I am opening this to hopefully be instructive as to what the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution actually covers and what it does not, which I think knowledge of is useful to know and very relevant to this message board.
I will make a minor statement here, and hope for questions and explanations:
This is a private message board, in no way connected to the US government. There is no right to free speech here.
Hopefully this is useful to some. I don't really see any need for political based speech here, so if you feel to the need to make political related points, please don't, or at least obfuscate them as much as possible.
Questions? Discuss.....
And for those wondering why these strange topics keep showing up... this topic seems keep coming up in a thread where it doesn't belong.. and no I am in no way attempting to set up some sort of "trolling" situation. I am hoping for some real, honest discussion (!)
aircooled said:
I will make a minor statement here, and hope for questions and explanations:
Note: this is a private message board, in no way connected to the US government. There is no right to free speech here.
True, unless a government agent comes in and has a "talk" with the owners, telling them to delete certain topics, with the insinuation that a massive tax audit, or whatever, is coming their way if they don't comply.
Are you a fed aircooled? Seems a lot like some fed behavior.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Clearly not talking about "doing whatever they want". We are talking about speech here (that would be written and verbal of course):
There is no law that I am aware of that prevents private companies from restricting free speech within the bounds of their business.
The 1st Amendment does not apply to private businesses.
There IS a generally Attitude and Spirit of free speech in the US (as contrasted by even other western countries) but it seems to be more covered by the lack of laws against it (e.g. slander laws in comparison to say England) than specific laws covering it (EXCEPT of course in the case of political speech and the government)
DirtyBird222 said:
Are you a fed aircooled? Seems a lot like some fed behavior.
Helping people to understand what their rights are and are not?
Not sure how that is "fed" behavior.
I was once accused of being part of the "defense industries" and physically threatened on this board once... does that count?
Of note: I am not now, nor have I ever been employed or had any relationship with any defense, government or government related companies agencies (yeah right, just what an agent would say huh)
aircooled said:
DirtyBird222 said:
Are you a fed aircooled? Seems a lot like some fed behavior.
Helping people to understand what their rights are and are not?
Not sure how that is "fed" behavior.
I was once accused of being part of the "defense industries" and physically threatened on this board once... does that count?
I took that as a pretty clear joke.
Relevant xkcd on common misinterpretations of the 1st amendment:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
jharry3 said:
True, unless a government agent comes in and has a "talk" with the owners, telling them to delete certain topics, with the insinuation that a massive tax audit, or whatever, is coming their way if they don't comply.
I am not sure how that is entirely relevant here? Maybe you can explain more.
For example, I am sure it's generally appropriate for the government to request (require?) elimination of something like military secrets from a message board, but fully inappropriate (and very much against the 1st amendment) to request removal of political speech.
aircooled said:
jharry3 said:
True, unless a government agent comes in and has a "talk" with the owners, telling them to delete certain topics, with the insinuation that a massive tax audit, or whatever, is coming their way if they don't comply.
I am not sure how that is entirely relevant here? Maybe you can explain more.
For example, I am sure it's generally appropriate for the government to request (require?) elimination of something like military secrets from a message board, but fully inappropriate (and very much against the 1st amendment) to request removal of political speech.
Which they've recently had their pee pee smacked for doing that.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
Show/hide post
In reply to aircooled :
It is owned by a company that operates in the US. Companies are not allowed to do whatever they want without regard to the law.
We've tried explaining this to you many times. The 1st Amendment only applies to the government preventing your speech. Period. Full stop. I don't even have to rely on my Journalism degree where we take multiple Media Law classes to know this.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20is%20for,from%20setting%20its%20own%20rules.
Are you perhaps thinking of the now defunct "Fairness Doctrine?"
At this point on the topic, you're just a troll. And a pretty lame one at that.
There is no need to down vote Anthony on this, his comment was very much on topic.
His comment may have come off as incorrect to most, but still on topic and does add to the conversation and very relevant to it.
Down votes are intended (as I see them at least) as a way to indicate if someone is making comment irrelevant to the conversation, or inflammatory, not if you agree with them or not.
If you disagree with what he (or anybody) says, it would be preferable to (nicely) explain why. If you can find anything in what he says, or implies, that you agree with, please do indicate that also (this can be VERY helpful in keeping things less toxic).
As an example: I very much agree with Anthony's spirit of free speech, but I also agree there do need to be some limits (which are pretty commonly know if not slightly vague) and it is not as protected, legally, as much as many may assume.
In reply to aircooled :
You are correct and I don't remember Anthony being down voted over on the EV thread even though there is some very mean talk taking place.
aircooled said:
There is no need to down vote Anthony on this, his comment was very much on topic.
His comment may have come off as incorrect to most, but still on topic and does add to the conversation and very relevant to it.
Down votes are intended (as I see them at least) as a way to indicate if someone is making comment irrelevant to the conversation, or inflammatory, not if you agree with them or not.
If you disagree with what he (or anybody) says, it would be preferable to (nicely) explain why. If you can find anything in what he says, or implies, that you agree with, please do indicate that also (this can be VERY helpful in keeping things less toxic).
As an example: I very much agree with Anthony's spirit of free speech, but I also agree there do need to be some limits (which are pretty commonly know if not slightly vague) and it is not as protected, legally, as much as many may assume.
Nope, he's being downvoted for saying irrelevant things like "companies just can't do whatever they want" in regard to free speech.
The fact is, he is just flatly wrong on this issue and refuses to accept it.
In reply to z31maniac :
I disagree. It may be incorrect, but it's not irrelevant.
There are clearly some (many?) people who believe this. It's pretty hard to try to steer them in the right direction if you just shut down their comments / questions. Excepting if they are just being inflammatory of course (which I did not find that comment).
Kind of the reason why the Spirit of free speech is important. It's very useful to hear speech you don't agree with, or that is wrong, so that you can be aware it is out there, and maybe help steer them in the right directions.
In some cases it might even be you that was wrong! (pretty certain that is not the case here)
It would certainly be bad to suppress / ignore speech that you later find to be correct!
GameboyRMH said:
Relevant xkcd on common misinterpretations of the 1st amendment:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
I love xkcd. That's one of the best ones, too.
While this applies to any topic at all, to put it in a very narrow focus: Somebody has no obligation to listen to any of us talk about the mods we made to our cars, what our PAX is or any other thing we might happen to find captivating. They can change the topic, tell us we're wrong, ask us to shut up or just walk away. They are not infringing on your 1st Amendment.
This extends beyond one on one interactions. Venues can choose not to have (filthy blue comic) do an intermission show for Disney on ice precisely because of the speech they are likely to use.
Heck, employers in some (not all) jurisdictions can (and do) make employment decisions based on things like this:
"Private-sector employees and applicants generally have no constitutional right to free speech, political or otherwise, without fear of employment discipline. Nor do federal anti-discrimination laws, which bar discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability and veteran status protect political ideology or conduct – save for a narrow exception for employees who engage in concerted political advocacy to improve working conditions." 
SOURCE
I am going to go ahead and put this here, because, you know, it's relevant to THIS TOPIC.
Can someone with knowledge, please provide some more information on the points below?:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
Show/hide post
Appleseed said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
z31maniac said:
Javelin said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Dude, chill out. You're being down voted because you are not comprehending the discussion and keep making incorrect assumptions and personal attacks.
And doesn't grasp the 1st Amendment.
If you disagree at least state why. Do you think the freedoms of the 1st amendment aren't absolute? Do tell!
Schenck v. United States proved thos over 100 years ago. As per Justice Holmes "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic."
This pertains to government restrictions. Key here is, government. Grassrootsmootorsports and it's forum are not the government.
Maybe you didn't read the link.... that case was rightfully overturned. The key is that the people and businesses living in the law of the land. If you hate that you are free to go to places that love censorship.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
It happened there too, but not to the same extent. I can say the piling on of frenchy and questioning his mental state was probably over several lines but nothing was done about it. It sort of proves the forum rules apply to some but some get exceptions.
Funny thing about that thread, most people now realize people want EVs and it's a choice. There are good and bad sides to every point of view on that issue.
That was all I attempted to do in the Russia / Ukraine discussion was see if there are other choices and options besides the common narrative. For questioning the common narrative, I now find discussion completely impossible. It proves the entire "open and honest" narrative is false.
And say what you like a downvote button is just low grade censorship tool on social media. It's not like cutting off someone's head to silence them but it is a small step on the same path. There are degrees of censorship but it's still censorship. Far worse than that happens today, and this forum isn't all that different. In many ways it is better though. We can at least try to discuss things even if it often fails. Most places can't even do that anymore.
In reply to aircooled :
You are right it is relevant to this topic, but it is also relevant over there! The responses there led to this point.
The First Amendment does NOT give you the right to say anything you want on a non-government web site or forum that is privately owned and being paid for by somebody else, no matter how popular that website might be. People seem to be confused about that.
Read the text. The first five words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law". It's hard to get more explicit than that.
02Pilot
PowerDork
7/12/23 3:22 p.m.
aircooled said:
I am going to go ahead and put this here, because, you know, it's relevant to THIS TOPIC.
Can someone with knowledge, please provide some more information on the points below?:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
Show/hide post
Appleseed said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
z31maniac said:
Javelin said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Dude, chill out. You're being down voted because you are not comprehending the discussion and keep making incorrect assumptions and personal attacks.
And doesn't grasp the 1st Amendment.
If you disagree at least state why. Do you think the freedoms of the 1st amendment aren't absolute? Do tell!
Schenck v. United States proved thos over 100 years ago. As per Justice Holmes "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic."
This pertains to government restrictions. Key here is, government. Grassrootsmootorsports and it's forum are not the government.
Maybe you didn't read the link.... that case was rightfully overturned. The key is that the people and businesses living in the law of the land. If you hate that you are free to go to places that love censorship.
The most current interpretation comes from the Ninth Circuit's 2020 decision in Prager University v. Google LLC, wherein the court confirmed the earlier dismissal of Prager's suit, stating that there is no requirement for private internet media companies to permit political speech. They referred to the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck in support of their ruling.
aircooled said:
In reply to z31maniac :
I disagree. It may be incorrect, but it's not irrelevant.
There are clearly some (many?) people who believe this. It's pretty hard to try to steer them in the right direction if you just shut down their comments / questions. Excepting if they are just being inflammatory of course (which I did not find that comment).
Kind of the reason why the Spirit of free speech is important. It's very useful to hear speech you don't agree with, or that is wrong, so that you can be aware it is out there, and maybe help steer them in the right directions.
In some cases it might even be you that was wrong! (pretty certain that is not the case here)
It would certainly be bad to suppress / ignore speech that you later find to be correct!
You are allowed to think incorrect things and state them, that is not prevented. But, again, I disagree with that these incorrect comments are relevant. They have been codified in to law by DECADES of of rulings. The following types of speech ARE NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.
- Incitement to imminent lawless action
- Harassment
- True threats
- Defamation
- Obscenity and child pornography
- Fighting words
- Non-expressive conduct
I can go around all day saying the Earth is flat, we didn't go to the Moon because it's made of cheese, etc. I guess many of us are just having a hard time understanding why this is so difficult to understand. I even provided a link to relevant SCOTUS cases.
As others have stated the right to free speech is to protect citizens of this nation from the government punishing you for sounding your voice. Under the 1st Amendment you should be able to condemn the President and other politicians and their decisions without fear of reprisal.
When it comes to voicing your opinion within the confines of a privately owned business or forum such as GRM, that's where you run into limiations on the 1st Amendment. If the GRM staff feel a conversation isn't in line with the forum policies they have the right to do as they feel with that thread and pause commenting, delete it, etc. Now if they were to start censoring content in a way that celebrated that the Miata was the best car in the world while saying S2000 enjoyers are evil and wrong, then they could run into some potential legal issues. We've seen this recently with the previous owners of a certain social media brand.
We should all be celebrating free speech everyday. I never understand why people are so quick to try and quell opposing thoughts, arguments, or generally anything that doesn't fall in line with their own thoughts/narratives/bubbles regardless of the topic.
aircooled said:
I am going to go ahead and put this here, because, you know, it's relevant to THIS TOPIC.
Can someone with knowledge, please provide some more information on the points below?:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
Show/hide post
Appleseed said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
z31maniac said:
Javelin said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Dude, chill out. You're being down voted because you are not comprehending the discussion and keep making incorrect assumptions and personal attacks.
And doesn't grasp the 1st Amendment.
If you disagree at least state why. Do you think the freedoms of the 1st amendment aren't absolute? Do tell!
Schenck v. United States proved thos over 100 years ago. As per Justice Holmes "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic."
This pertains to government restrictions. Key here is, government. Grassrootsmootorsports and it's forum are not the government.
Maybe you didn't read the link.... that case was rightfully overturned. The key is that the people and businesses living in the law of the land. If you hate that you are free to go to places that love censorship.
"The 1919 court ruled that Schenk’s pamphlet represented a “clear and present danger” to a country at war, and he was imprisoned. In 1969, the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v Ohio decision overturned Schenk v United States, ruling that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence by the Ku Klux Klan, is still protected speech unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
So, while it is legal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, if such a hoax lead to injuries or death the perpetrator could be charged with Disorderly Conduct, Inciting a Riot, or other serious charges."
