Freedom of Speech rights - I will prob tick off someone with this post.

Absolutely not true, for the exact reasons that you stated in your post. If you have the right to go where you want to go, then you have the right to drive a car. Our government has a nasty habit of denying our rights, and then selling them back to us as privileges. Just about every instance of the government requiring you to have a "license" to do something is almost always a case of the government denying a right (to work, to use your own property) and selling it back as a privilege.

(Which does not change the fact that no person has the "right" to force a private party to provide the platform for that person's speech, absent a legally enforceable contract.)

I don't think ANYONE wants me to say whatever the frak I like ...

First, you don't always have the right to go where you want to go. You have no right whatsoever to set foot on someone else's private property.

Second, even if you did, that wouldn't say anything about the means by which you could get there. Just because I might want to be in Pittsburgh tomorrow instead of Buffalo doesn't mean I have the right to drive a car to get there. One has nothing to do with the other.

Third, maybe I should clarify. You do have the property right to do whatever you want with your own car on your own land. If you don't have a license, but you want to drive your 4-wheeler all over your back yard, and turn it into mud pit, that's your right. However, you absolutely do NOT have any right to operate your car on anyone else's property, or on a public highway. The moment you take it off your own land is the moment you're in the domain of privilege instead or right. If you want to have privileges within society, you must play by society's rules. And to drive a car on a public roadway, that means getting a license and having insurance. It's a pretty simple concept.

First, you don't always have the right to go where you want to go. You have no right whatsoever to set foot on someone else's private property.

Second, even if you did, that wouldn't say anything about the means by which you could get there. Just because I might want to be in Pittsburgh tomorrow instead of Buffalo doesn't mean I have the right to drive a car to get there. One has nothing to do with the other.

Third, maybe I should clarify. You do have the property right to do whatever you want with your own car on your own land. If you don't have a license, but you want to drive your 4-wheeler all over your back yard, and turn it into mud pit, that's your right. However, you absolutely do NOT have any right to operate your car on anyone else's property, or on a public highway. The moment you take it off your own land is the moment you're in the domain of privilege instead or right. If you want to have privileges within society, you must play by society's rules. And to drive a car on a public roadway, that means getting a license and having insurance. It's a pretty simple concept.

There really isn't any intrinsic difference between the two, apart from the coincidental; it is all negotiation and power relations.

Why should I have the right to free speech but not to drive (or take whatever drugs I wish)?

Without enforcement, "rights" are simply an idea, and their only meaning depends on how many other people accept that idea and are willing to fight to see it enforced.

Thus for a US citizen, it is quite reasonable to refer to the Constitution, since the US seems to have fallen into the odd situation of having the protection of certain behaviours enshrined in its legal system. The Constitution is clearly not magic and is just another legal document, but it still holds some practical force.

If the citizen's taxes were used to build the road, then the citizens have the right to use that road. The US government exists not take taxes from everyone to create privileges for a few. That's the whole reason that there was a revolution for independence in the first place.

So basically you have rights, which are "by simple merit of being a living person", which just happen to be those defined by the government. Okay.

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.

It's all very well you or anyone else saying that there is a "right to free expression", say, but it doesn't mean anything unless it is defended. Thus I say that the concept is only meaningful in the respect that it people are willing to fight for it.

There is nothing "inherent" about "rights" that is common to all human beings, or else we wouldn't have a problem with the concept. Many, many people are very happy to deny, say, free expression in certain cases - usually cases where powerful people say "I don't want this". If these were inherent rights then surely it would be possible to determine them a priori - why is it not the case that everyone agrees? Are they broken if they don't? (If you want a dangerous path to go down, "some people are just wrong" is a good one.)

And it is perfectly possible for somebody to claim that they have the right to use this forum to say whatever they want, whether or not you agree, just as it is possible for them to say they have the right to drive over somebody's property. Many other rights impinge on the free action of other people; if they didn't, there wouldn't be a lot of point to them.

Just because people might disagree about a thing, or refuse to defend a thing, or even deny a thing, doesn't make the thing any less real or true. If we all got together and decided that from now on we'll all agree that the North Pole is in Hawaii, that wouldn't make it true. We'd all just be collectively wrong. The North Pole is where it is because of the inherent properties of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe, not because of anything any of us might decide.

By the same token, the fundamental rights of human beings exist because they are inherent properties of each person and of the universe itself. Whether we agree with it, disagree with it, or even are aware or unaware of it, it's still true.

By the same token, the fundamental rights of human beings exist because they are inherent properties of each person and of the universe itself.

But if it's not defended by practical action, it doesn't matter, except as far as you can persuade people to defend it in future. And if it is defended by practical action, it doesn't matter whether it's right or not, except as far as you can persuade people to oppose it in future.

And people are quite willing to abandon "rights" based on the import to the state. Is there a right to reveal "state secrets" for instance under freedom of speech? Say, I want to talk about how my government is conducting spy operations (vs whatever regime you care to mention). Or commercial rights; I would like to talk about exactly how I wrote <piece of code X> for <company Y>.

cool chocolate buffalo nuggets.
i think that is the most replies i have ever gotton to a single staement i have ever made in my life on/off line.

Let me first talk about what "free speech" actually means, and then I'll transition to how it relates to the question in the original post. There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around here. Let's clear it up right now.

I see a lot of posts in this thread stating that "free speach is derived from the First Amendment" or "the right free speech is given to Americans by the Constitution." Everyone should understand that not only is this completely backwards from the actual truth, it's also a very dangerous way of thinking.

The truth is the Constitution exists not to "give us rights". Its purpose is to stop the government from taking away the rights we already have. Rights are not "given". They are inherent to what it means to be human.

By simple merit of being a living person, you automatically have the right to speak freely, just as you have the right to breath, the right to think, the right to have blood in your veins, etc. The Constitution does not need to "give" any rights to you; you are born with your rights, and would be whether the Constitution had ever existed or not. The primary function of the Constitution is to declare that the US government cannot lawfully take those right away from any of us.

There's tremendous danger in believing that your rights are granted you by a piece of paper. Anything so given could also be taken away just easily. Rights, by definition, do not and cannot fit that description. Your rights are YOURS because you are human. You have them by default. They are an inherent property of what it means to be a human being, and nothing and no one can take them away. They were not given to you by a document, or by a government, any more than was your arm or your leg or your head.

You have all those things simply because you are human. To take any of them away would be to inflict grievous harm upon you. That is why we have a Constitution, to make sure the government absolutely cannot do that.

Everyone, please understand this. When you say things like "the Constitution gives me rights", you empower those who would seek to destroy your rights. If the thinking ever becomes that a piece of paper can grant rights, then it just as easily can be said that a piece of paper could take rights away. In truth your rights are inherently yours, no matter what ANY paper has to say about it.

Even if the Constitution were shredded tomorrow, and the US nation were to fade into the pages of history, you'd still have your rights. Others might possess the force to take away your various freedoms, but they can never take away the inherent rights that entitle you to those freedoms. It's very important that everyone realize this. The minute you don't is the minute you become a conquered people.

Also understand that while the Constitution exists to describe what the government can and cannot do, it doesn't and can't say anything at all about what you, an individual, can or can't do. That's not its purpose.


As for the question in the original post, it's crucial to understand the difference between rights and privileges. Privileges, unlike rights, are things that are given, and they can be taken away.

Driving a car, for example, is a privilege, not a right, which is why you're not allowed to do it by default. You need to earn that particular privilege (by getting a license, buying insurance, etc.) If at any point you abuse the privilege (drive drunk, let your insurance lapse, be unsafe about it, etc.), it can be taken away from you, and you won't be allowed to do it anymore.

Using Second Life is another example of a privilege. You don't automatically have any right to use SL. It is a privately owned service, which by default has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Should its owner (Linden Lab) grant you the privilege of using it, then they have every right to ask that you follow their rules. If those rules happen to include things they don't want you to say, then so be it. If you don't like it, you're free to leave, and perhaps more importantly, if they don't like you, they're free to kick you out.

This is completely different than if the government were trying to quash your right to free speech. They can't do that, and the Constitution is there to remind all of us every day of that fact. But that has nothing to do with the granting or taking away of privileges by private organizations or individuals. Again, rights and privileges are two different things.

Think of it kind of like visiting your neighbor's house. You do not automatically have any right to set foot on his property unless he invites you over. While you're there, he has every right to expect that you'll follow his rules. If you don't want to follow those rules, whatever they happen to be, then you must leave. It's that simple. The privilege of being in his house is no longer extended to you if you're unwilling to do what it takes to maintain it.

So, do you have the right to "say whatever the frak you want in SL"? Absolutely. But if you say or do something that breaks the rules, and its owners decide they don't want you in it anymore, do you have the right to stay? Absolutely not. They have every right to kick you out of "their house" at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. It's theirs, not yours.

...

By the same token, the fundamental rights of human beings exist because they are inherent properties of each person and of the universe itself. Whether we agree with it, disagree with it, or even are aware or unaware of it, it's still true.

I just got into this discussion in RL the other night over a bottle of Pinot...

Freedom of speech (our first amendment) does allow you to voice your opinion on anything you want--however, when this opinion sways into 'slander' or 'assault', it is against the law.

I guess you can look up slander and assault...

There is a fine line. I can't say to someone, "I'm going to kill you." That's assault. And I can't say "Joey's company 'More Shoes' steals from their consumers, and is involved in insider trading." That would be slander.

Unless you're looking to get sued or arrested, I'd stay away from both of these 'fine lines' of the first amendment.

No. They are not suppressing your right to say what you want, merely refusing to facilitate it. There are plenty of third party fora. No need to make the issue more complicated than that

Freedom of speech grants you the write to write and print or say virtually whatever you want publicly. It does not require a private company to allow you the access to do so.

Remember, they don't even have to provide access to a blog for you to post comments.