding of what free speech really means. Free speech doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want in an way you want, it means the government cannot limit the content of your speech except in rare situations (those not applying here) just because they don't like it. That doesn't mean there can't be statutory or common laws against things, and there are. If you do damage to someone else, you still are responsible, hence why libel and slander are crimes and why criminal threatening, as vague as it is, can be charged as a misdemeanor. The government can place time, place and manner restrictions on speech, but it cannot deny someone the right to speech based solely on content (again, with the few notable exceptions). That's what free speech really means.
Under your example, preventing someone from standing in the middle of a highway screaming would be a violation of free speech laws. It's not.
So yes, when you take into account what free speech really means, it does matter what it's being treated as, and it matters in determining what the government can or can't write into law in regards to the internet.
Last edited by Amyral on Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leb
Pizza Toppings
Joined: 16 May 2004
Post Count: 4233
Location: Razril
497133 Potch
936 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Amyral, I didn't read your post nor was my comment even directed towards you. It was in response to Jowy.
Anyway, free speech is well known to have various limits. If it infringes upon another person's rights, incites or calls for immediate, unlawful acts, or causes undue panic/disturbs the peace (the famous "screaming fire in a crowded theater" example), then it's not protected by the first amendment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Amyral wrote: |
| First: I never said no laws apply, I said certain aspects of the constitution don't apply, such as free speech. There's a big difference. That's fact, a website owner can restrict any speech he wants. The government doesn't have reign to attempt to determine what racist speech occurs over private sites. What can or can't be said on the internet is determined by the website owner. The Bill of Rights works on public property, and that's what internet sites have been treated as. |
Yes, certain aspects are treated as a purely private matter, as I myself mentioned: "I think it's difficult to define the internet as either public or private: websites themselves are usually private, but the internet is like a swath of land: it can be put to public or private use, but "land" itself is neither public or private. It is something which has yet to be given that kind of distinction." The most obvious example of the website of the U.S. government, which is fully owned by itself.
And, I agree with your statement that free speech on the internet, when done on private sites, is up to the site owner. If a friend says something you don't like in your home, you can ask them to leave, and if they don't, you can call the cops and force them to leave.
The internet is public property? What about this?
| Quote: |
| The internet isn't a public space, therefore it's not bound by the constitution. In private property, free speech, free press, religion, etc can all be curbed for any reason and the internet is a private space. Therefore, there's no reason to call up free speech or anything. Microsoft can make any rule restriction racist speech on X-Box live if they want, as it's deemed their private property. The internet itself may be a communication medium, but all the sites are private property, owned by someone. |
| Amyral wrote: |
| Secondly: Not all law is constitutional law. In the US, constitutional law overrides civil law (hence why laws can be, and have been, ruled unconstitutional and overturned by the courts). They are quite distinct and shouldn't be mixed. Constitutional law is, in fact, found in the constitution, usually ratified into amendments. Laws that aren't are statutory or common. There's nothing about obscenity or child pornography in the constitution. They are not constitutional laws, they are statutory. The Bill of rights not applying to a privately owned shopping mall doesn't mean a person can walk into a mall, pull out a gun, and begin shooting it into the air. I never said it did, so claiming that I was saying it is quite wrong. |
I would agree that certain things are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but our laws are based upon its spirit, I think.
For example, the ACLU argues that conscription violates the 13th amendment's ban on involuntary servitude, but the amendment wasn't ratified to solve the issue of conscription, it was ratified to solve the issue of slavery. It's one of hundreds of examples of when the Constitution has been used to go beyond what its original intent was. This is where all U.S. law comes from, its supreme law.
No, you didn't say that people should be allowed to shoot one another on private property, but you did say that the Constituion doesn't apply on the internet because the internet is private, according to you.
| Quote: |
| The internet isn't a public space, therefore it's not bound by the constitution. |
| Amyral wrote: |
| Finally: Equating noise laws to violations of free speech is quite ridiculous, really, and shows a lack of understanding of what free speech really means. Free speech doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want in an way you want, it means the government cannot limit the content of your speech except in rare situations (those not applying here) just because they don't like it. That doesn't mean there can't be statutory or common laws against things, and there are. If you do damage to someone else, you still are responsible, hence why libel and slander are crimes and why criminal threatening, as vague as it is, can be charged as a misdemeanor. The government can place time, place and manner restrictions on speech, but it cannot deny someone the right to speech based solely on content (again, with the few notable exceptions). That's what free speech really means. |
Nope, because free speech allows anyone to say whatever they want, for whatever reason, at any time. However, since this sometimes violates other people's freedoms (such as not wanting to hear you), it has to be limited, and it has been. What I mean is that noise laws violate free speech, but it should violate it, because it bothers other people. I'm attempting to play my music, which includes words (speech), and the government is forcing me to limiit myself. How is this not a violation of free speech? I should reiterate that the government should be allowed to do this.
| Amyral wrote: |
| Under your example, preventing someone from standing in the middle of a highway screaming would be a violation of free speech laws. It's not. |
Nope, because I'm only talking about one violation: that of free speech. Besides playing loud music, I'm not doing anything else illegal. When standing in the middle of a highway, you're endangering others, since they may swerve to avoid you.
| Amyral wrote: |
| So yes, when you take into account what free speech really means, it does matter what it's being treated as, and it matters in determining what the government can or can't write into law in regards to the internet. |
I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jowy Atreides wrote: |
The internet is public property? What about this? |
Typo, I meant private property. But you seem to get that, so I don't need to reiterate.
| Jowy Atreides wrote: |
I would agree that certain things are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but our laws are based upon its spirit, I think.
For example, the ACLU argues that conscription violates the 13th amendment's ban on involuntary servitude, but the amendment wasn't ratified to solve the issue of conscription, it was ratified to solve the issue of slavery. It's one of hundreds of examples of when the Constitution has been used to go beyond what its original intent was. This is where all U.S. law comes from, its supreme law. |
There are laws based off of it, but they aren't constitutional laws. Constitutional law is limited to what's in it. There are arguments that laws can violate constitutional laws, but legally, a constitutional law is limited, it doesn't include things like obscenity laws or pornography laws or libel laws, etc, as those aren't ratified amendments.
There's nothing to really agree with not all laws being constitutional laws, that's fact. There's nothing about child pornography in the internet, nor is there anything about time, space and manner restrictions. There's not really any real debate to it. Most laws aren't in the constitution, so they aren't constitutional laws.
Even then, it's trying to argue semantics over the point, that free speech laws, at least in the US, don't apply to the internet as a whole, as a person's website is their private property.
That's why I don't think the government has any basis to even begin trying to curb racism, it's not their place to attempt to regulate the content of speech on private property.
| Jowy Atreides wrote: |
| No, you didn't say that people should be allowed to shoot one another on private property, but you did say that the Constituion doesn't apply on the internet because the internet is private, according to you. |
According to me and according to the law.
And since you seem to agree that I didn't say what you're making it out that I said, we can drop that point.
| Jowy Atreides wrote: |
| Nope, because free speech allows anyone to say whatever they want, for whatever reason, at any time. However, since this sometimes violates other people's freedoms (such as not wanting to hear you), it has to be limited, and it has been. What I mean is that noise laws violate free speech, but it should violate it, because it bothers other people. I'm attempting to play my music, which includes words (speech), and the government is forcing me to limiit myself. How is this not a violation of free speech? I should reiterate that the government should be allowed to do this. |
Right, it allows you to say what you want and when you want, except for the exceptions.
But not in every manner at any time.
That's the key difference. People take free speech for being limitless, but it's not, there are limits, but it's very rarely the content. It doesn't mean people can't be punished for their speech, it only limits the government's ability to control content.
If the government decided to not let artists record music without a license, it would be a free speech violation. If they said you couldn't listen to it at all, it would be a free speech violation. But they aren't saying it in your example, they're saying that if the volume of the music disturbs a neighbor at a certain time in the morning, they can ask to have it turned down. It's not stopping you from playing your music, or even the time you can, it's preventing the manner at which it is being played.
| Jowy Atreides wrote: |
| Nope, because I'm only talking about one violation: that of free speech. Besides playing loud music, I'm not doing anything else illegal. When standing in the middle of a highway, you're endangering others, since they may swerve to avoid you. |
Same concept, it's not illegal to do something per say, it's illegal to do something in a certain manner. I can walk down a highway if I wish, but there are certain manners in which I can't do it, namely in a way that endangers the lives of others.
The same idea goes with your music example. You're free to listen to screaming death metal at 3 a.m., but your neighbor can call the police if it's too loud for them to sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that we agree, for the most part.
I also agree that it would be inappropriate for any government to censor material unilaterally on the internet, because the arguments people usually make for censoring don't work on the internet. The main argument, which I occasionally agree with, is that children may be present, although ideally I would want parents to monitor their children, not the FCC, or whoever it is. For me, this extends to public places with computers (libraries, mostly), where I usually support filtering software to block pornography, among other things.
When it comes a person's private website, I've already agreed that they have the right to regulate whatever material passes through their webspace, as Vextor has done in the past. However, we differ when it comes to defining the internet as purely public or private. I say it's neither, but, it's really a minor point.
I mostly agree with your points regarding the playing of music. I think the government has the right to regulate speech when it comes to volume, but I consider it a free speech violation, although you don't. I also concur that free speech needs limits, and this is one of those few times.
Do you see rights from a libertarian perspective, as I do? I.e., you can do as you please as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do as they please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
