Free speech is thorny online

[Hurt]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal There are rights you cannot lose. For example, I can sign a contract agreeing not to marry a specific person, but one pledging that I never marry at all would be voided. This is but a simple example of how property rights and contractual obligations exist only within a framework of human and civil rights that cannot be alienated at the stroke of a pen. I've given other examples, such as becoming a slave by crossing a boundary, but you've failed to refute any of them. I suspect that's because you can't.

Actually, the Internet was created by public funds and runs on algorithms and protocols that our tax dollars paid for. What you're trying to do here is steal from society. You might as well put a fence around the Grand Canyon and charge for admission, while you're at it.

TC[/QUOTE]

If he owns the Grand Canyon - what's stopping him? Whoever pays for this site controls its content, plain and simple. He has no obligation to cater to your needs because this is not yours. You are entering an agreement with the owner of this site that you will follow his rules or be kicked out.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Hurt If he owns the Grand Canyon - what's stopping him? Whoever pays for this site controls its content, plain and simple. He has no obligation to cater to your needs because this is not yours. You are entering an agreement with the owner of this site that you will follow his rules or be kicked out.

Uhm, the point here is that the Grand Canyon is federal land. Putting a fence around it amounts to stealing from the public so you can charge them for access to what's already theirs.

TC

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Uhm, the point here is that the Grand Canyon is federal land. Putting a fence around it amounts to stealing from the public so you can charge them for access to what's already theirs. TC

Internet infrastructure is public, at least for now. The individual website servers are private. Somewhere (I got curious and it turns out to be the north side of Los Angeles) there's a big server farm that somebody pays good money to in order to host Volconvo. Its a bit like a sidewalk cafe in that the pavement was put there by the government but the chairs and bagels were not.

Incidentally there is a bit of a debate about free speech in actual sidewalk cafes.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Thanatos Internet infrastructure is public, at least for now. The individual website servers are private. Somewhere (I got curious and it turns out to be the north side of Los Angeles) there's a big server farm that somebody pays good money to in order to host Volconvo. Its a bit like a sidewalk cafe in that the pavement was put there by the government but the chairs and bagels were not. Incidentally there is a bit of a debate about free speech in actual sidewalk cafes.

First of all, it surely isn't in the libertarian model of government that tax dollars go towards something that not everyone explicitly uses - the internet.

Secondly, do you not agree that since, by your own admission, the different sites are privately owned, that the owners get to control content? - Or do you propose that users can steal the proverbial 'chairs and bagels'?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 First of all, it surely isn't in the libertarian model of government that tax dollars go towards something that not everyone explicitly uses - the internet.

This is an argument for making Internet access universal.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Secondly, do you not agree that since, by your own admission, the different sites are privately owned, that the owners get to control content? - Or do you propose that users can steal the proverbial 'chairs and bagels'?

Private ownership is not sovereign. Once you open up your person machine as an Internet server, it becomes merely private, hence it is not shielded in the same way from outside interference.

TC

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 First of all, it surely isn't in the libertarian model of government that tax dollars go towards something that not everyone explicitly uses - the internet. Secondly, do you not agree that since, by your own admission, the different sites are privately owned, that the owners get to control content? - Or do you propose that users can steal the proverbial 'chairs and bagels'?

No, I proposed that the waiter should not throw me out for being Dutch or otherwise go out of his way to step on my toes. I am in no way entitled to free bagels because that is not fair to the store owner. I am entitled to fair treatment.

Fairness is my ultimate goal here. I thought I had made myself clear. The customer should treated fairly, the business should be treated fairly, end.

Furthermore fair does not include the right to be excessively unfair to other people. We are a social species whether we like it or not so we have to find ways to get along. Can you make a bagel from start to finish by yourself? Including the tools you used to grow the grain? Well you could, but it would make things unnecessarily difficult. So it is best to pick rules where one can get bagels from sidewalk cafes without being poisoned, shot or thrown out for being a bit unlike the rest of your fellow humans.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I proposed that the waiter should not throw me out for being Dutch or otherwise go out of his way to step on my toes. I am in no way entitled to free bagels because that is not fair to the store owner. I am entitled to fair treatment.

That depends, does the waiter in your model also represent the government?

Fairness is my ultimate goal here. I thought I had made myself clear. The customer should treated fairly, the business should be treated fairly, end.

Correct, the business should be treated fairly. You have a right to be in the shop by virtue of the fact that your tax dollars go towards maintaining it (which I don't support, but anyway..), but you don't have a right to help yourself to the free bagels (representing private property). You may at the discretion of the private owners, and on their terms. Those terms may limit your speech.
If you don't like the terms, you're not forced to agree to them.

Furthermore fair does not include the right to be excessively unfair to other people. We are a social species whether we like it or not so we have to find ways to get along.

Correct. I simply disagree that government intervention forcing everyone to act like they're getting along actually accomplishes this.

So it is best to pick rules where one can get bagels from sidewalk cafes without being poisoned, shot or thrown out for being a bit unlike the rest of your fellow humans.

Are we still talking about private websites?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct, the business should be treated fairly. You have a right to be in the shop by virtue of the fact that your tax dollars go towards maintaining it (which I don't support, but anyway..), but you don't have a right to help yourself to the free bagels (representing private property). You may at the discretion of the private owners, and on their terms. Those terms may limit your speech. If you don't like the terms, you're not forced to agree to them.

For metaphorical consistency, I think they're supposed to give me bagels after I give them money. If the bagels are free (like some debate sites) then I might be entitled to free bagels but otherwise no. I've said my point all the ways I can think of saying it now.

Quote by: Kamehameha Correct. I simply disagree that government intervention forcing everyone to act like they're getting along actually accomplishes this.

Meh, I don't think I'm going to convince you but that's not entirely true. Going back to civil rights now that blacks and whites are forced to interact racism has died down quite a lot.

Quote by: Kamehameha Are we still talking about private websites?

Sort of, but the metaphors are getting complicated and its really a discussion of libertarian ideals in general.

[Kamehameha34]

For metaphorical consistency, I think they're supposed to give me bagels after I give them money. If the bagels are free (like some debate sites) then I might be entitled to free bagels but otherwise no. I've said my point all the ways I can think of saying it now.

You're entitled to bagels if you give them money, but they have the right to not accept your money for whatever reason.

Likewise, they also have the right to be selective in respect to whom they provide free access to their boards .. or *erm* bagels.

That's their right as property owners - to own their property. These rights can only be stripped from them via due process of law in the context of a civil or criminal trial.

I understand that you've stated your point many times - I'm not unintelligent, I understand it. Stating it, however, does not make it true.

Meh, I don't think I'm going to convince you but that's not entirely true. Going back to civil rights now that blacks and whites are forced to interact racism has died down quite a lot.

Why do you think the civil rights movement lasted for as much as 16 years after the civil rights act was passed? The general shift to find racism distasteful was not caused by government intervention - it happened in spite of government intervention.

Sort of, but the metaphors are getting complicated and its really a discussion of libertarian ideals in general.

IMO, the metaphor is a little more complicated than the actual situation.