|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On July 03 2021 07:12 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2021 22:40 tofucake wrote:
Freedom of Speech is an American law which limits what the American government can do to people and has no bearing on what a Dutch website can do. Also, we do not control who does and does not watch SC2. We can't just kick people out of liking the game. If you weren't bothered you wouldn't be trying to get your account back. And the issue is 100% you. Actually, not really. You might be interested in Peckingham v North Carolina wikipedia. “In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly enough to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD—is considered a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech.[1] “ Now you can ofc. argue that us jurisdiction will never be able to look at a *dutch* website, but we are very likely looking at a precedent judgement. In germany for instance, you can get jailed already for extreme racist hatespeech “volksverhetzung“ regardless where you do it deep in the interwebs. Now ofc you can argue, that the government here is enforcing law on individuals and is not looking into the relationship between a platform and their users. Thats a fair point. But eventually, especially for big social media platforms, governments will extend that to grating their citizens freedom of speech in their given constitutional form. Thats logical since big social media is more and more evolving into the prime platform of civil interaction. Yes the government can't stop you from expression your opinion on Facebook (or perhaps TL) but the moderators on TL (or Facebook) are not bound by the First Amendment, regardless of jurisdiction.
The First Amendment protects your speech from the government, not from private entities.
To use your court case, the state can't stop you from posting on facebook, but facebook could, on their own, decide to ban all registered sex offenders without violating the first amendment.
|
On July 03 2021 09:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2021 07:12 Cele wrote:On June 29 2021 22:40 tofucake wrote:
Freedom of Speech is an American law which limits what the American government can do to people and has no bearing on what a Dutch website can do. Also, we do not control who does and does not watch SC2. We can't just kick people out of liking the game. If you weren't bothered you wouldn't be trying to get your account back. And the issue is 100% you. Actually, not really. You might be interested in Peckingham v North Carolina wikipedia. “In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly enough to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD—is considered a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech.[1] “ Now you can ofc. argue that us jurisdiction will never be able to look at a *dutch* website, but we are very likely looking at a precedent judgement. In germany for instance, you can get jailed already for extreme racist hatespeech “volksverhetzung“ regardless where you do it deep in the interwebs. Now ofc you can argue, that the government here is enforcing law on individuals and is not looking into the relationship between a platform and their users. Thats a fair point. But eventually, especially for big social media platforms, governments will extend that to grating their citizens freedom of speech in their given constitutional form. Thats logical since big social media is more and more evolving into the prime platform of civil interaction. Yes the government can't stop you from expression your opinion on Facebook (or perhaps TL) but the moderators on TL (or Facebook) are not bound by the First Amendment, regardless of jurisdiction. The First Amendment protects your speech from the government, not from private entities. To use your court case, the state can't stop you from posting on facebook, but facebook could, on their own, decide to ban all registered sex offenders without violating the first amendment.
yeah thats the status quo, at least in the US. i pointed out above that i think, it will be a necessary development that governments intend to regulate social media where social media becomes th central hub for civil discourse (e.g. Facebook).
I'd like to point out im not only talking about Freedom of Speech as granted by the 1st Amendment. i did google around some more and found this german sentence: OLG München, 18 W 1294/18 which basically an interim disposal against the deletion of a post on FB. The judge argues that + Show Spoiler +A general terms and conditions of the operator of a social media platform, according to which he can remove all content that a user posts if he (the operator) is of the opinion that it violates the guidelines of the platform, is ineffective because as contractual partner of the operator, users are unreasonably disadvantaged, contrary to the requirements of good faith.
Thats a very rough translation from the german sentence (Point 1 only). The court is centrally arguing on the term of good faith, "Treu und Glauben" in german jurisdiction.
That beeing said this
1) is a fringe case in german law, from my quick google i found the topic is very controversial and there is no clear line atm.
2) It's ofc not applicable to TL.net. We are talkig about big social media here that can dominate civil discourse, TL.net isn't that and doesn't aim to be that.
3) Me arguing in this direction is only directed at the statement by some in this community that basically argue "Tl.net can basically do as they please since it's a private website". Thats overly blunt and thats all i try to point out. Reality is, obnoxious users tend to lawyer around diffuse ideas of "Freedom of speech" and try to legitimize their poor posting history by that. im not defending that.
4) as much as i think this discussion is interesting for me as im interested in law, i think it's very fringe to the general ABL thread, thus i will refrain from continuing the discussion as it's slightly derailing to the thread's overall purpose.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On July 04 2021 09:04 JimmiC wrote:
I heard some talking head say "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach". Which I thought was a pretty catchy and good way of looking at it.
I quite like that, will liberally steal in future.
|
Shenanigans from a week back looked like a lot of fun. bummed to have missed out. (As a spectator! Not a martyr!)
|
On July 05 2021 01:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2021 09:04 JimmiC wrote:
I heard some talking head say "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach". Which I thought was a pretty catchy and good way of looking at it. I quite like that, will liberally steal in future.
what does it mean?
|
|
|
I sense a ban in the very near future for TheGreatOne. Only question is...for how long? 
|
30 and 90 for his buddy Toss_Master. + Show Spoiler +Iwillwinallaslskslsandbslstooiamthegreatestbwplayerofalltimekthx.
|
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On July 23 2021 05:39 Cele wrote:30 and 90 for his buddy Toss_Master. + Show Spoiler +Iwillwinallaslskslsandbslstooiamthegreatestbwplayerofalltimekthx. Jeeez
A shame as I was hoping to learn some things from a true master of Toss
|
Why is Scarlett account nuked? Per request?
|
United States97276 Posts
On August 26 2021 00:55 SmoKim wrote:
Why is Scarlett account nuked? Per request?
Prob. She PM me asking for just a perm and I did it but didn’t nuke. Must have reached out to someone else to take it 1 step further
|
My friend's username is freeXXXlensia (remove the XXX). He was banned a while back by the bot after posting in his personal blog page. Since then he has never been unbanned. Can somebody help him?
|
On September 10 2021 23:32 Jubinell wrote:
My friend's username is freeXXXlensia (remove the XXX). He was banned a while back by the bot after posting in his personal blog page. Since then he has never been unbanned. Can somebody help him?
Seeker already answered you in website feedback.
|
I swear Lorant Ham was under the influence of some weird shit to post the way he posted.
|
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On September 18 2021 07:04 NoS-Craig wrote:
I swear Lorant Ham was under the influence of some weird shit to post the way he posted.
Well that or he just operates on a higher plane than us mortals. Man that was a ride.
|
Hyrule19184 Posts
On September 18 2021 07:04 NoS-Craig wrote:
I swear Lorant Ham was under the influence of some weird shit to post the way he posted.
I'm pretty sure he was on everything
|
On September 18 2021 09:36 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 07:04 NoS-Craig wrote:
I swear Lorant Ham was under the influence of some weird shit to post the way he posted. I'm pretty sure he was on everything
I dunno, he objected quite vehemently in DM when I made that suggestion in his blog. Maybe it's denial?
|
Was he YokoKano? I really don't understand why you purposefully write nonsense no one can understand.
|
On September 18 2021 17:45 Starlightsun wrote:
Was he YokoKano? I really don't understand why you purposefully write nonsense no one can understand.
Pretty sure he's Race Bannon
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
