1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

No First Amendment if They Ban You

Discussion in 'Game/SP News & Comments' started by chevalier, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,247
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    206
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you hold that freedom of speech is more important than the right to privacy on your property?
     
  2. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think the right to privacy is an example of liberty. So someone's right of liberty to invade another's privacy is counteracted by one's right of privacy.
     
  3. Ziad

    Ziad I speak in rebuses Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,088
    Media:
    57
    Likes Received:
    47
    Which is precisely why most of us disagreed with you earlier, especially when you kept pushing the "property rights should not trump free speech" card, and it's exactly the reason I do not consider I was dodging the question when I said both privacy and free speech can and should coexist. You've just given the perfect framework of how this can be done. Back to the case itself: Estavillo's right to free speech ended where Sony's rights to freely decided what they want on their forum began. It's their forum, they get to make the rules. If you like them, post there. If you don't, post on your own forum. This would become a free speech issue if ISPs started deciding which websites you're allowed to access (which I believe they do in Australia)
     
  4. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    They can coexist but as I said before liberty trumps property rights.
     
  5. NOG (No Other Gods)

    NOG (No Other Gods) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,883
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently you disagree with US law, too. Human body parts cannot be sold and, as a result, their theft has no monitary value.

    I'll make sure to tell all the Jehovah's Witnesses you're opinion. Where do you live again?

    Seriously, if a homeless man walked into your house, took a dump on your sofa, and claimed it was free expression of his opinion of your sofa, which would you want to be more important: you're property rights or his freedom of expression?

    Only because you've redefiined liberty and property rights. Tell me, what does constitute property rights, then?
     
    Blades of Vanatar likes this.
  6. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,247
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    206
    Gender:
    Male
    So then do you not agree that the case in question at the beginning of this thread is one of right to privacy (on Sony's part) vs. right to free speech (on Estavillo's part)?
     
  7. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    As I said before, I don't think corporations should be given the same rights as people. The people behind the corporations are not held reponsible for their actions, so corporations shouldn't get the same rights as people.


    No. Most wouldn't consider that freedom of expression. That would be an assault.


    No. I'd brush up on my political science, if I were you. You can start with reading the wiki link I posted earlier. Then let me know if you understand the historical definitions, rather than the twisted redefintions coming from Limbaugh and Beck.
     
  8. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,247
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    206
    Gender:
    Male
    So you don't think a corporation should enjoy the specific right of privacy on its own property? What about a private club?
     
  9. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, corporations are people. The owners of a corporation are people. The shareholders are people. The employees making a living by working for the corporation are people. Denying a corporation its property rights means denying the owners, shareholders and employees their property rights. Demanding a share of the corporation's profits, or the right to hurt the corporation by entering its premises and upsetting its business, in return for nothing, means that there will be less profit for the owners, less dividends for the shareholders, and less salary for the employees. I don't believe you have any right to hurt everybody at a corporation for your own benefit.
     
  10. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    No. Corporations are staffed by people. They are not people. There's a difference.

    Corporate profits should take a backseat to individual rights.
     
  11. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    And those people staffing corporations make up the corporations. Hurting corporate profits means hurting the people who depend on corporate profits. What gives you the right to hurt those people?

    If your perceived "rights" means hurting a corporation to the point where it collapses, you have bankrupted the owners, severely harmed the shareholders and caused the employees to become unemployed. You have effectively treated them as means to your ends. Even if you don't manage to bankrupt the corporation, you have still caused everybody harm.

    If you want a forum to publish your opinions, create one. Don't wait for someone else to create a forum and then usurp it in the name of "liberty".
     
  12. Splunge

    Splunge Bhaal’s financial advisor Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,815
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    335
    Even though I disagree with his general position, Thrasher is obviously the lone wolf here, so I’m going to throw something out here that may or may not help him, depending on what he does with it.

    While privacy rights are important, I see a big difference between an individual’s home, where non-owners are generally welcome only by express invitation, versus the case of a web site, shopping mall, office tower, etc., where people are generally encouraged to visit without any specific invitation, and therefore could be considered public areas. Granted, in the case of these “public areas”, there is usually a set of rules that on is expected to follow, and particularly in the case of a web site where comments can be posted, there is almost always a set of rules that you must agree to before you are allowed to post, but I still see a fundamental difference from an individual’s home.
     
  13. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,247
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    206
    Gender:
    Male
    In the specific case that started this thread, it is not an open website; everyone is required to register with the website and adhere to an upfront set of rules as a condition of joining.
     
  14. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    I can ask the same question in the opposite direction. Why should a corporation have the right to hurt people in the name of profits? Shouldn't individual rights of liberty and life take priority over corporate profits?
     
  15. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    They don't have the right to hurt individuals in the name of profits. However, they do have the right to refuse to help individuals at the expense of profits. Your need does not constitute a right to their property.

    ---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 35 seconds later... ----------

    And you could say that by violating those rules the individual harmed the website by making it less desirable for others to visit it. Sony protected their property by denying him access to their site, thereby making the site more desirable to other users.
     
  16. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,247
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    206
    Gender:
    Male
    I would say that by violating the rules of membership, the individual forfeited his membership rights and Sony exercised their right to privacy by excluding nonmembers.
     
  17. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    Let's imagine you had a terminal illness that could be cured by a drug company. But you can't afford to pay for the drug because the company is charging a huge profit. So do you think it's proper for you to die, because the company's rights to its property is more important than your right live? Even if you could pay for it at cost?
     
  18. NOG (No Other Gods)

    NOG (No Other Gods) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,883
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, it's not assault as it isn't an attack on you. Also, such expression has in the past been held up as protected speech.

    I'm quite familiar with Locke. I also think he was an idiot. The idea that one's actions should be completely free as long as they don't interfere with other people's right to live is directly contrary to a stable society. That is a society in which theft, assault, and even rape are protected rights. Remember, as long as they don't take a life, they haven't violated your right to life.

    You are cells. Corporations are people. Same thing. If you hurt the body, you harm the component pieces.

    There's one big difference you're missing here. Sony's website had a Terms of Use agreement. That means, effectively, that they only let people in if they agreed to abide by certain rules. That's no different (and more formal) than someone opening up their house for a large party.

    Now a mall may be something different. Generally speaking, there are no special rules for malls, and people won't be turned away.

    Honestly? Yes, I do. "At cost" is a misnomer. Even if you paid the entire cost of manufacturing, including overhead, workers' pay, and taxes, you still wouldn't have even started a downpayment for the development cost. You're essentially taking someone else's life work and giving them the month's rent, nothing more.

    In a more direct response, though, your life does not give you the right to take from someone else. Neither does your speech. Your above example is little different than someone who's dying of liver failure. If you have liver tissue that matches, their dying doesn't give them the right to demand a part of your liver. If they try, that's assault.
     
  19. Thrasher91604

    Thrasher91604 For those who know ...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    No, in this hypothetical situation I was considering development costs? Why weren't you?

    Do you hold a corporation's property above individual life and liberty, no matter the situation? If so, then that's very sad.

    And yes, I would consider pooping in someone's house an assault as would any normal thinking person. Just because some weirdo considers it a form of speech doesn't make it true.

    You don't think your examples of rape, assault, and theft don't violate someone's freedom? Very odd reasoning there...
     
  20. NOG (No Other Gods)

    NOG (No Other Gods) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,883
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if you're covering development costs, then you can afford to re-develop the drug yourself! Seriously, you're assuming a hypothetical situation that's so unreasonable it'd never happen. If you have enough to cover development costs, you have many thousand times enough to cover a single dose (or even a daily regimen).

    Again you seem to think the relationship should be static and absolute. No, I don't think a corporation's right to property should always override an individual's right to life or liberty, but neither do I believe the individual's right to life or liberty should always override the corporation's right to property.

    You can't assault an inanimate object. In reality, the worst you could charge this person with would be tresspassing and property damage. Oh, and indecent exposure.

    Oh, I definitely do, but they aren't a right to life. Locke said (and you appear to agree) that nothing should violate your right to liberty except someone else's right to life.
     
Sorcerer's Place is an independent project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of time and money on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!