Paylaş
"Freedom of Speech" is not a right on Private Websites
27 Oca 2008, 15:35
There are apparently some people who have deluded themselves into thinking first-amendment rights, freedom of speech, or whatever you want to call it applies anywhere and everywhere. Funnily enough, they claim this to the detriment and ignoring of other laws, such as those about slander for example.
Freedom of Speech does not apply on private property.
Let's see some real world examples of this first. While the examples are U.S.-centric, so is the first amendment, but this applies regardless of what country you're coming from. The net is not limited by country boundaries.
(1) Public schools are prohibited from promoting a specific religious belief, prayer in schools, etc. If you attempt to walk in a public school and teach Christianity, you'll be escorted off the property, most likely by police. You do not have the right to "freedom of speech" in that situation because other rules prohibit it.
(2) You cannot enter a private business and talk to employees trying to recruit them for your business instead. Again, you'll be escorted off the premises by security. You do not have that "right to freedom of speech" in that situation because it's private property. The owners of that property decide what's allowed.
(3) You cannot enter a Baptist church on a Sunday morning, take over the pulpit and teach the virtues of Scientology. It's private property as well.
Ooops, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. What's in common? They're all "not your property", and as such what you can do and even say on that property is limited to the rules or what the owner allows on that property.
The same thing applies to internet "private property".
You, as an individual, can create your own website, and do or write as you wish on it. It's your site. The law will deal with you if you should violate a law during your "free speech". (Remember, kids, slander of other people is not protected by freedom of speech in any country.)
When you create that site, it's your "private property". You have the right to block anyone and everyone from posting on it. You can delete anything you disagree with. It's your site, those posters are guests, and as such they are limited to what you allow on your site.
As that applies to you on your privately-owned website, so it applies to privately-owned websites that are not yours.
And every site is privately owned. Be it by a person, a university, or a corporation, it's still privately owned. What can and can't be done on that privately owned site is determined solely by the owner.
Which is why almost every website has some form of rules, or Terms of Service, which you are required to read and agree to before attempting to post anything on said site.
In the case of last.fm, you click a checkbox stating you have read and agreed to follow last.fm's Terms of Service. If you choose to violate that agreement, last.fm has the right to delete your offense, or even delete your account. You're a guest in last.fm's house, you respect the house rules.
And in the case of last.fm's house rules, last.fm allows you freedom of speech in general. Shoutbox banter, forum posts, as well as groups about all kinds of completely irrelevant-to-music subjects prove this.
However, there are limitations to that freedom. Those limitations are stated in the manner of Terms of Service, as well as rules. Just like most any other site.
Cries of "Freedom of Speech" or "They censored me!" are both wrong and a waste of energy when the "censored" material is in violation of rules you said you would follow when you joined.
Attacking/harassing another user on this site? You don't have that right. It's a violation of the rules you agreed to follow. Being detrimental to someone else's enjoyment and usage of this site is not and never will be within your rights. That's pretty much a given on any website worth wasting time on.
Abusing the services of last.fm? (Spam-scrobbling, wiki defacement, uploading offensive images for artist images, etc.) You don't have that right either.
You're on last.fm's private property. Last.fm gives you the right to freedom of speech (even the right to complain about last.fm when not done in an obnoxious manner), but ONLY within what is permitted by the rules of the site.
If you fail to follow the rules of this or any site, you subject yourself to removal. Noone is to blame but you, yourself. "Freedom of Speech" does not and never will override what are the house rules of a privately-owned website.
If you don't believe this, when you get banned you're hereby challenged to take it to court. Make sure we know you're doing this, because watching judges laugh at plaintiffs is funny in itself. And we all like a good laugh.
P.S. Subscribing changes nothing. Being a subscriber gives access to some extra functions on the site, all of which are documented on the Subscribe page for you to read before you even subscribe. None of those extra features include the right to violate any site rule. Subscribers who do repeatedly violate site rules risk account loss like any other user, and are given no preferential treatment in such matters.
Freedom of Speech does not apply on private property.
Let's see some real world examples of this first. While the examples are U.S.-centric, so is the first amendment, but this applies regardless of what country you're coming from. The net is not limited by country boundaries.
(1) Public schools are prohibited from promoting a specific religious belief, prayer in schools, etc. If you attempt to walk in a public school and teach Christianity, you'll be escorted off the property, most likely by police. You do not have the right to "freedom of speech" in that situation because other rules prohibit it.
(2) You cannot enter a private business and talk to employees trying to recruit them for your business instead. Again, you'll be escorted off the premises by security. You do not have that "right to freedom of speech" in that situation because it's private property. The owners of that property decide what's allowed.
(3) You cannot enter a Baptist church on a Sunday morning, take over the pulpit and teach the virtues of Scientology. It's private property as well.
Ooops, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. What's in common? They're all "not your property", and as such what you can do and even say on that property is limited to the rules or what the owner allows on that property.
The same thing applies to internet "private property".
You, as an individual, can create your own website, and do or write as you wish on it. It's your site. The law will deal with you if you should violate a law during your "free speech". (Remember, kids, slander of other people is not protected by freedom of speech in any country.)
When you create that site, it's your "private property". You have the right to block anyone and everyone from posting on it. You can delete anything you disagree with. It's your site, those posters are guests, and as such they are limited to what you allow on your site.
As that applies to you on your privately-owned website, so it applies to privately-owned websites that are not yours.
And every site is privately owned. Be it by a person, a university, or a corporation, it's still privately owned. What can and can't be done on that privately owned site is determined solely by the owner.
Which is why almost every website has some form of rules, or Terms of Service, which you are required to read and agree to before attempting to post anything on said site.
In the case of last.fm, you click a checkbox stating you have read and agreed to follow last.fm's Terms of Service. If you choose to violate that agreement, last.fm has the right to delete your offense, or even delete your account. You're a guest in last.fm's house, you respect the house rules.
And in the case of last.fm's house rules, last.fm allows you freedom of speech in general. Shoutbox banter, forum posts, as well as groups about all kinds of completely irrelevant-to-music subjects prove this.
However, there are limitations to that freedom. Those limitations are stated in the manner of Terms of Service, as well as rules. Just like most any other site.
Cries of "Freedom of Speech" or "They censored me!" are both wrong and a waste of energy when the "censored" material is in violation of rules you said you would follow when you joined.
Attacking/harassing another user on this site? You don't have that right. It's a violation of the rules you agreed to follow. Being detrimental to someone else's enjoyment and usage of this site is not and never will be within your rights. That's pretty much a given on any website worth wasting time on.
Abusing the services of last.fm? (Spam-scrobbling, wiki defacement, uploading offensive images for artist images, etc.) You don't have that right either.
You're on last.fm's private property. Last.fm gives you the right to freedom of speech (even the right to complain about last.fm when not done in an obnoxious manner), but ONLY within what is permitted by the rules of the site.
If you fail to follow the rules of this or any site, you subject yourself to removal. Noone is to blame but you, yourself. "Freedom of Speech" does not and never will override what are the house rules of a privately-owned website.
If you don't believe this, when you get banned you're hereby challenged to take it to court. Make sure we know you're doing this, because watching judges laugh at plaintiffs is funny in itself. And we all like a good laugh.
P.S. Subscribing changes nothing. Being a subscriber gives access to some extra functions on the site, all of which are documented on the Subscribe page for you to read before you even subscribe. None of those extra features include the right to violate any site rule. Subscribers who do repeatedly violate site rules risk account loss like any other user, and are given no preferential treatment in such matters.
