erinja:

rikforto:Another example of this phenomenon is when someone melts down because they're asked to respect boundaries, resorts to anti-Semitic slurs, melts down, plays the victim when they refuse to give a proper apology, and then alludes to a distorted version of the whole incident at every available opportunity for weeks. Give it a rest.

But don't you think it's charming to read comments from people who think they have constitutional freedoms of speech on a privately-run web forums?

I'm English, we don't have a constitution. Do I have to appeal to Magna Carta?

Sfinkso:
I'm English, we don't have a constitution. Do I have to appeal to Magna Carta?

Chuckle

Sfinkso:

erinja:

rikforto:Another example of this phenomenon is when someone melts down because they're asked to respect boundaries, resorts to anti-Semitic slurs, melts down, plays the victim when they refuse to give a proper apology, and then alludes to a distorted version of the whole incident at every available opportunity for weeks. Give it a rest.

But don't you think it's charming to read comments from people who think they have constitutional freedoms of speech on a privately-run web forums?

I'm English, we don't have a constitution. Do I have to appeal to Magna Carta?

Hahaha!

However, only three clauses remain on statute. So unless someone tries to infringe the traditional liberties of the City of London, inhibit the freedom of the Church of England, or violate English due process on this web forum, I'm afraid it doesn't do a lot to protect you.

Once again, the US 1st amendment does not apply to private websites - and Orthohawk should be happy about that; otherwise people could troll and blaspheme on religious websites with impunity, calling it their "right" ...

Tempodivalse:Once again, the US 1st amendment does not apply to private websites - and Orthohawk should be happy about that; otherwise people could troll and blaspheme on religious websites with impunity, calling it their "right" ...

Would it make a difference if it did? There is a large number of people here to whom the U.S.'s constitution has no relevance anyway. Or does the server location matter?

Vestitor:Or does the server location matter?

The server location does matter. If I recall correctly, the laws of the country a site is hosted in apply on the site. That's why US internet law is so important world wide (considering some of the biggest and most popular sites are hosted there), and sites with content that is against the law in many countries are often hosted in small or second/third world countries with underdeveloped internet laws. Or at least, I recall hearing something like that a few times.

But as Erinja said, as a privately owned site, Lernu has as much right to remove posts they don't want on their site, as you have a right to remove something someone hangs on the wall in your home. Their site, their rules.

Server location matters for topics like national laws regarding privacy protections. There is obviously no such thing as freedom of speech on private websites, though, regardless of where the server is hosted. You can't force a private server to host speech that might be objectionable to them.

For what it's worth, lernu is hosted in Germany.

Vestitor:

Tempodivalse:Once again, the US 1st amendment does not apply to private websites - and Orthohawk should be happy about that; otherwise people could troll and blaspheme on religious websites with impunity, calling it their "right" ...

Would it make a difference if it did? There is a large number of people here to whom the U.S.'s constitution has no relevance anyway. Or does the server location matter?

If the servers are outside the US, technically US law is irrelevant - just as (say) Bahraini law is irrelevant if my server is in Redmond. This international nature is part of the problem governments have trouble suppressing internet content.

Tempodivalse:

Vestitor:

Tempodivalse:Once again, the US 1st amendment does not apply to private websites - and Orthohawk should be happy about that; otherwise people could troll and blaspheme on religious websites with impunity, calling it their "right" ...

Would it make a difference if it did? There is a large number of people here to whom the U.S.'s constitution has no relevance anyway. Or does the server location matter?

If the servers are outside the US, technically US law is irrelevant - just as (say) Bahraini law is irrelevant if my server is in Redmond. This international nature is part of the problem governments have trouble suppressing internet content.

In the case of the EU, the high court ruled that the point of service matters too. If you want to provide a service in EU, you have to play by EU rules. Lernu! couldn't move its servers to Bahrain to get out of that, at least in principle. How Europe intends to enforce that is a complete mystery to me.

I'm not sure the US has adopted the same principle, but I imagine it will if it hasn't. Now, it is unlikely the First Amendment would apply unless some state body was trying to curtail free speech by operating a server bank on foreign soil, which seems unlikely.

In the case of the EU, the high court ruled that the point of service matters too. If you want to provide a service in EU, you have to play by EU rules. Lernu! couldn't move its servers to Bahrain to get out of that, at least in principle. How Europe intends to enforce that is a complete mystery to me.

There have been cases of ISP (internet service providers) being pressured into blocking certain websites at their level. These attempts usually meet with public disapproval, and if someone is determined they still can access the blocked material - use of proxies, or mirrors (Wikileaks at its peak had hundreds).

Of course, if you're in China, the government blocks websites wholesale - still not very effective, for the same reasons.