I'm Sorry, But Your Forum/Blog Post is NOT Protected Speech

Yes, your words can be deleted from a site, and it's not an infringement of your freedom of speech.

Published on November 6, 2007 By Zoomba In Blogging

I want to take a moment today to introduce you to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. For those who don't have a copy handy, I'll make it easy and give it to you now:

Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Got all that? Absorb those words, let them jostle around in your head for a few minutes, get comfortable with them. This is probably the most over-quoted but least understood Amendment in the Constitution. People claim it every time they find themselves facing consequences for things they've said.

As someone whose job it is partially to enforce rules of behavior on various forums and community sites, this is a problem very near and dear to my heart. It's important that everyone know and understand the following basic concept:

The Constitution governs what laws the US Government may pass/enforce. It does NOT dictate the actions of individuals or private companies. What does this mean though?

It means that if you post something on a forum or website pretty much anywhere that violates the posting rules of said site, or just happens to anger a moderator in a bad mood can delete your post, comment, whatever. They can deny you access to post on said forum or site too. And guess what? Your First Amendment rights have not been violated.

This also means that what you say in the real world can have very serious consequences. Tell your boss to go jump off a bridge. Start yelling at a mall security guard. Heck, go to a movie theater and yell "Fire!" See how much protection you get. Guess what? You'll have to face the consequences.

The first amendment provides you the ability to say whatever you like (within the limits of the time, place & manner restrictions) without government interference, but that right doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say.

I'm tired of the assumption that having something as a "Right" means it protects you from all consequences. It doesn't. All the right guarantees is that the government may pass no law abridging that specific right.

Comments

Zoologist03

on Nov 06, 2007

It's the consequences from society and the people around you, that you have to deal with. You can stand on the street and talk about hamsters gnawing at your brain, and while no one will arrest you for saying that, people will most likely avoid your crazy ass.

~Zoo

Locamama

on Nov 06, 2007

Good point, zoomba. This site isn't as bad because people have to be registered users to comment but some of the sites where people can hide behind their "anonymity", they say some truly vile things.

Zoomba

on Nov 06, 2007

This actually wasn't directed necessarily at JoeUser, it's more a frustration I have on any site I've ever worked on or moderated. It's one of those universal things I've seen all over, and it's frustrating because it's part of that whole "I can do whatever I like, and if you say otherwise I'll sue you!" mentality.

Leauki

on Nov 06, 2007

The Constitution governs what laws the US Government may pass/enforce. It does NOT dictate the actions of individuals or private companies. What does this mean though?

It depends on the interpretation. Seen strictly the enforcement of property rights that apparently outway freedom of speech (I may not say what I want on your land or your blog site) is a law abridging the freedom of speech. Who is anyone to say that property rights outway freedom of speech?

Perhaps freedom of speech outways property rights? Maybe you can own what you want and where you want unless it interferes with somebody's right to speak what he wants to speak? Currently his right to speak ends when it interferes with your property rights. But who says it must be that way?

The new city centre of Berlin (Germany) is almost completely privately owned. This means that protests cannot be helt there any more. I am in favour of that because I don't like protests. However, I do wonder what the value of freedom of speech is when governments can apparently make laws that allow somebody to buy the city centre and forbid protests on that land.

Perhaps there should be a law forcing governments not to make such laws as the one that says that the city centre can be privately owned?

Note that I am not arguing against the idea that property rights outway freedom of speech. I am arguing against the idea that it is somehow obvious that it must be like that.

As for the Amendment:

There exist laws that take into account people's religions, i.e. laws that respect the establishment of those religions.
Many many laws prohibit the exercise of a religion if that exercising happens to violate other laws. Those other laws legally exist.
Property rights are enforced by law even though such laws do prohibit the free exercise of free speech.

Perhaps the Amendment needs to be rephrased. It was obviously written with a specific context in mind and it wasn't noticed that it contradicts that context.

But in general you are right. If you want freedom of speech, don't expect others to pay for the medium you think you require. There is a right to free speech but there is no right that others pay for the publication.

Big Fat Daddy

on Nov 06, 2007

The managers of this community have allowed to use this forum to express ourselves as long as we accept them as the governing body and agree to abide by their rules and decisions. If at any time you feel your "right to free speech" has been infringed upon, you can always go out and start your own blog community where anyone can say anything. Having rules is not designed to be restrictive, rules give us guidance and allow for the best maximum use of the medium...for all participants. You have the right to speak...you don't have the right to be heard. On other occasions you have the right to remain silent. Wisdom is knowing when to exercise which right.

Don't confuse federal law with local statutes that CAN limit what you can say..."Fire !" in a theater f'rinstance.

Jythier

on Nov 06, 2007

The freedom of speech is to allow the free exchange of ideas, and that's the overriding premise of it. The government cannot infringe on that right.

As for property rights infringing on free speech, it doesn't. See, if you're on my property and you say something I don't like, and I kick you out but you stay, you're a trespasser, and that's all you'll be arrested for. You won't be arrested for whatever you said, but for infringing on my property rights. That's not outweighing free speech. It's a completely different set of laws that has nothing to do with what you say, but what you have and where you belong. You can't steal someone's flag and burn it, that's conversion, theft, destruction of property, soemthing. But you can burn your own flag. Either way, the speech of burning a flag is legal but the destruction of another's property is not.

Therefore, if you're on a website and you write something, the owners (or the owner's agents) can enforce rules, regulations, or delete whatever they feel like. This website isn't yours, and their rights to it as property let them do whatever they want with it.

Say you want to advertise a product. You can't just go put up your billboard over someone else's billboard in the name of free speech - you have to rent/buy the billboard!

Jythier

on Nov 06, 2007

Like before, that's not freedom of speech being encroached on - it's association with a known terrorist group. They won't convict you for saying it, they'll convict you for what you said.

Big Fat Daddy

on Nov 06, 2007

They won't convict you for saying it, they'll convict you for what you said.

HUH??!!

We are on this site speaking of things that would get you thrown in jail, or killed, in other societies...isn't that free speech? Ain't it grand?

Jythier

on Nov 06, 2007

If OJ had said "I killed Nicole", utilizing his free speech before the trial, they could still use what was said against him as proof of another crime. But they can't put him in jail for SAYING it.

stevendedalus

on Nov 06, 2007

"I killed Nicole",

If OJ had said after the trial, "Thank the Lord for the jury--they are real 'bad' Ni......" the lynch icon would be popping up all over. So much for free speech.

Big Fat Daddy

on Nov 07, 2007

Randy Weaver's wife and son about that, or David Koresh (and follow

Their demise wasn't because of speech restriction...it was the punctuation with .223 that got 'em in dutch.

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2007

Property rights are enforced by law even though such laws do prohibit the free exercise of free speech.

Um, kind of a stretch dont you think? Deciding what can and cant be said in your house is not the government doing the restricting. You are right to say, even though first, the first amendment is not more important than any other right. And therefore, you can stand on the street and yell what you want, but once you enter that building, you are no longer under the rules of the government, but the property owner - within the confines of the law. So you cant murder someone, but since the government is not saying you cant say the CEO stinks, that is not a violation of the first amendment either.

Your post goes to an important concept though. Nothing is absolute. The freedom of speech is not a universal right to be IMPOSED by the government. So it cannot be used to trump other rights. Along with the concept of Free speech (and religion, assembly, etc.) this country (and it is evident that we are somewhat alone in that respect - i.e. few other countries hold this in such high standing) was founded on the principal of private property. Your property was not "granted" to you by edict of the Monarchy. You earned it (and why the Kelo decision is one that rankles most Americans).

Texas Wahine

on Nov 08, 2007

Everyone should have to read this and click "I agree" before creating an internet account.

Jythier

on Nov 08, 2007

"Everyone should have to read this and click "I agree" before creating an internet account."

Insightful!

greywar

on Nov 19, 2007

I third TW's motion. Even the Kingdom of Loathing makes users visit the Altar of Literacy before allowing them posting rights.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!