Jimbo_G: Ever heard of the 1st amendment?
What does that got to do with anything? Do you mean the amendment from the US constitution? GOG is owned by CDPR, a Polish company. They don't follow the US constitution.
Jimbo_G: Its actually illegal. Article 10 of the EU human rights act. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers". This includes the internet.
Who is stopping you from registering your own domain and writing whatever you want in there?
GOG is privately owned and as such they can decide what is going on on their forums. Just as you have the right to display or not display any material on your own website.
Jimbo_G: RULES DO NOT OVERWRITE THE LAW.
Is there a law that dictates you must display something on your own, privately owned platform? (Except a warning about cookies if your website is in, or can be viewed in EU.)
Jimbo_G: The article states that unless I am inciting violence or directly trying to bring down the government by unlawful means... I can say anything I want.
Feel free to open your own platform and write anything but inciting violence or treason. Well, you may want to check the local laws since for example here where I am located in (Germany) there are more special restrictions on what you can write.
Jimbo_G: So for example if this was a forum about food and I said I hate cabbages or sprouts. You cannot remove my post because it might offend someone who does like them.
If this was a private forum about food and the owner doesn't like the word "sprouts", they are free to remove your post at their consideration.
Jimbo_G: However if i said that all people who enjoy sprouts should be tied to a cross and shot that would be grounds for removal because I am inciting violence.
If you go by the US constitution (which you referenced earlier for some unknown reason) this actually would not qualify as a direct incitiement of violence. This would still qualify as an opinion. "Pete enjoys sprouts. Go kill Pete!" is incitement to violence. But yeah, in EU, depending on the country, this could qualify as incitement to violence.
Jimbo_G: Freedom of speech doesnt end because it meets the internet.
If you have a fence and you put a sign on it that the neighbourhood kids are allowed to spray paint it, and then some kid paints a huge phallos on it, are you allowed to paint it over? How does this differ from the internet?
Jimbo_G: The internet and these forums are not private property. They are public domain. ANYONE can access them.
That's... that's not what "public domain" means. If this would be the case, my local shop would be public domain since anyone can access it. Public domain means no one owns the copyright or the copyright has expired. Public owns the IP now.
For example, at the moment if you would like to print and distribute a book by George Orwell within the EU, you would have to pay the copyright holder. Next year when Orwell's works move to public domain, anyone can print and distribute his works. In EU the limit is 70 years after the author's death, in Australia it's 50 years. So George Orwell is currently in public domain in Australia, but not in the EU.
Just because something is freely accessible doesn't mean it's public domain.
Jimbo_G: "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire.
That's a quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall from the book The Friends of Voltaire.
I see you are passionate about free speech. However, when it comes to free speech laws, you are mistaken. This is not a free speech issue -- legally. What you could argue is that removing some posts goes against the
idea of free speech. And with that I would even agree with you.
Jimbo_G: Its the equivalent of a restaurant serving rotten/improperly cooked food and then removing all the reviews that called them out on it.
If the review was on their own, private website, they have the right to do so. If the review is on a 3rd party website, they would have to ask the 3rd party to do that. You know, whoever owns the private platform decides.
Not applicable. These relate to some foreign country's laws far away across the ocean.
Page 103:
"These terms of service, required by practically all Internet Service Providers, social network providers and blogging services, turn these loci of conversation into de jure private places."
This document points out that private companies have private forums. It also points out this poses problems, and I agree with that, but ought is not is. What should be and what is are two different things.
There really
should be an internet constitution. But ought is not is.
Jimbo_G: You see son, science is not a democracy. A bunch of people didnt vote in a dusty old room as to whether the earth was flat or whether it took 24 hours for a day to pass or whether 1+1=2. it just is.
Science is not a democracy, but neither are private forums. If I started my own forum where one of the rules would be 1+1=3, then that would be the rule and anyone stating 1+1=2 could be banned.
Jimbo_G: If the American and British government cannot censor free speech, what the hell makes you or CDPR think they can?
They don't. They moderate their own, private forums.
