Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Forum Moderators Suppress Freedom Of Speech

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 8:13:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not in all cases. This team has been very lax with allowing me to speak freely. Others have not.

My situation is with forum moderators sometimes assuming they can/should scan links to other forums before we are allowed to post them.

I argue they should moderate how things are said and not is said.
If something is disrespectful or insulting of course it should be moderated.
However if the information presented is done so in a friendly, courteous manner, I see no information that shouldn't be allowed for public ridicule.

Thoughts?

P.S
A big thanks to this mod team for a wonderful site, and so far knowing how to maintain a respectful place of knowledge.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:32:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.

Thats regardless to the questions I am asking.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:32:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:32:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:32:08 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.

Thats regardless to the questions I am asking.

Not really. It actually answers your question.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 10:31:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:32:44 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:32:08 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.

Thats regardless to the questions I am asking.

Not really. It actually answers your question.

Yea, I was thinking of another discussion on the same topic and was in lala land when responding. I do that sometimes, fortunately I can apologize for any confusion and move on.

We don't have complete freedom of speech, but I for one do feel more free to speak my mind here than a lot of other places about varieties of topics..
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:20:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.

So we don't have free speech in a mall either? That's rather absurd.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:26:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 11:20:31 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.

So we don't have free speech in a mall either?

I said that? Where?

That's rather absurd.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:30:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 10:31:58 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:32:44 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:32:08 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:10:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
You don't have Freedom of Speech here.

Thats regardless to the questions I am asking.

Not really. It actually answers your question.

Yea, I was thinking of another discussion on the same topic and was in lala land when responding. I do that sometimes, fortunately I can apologize for any confusion and move on.

Dat sarcasm

We don't have complete freedom of speech, but I for one do feel more free to speak my mind here than a lot of other places about varieties of topics..

Speaking freely =/= Freedom of Speech.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:37:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 11:26:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:20:31 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So we don't have free speech in a mall either?

I said that? Where?

Why do we have free speech at a mall, but not here?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:42:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 11:37:29 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:26:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:20:31 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So we don't have free speech in a mall either?

I said that? Where?

Why do we have free speech at a mall, but not here?

The mall is a public area open to all. DDO is a privately owned website in which you waive and ceded many of those rights; your membership and ability to post here is at the pleasure of DDO/Juggle.

Then again, you don't have freedom of speech at a mall (see? NOW I said it).
http://www.slate.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 11:42:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
The mall is a public area open to all. DDO is a privately owned website in which you waive and ceded many of those rights; your membership and ability to post here is at the pleasure of DDO/Juggle.

Then again, you don't have freedom of speech at a mall (see? NOW I said it).
http://www.slate.com...

Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.

If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 12:12:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:42:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
The mall is a public area open to all. DDO is a privately owned website in which you waive and ceded many of those rights; your membership and ability to post here is at the pleasure of DDO/Juggle.

Then again, you don't have freedom of speech at a mall (see? NOW I said it).
http://www.slate.com...

Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.

Regardless, it seems that the current standing is, unless a state government has explicitly empowered your freedom of speech to extend in such environments, you don't have it.



If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

Apparently not. I thought so, which is why my first answer was to highlight the difference between a public area like a mall and a private website like DDO (a difference which you have not addressed). However, I decided to actually see what the standing was on the issue, and did some cursory searching, and found that article, leading to my second answer.

Why did I keep the first answer, then? Well, I understood your point and wanted to keep the comparison up there. It would have been easy enough for you to swap out a mall for some public area in which Free Speech actually does apply, which would just have delayed the conversation. To keep things moving, I addressed the general point, even if it does not apply to the specific instance.

What has me confused is that you've abandoned the general, on-topic point in favor of quibbling over the specific case which really isn't relevant and really isn't for debate: as it is, unless the state government explicitly grants you Freedom of Speech in such areas, you don't have it.


What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

No. Malls are inanimate objects (stupid questions get stupid answers).
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 12:49:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:42:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
The mall is a public area open to all. DDO is a privately owned website in which you waive and ceded many of those rights; your membership and ability to post here is at the pleasure of DDO/Juggle.

Then again, you don't have freedom of speech at a mall (see? NOW I said it).
http://www.slate.com...

Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

I offer tax/accounting services out of my home.
My home is open to the public.
There is no legal distinction between me or my business as I am a sole propreitor.

Are you suggesting that the public gets to keep its rights to speech, guns, and "privacy" while in MY home?
If so, then you would support the losing of my property rights due to the MN law that bans smoking in businesses (i.e. MY HOME). This is not to say that you would agree with the law itself, but the specific provision that is addressed here.
Why should a normal brick-and-mortar business be any different?


What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

The issue with a mall is it is a common ground for numerous businesses. The property owner can have a set of rules, like maybe they will allow guns and speech, but the individual shops may still be able to have their own rules that may run counter to the owner's (assuming it is not in violation of the lease).

So, if a store bans guns/speech but the mall allows them, it makes for a more tricky topic.

To address you point more directly, can not malls/stores search you/your property upon entering? Strip your privacy by videotaping you without your consent? Enforce a dress code, like a nightclub or fancy restaurant?
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 1:14:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:49:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

I offer tax/accounting services out of my home.
My home is open to the public.

Is it really? Or is it appointment only. Big difference.

There is no legal distinction between me or my business as I am a sole propreitor.

Are you suggesting that the public gets to keep its rights to speech, guns, and "privacy" while in MY home?
If so, then you would support the losing of my property rights due to the MN law that bans smoking in businesses (i.e. MY HOME). This is not to say that you would agree with the law itself, but the specific provision that is addressed here.
Why should a normal brick-and-mortar business be any different?

Home business is a unique situation because it is a home AND a business. Obviously different rules apply if were talking about something that is more than JUST a business.

What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

The issue with a mall is it is a common ground for numerous businesses. The property owner can have a set of rules, like maybe they will allow guns and speech, but the individual shops may still be able to have their own rules that may run counter to the owner's (assuming it is not in violation of the lease).

So, if a store bans guns/speech but the mall allows them, it makes for a more tricky topic.

To address you point more directly, can not malls/stores search you/your property upon entering? Strip your privacy by videotaping you without your consent? Enforce a dress code, like a nightclub or fancy restaurant?

You have the right to privacy on your own property. You can't go out in public or someone elses private business and expect privacy except privacy from government spying. Businesses can and should be able to have surveillance and I don't think anyone feels their privacy is violated except thiefs. Of course hidden cameras in fitting rooms would be a violation of business ethics and perhaps right to privacy.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:25:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 1:14:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:49:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

I offer tax/accounting services out of my home.
My home is open to the public.

Is it really? Or is it appointment only. Big difference.
Why? If my appointments are open to the public, I have very specific hours, but I am still open to the public. Why would this be different from a professional's brick and mortar office who is by appointment only, like a dog groomer?

There is no legal distinction between me or my business as I am a sole propreitor.

Are you suggesting that the public gets to keep its rights to speech, guns, and "privacy" while in MY home?
If so, then you would support the losing of my property rights due to the MN law that bans smoking in businesses (i.e. MY HOME). This is not to say that you would agree with the law itself, but the specific provision that is addressed here.
Why should a normal brick-and-mortar business be any different?

Home business is a unique situation because it is a home AND a business. Obviously different rules apply if were talking about something that is more than JUST a business.
Why is a home considered private and not public, even if it is open to the public, but not a restaurant, which is open to the public but owned by a private individual?

There are different rules, but the constitutional rights of patrons should be equal; a business is a business regardless of its location.



What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

The issue with a mall is it is a common ground for numerous businesses. The property owner can have a set of rules, like maybe they will allow guns and speech, but the individual shops may still be able to have their own rules that may run counter to the owner's (assuming it is not in violation of the lease).

So, if a store bans guns/speech but the mall allows them, it makes for a more tricky topic.

To address you point more directly, can not malls/stores search you/your property upon entering? Strip your privacy by videotaping you without your consent? Enforce a dress code, like a nightclub or fancy restaurant?

You have the right to privacy on your own property. You can't go out in public or someone elses private business and expect privacy except privacy from government spying. Businesses can and should be able to have surveillance and I don't think anyone feels their privacy is violated except thiefs. Of course hidden cameras in fitting rooms would be a violation of business ethics and perhaps right to privacy.

So, you agree that businesses can strip you of your constitutional rights, specifically searches (4th amendment). The government cannot monitor you without a warrant, but the business can. So, why is speech protected but searches are not?

Your claim of "If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights" has been refuted. The public loses these rights upon entry by consenting to their suspension in exchange for entry to the business.

Being open to the public =/= public space. The former can deny rights, while the latter cannot.








.
.
.
.
My work here is, finally, done.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:33:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been to a lot of forums. And DDO is really the single best one I have ever seen in terms of moderation. It's pretty hard to piss me off with the internet but, yeah, moderators in other forums have done a pretty good job of that with me. Any more moderation than we have here now is completely unnecessary.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 2:25:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why is a home considered private and not public, even if it is open to the public, but not a restaurant, which is open to the public but owned by a private individual?

There are different rules, but the constitutional rights of patrons should be equal; a business is a business regardless of its location.

Yes, a business is a business regardless of location, except if it's in a house then house rules ALSO apply.

You have the right to privacy on your own property. You can't go out in public or someone elses private business and expect privacy except privacy from government spying. Businesses can and should be able to have surveillance and I don't think anyone feels their privacy is violated except thiefs. Of course hidden cameras in fitting rooms would be a violation of business ethics and perhaps right to privacy.

So, you agree that businesses can strip you of your constitutional rights, specifically searches (4th amendment). The government cannot monitor you without a warrant, but the business can. So, why is speech protected but searches are not?

Your claim of "If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights" has been refuted. The public loses these rights upon entry by consenting to their suspension in exchange for entry to the business.

False. Read my statement more carefully.

Being open to the public =/= public space. The former can deny rights, while the latter cannot.

Says you.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:09:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 2:39:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 2:25:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why is a home considered private and not public, even if it is open to the public, but not a restaurant, which is open to the public but owned by a private individual?

There are different rules, but the constitutional rights of patrons should be equal; a business is a business regardless of its location.

Yes, a business is a business regardless of location, except if it's in a house then house rules ALSO apply.
So, me disallowing certain rights in my home is legal because I am in a house, or a business, or both?
Me owning a restaurant and disallowing certain rights is illegal because I am a business? Even though it is my property, you say it is illegal, yet if it was my property, it would be legal. Why is the home so magical? What if it was a shed in my backyard, would that make a difference?


You have the right to privacy on your own property. You can't go out in public or someone elses private business and expect privacy except privacy from government spying. Businesses can and should be able to have surveillance and I don't think anyone feels their privacy is violated except thiefs. Of course hidden cameras in fitting rooms would be a violation of business ethics and perhaps right to privacy.

So, you agree that businesses can strip you of your constitutional rights, specifically searches (4th amendment). The government cannot monitor you without a warrant, but the business can. So, why is speech protected but searches are not?

Your claim of "If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights" has been refuted. The public loses these rights upon entry by consenting to their suspension in exchange for entry to the business.

False. Read my statement more carefully.
Expain it better then. You said what I quoted, then you said the act of entering the business is not grounds for the denial of rights. Did I misread something?

I say entry is grounds to deny rights, because the denial of rights is contingent upon your entry. Regardless if the entry is into my home or a business.


Being open to the public =/= public space. The former can deny rights, while the latter cannot.

Says you.
Says the law.

Tell me, is it illegal to ban guns in a store? You know, those signs that say "Guns are prohibited" in, say, a book store. So, this is illegal.
If I ask you to leave my restaurant, you could simply say, "no, it's public" and you would not be charged with trespassing?

Why is speech treated different than assembly, association, and the right to bear arms?
My work here is, finally, done.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:12:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:42:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
The mall is a public area open to all. DDO is a privately owned website in which you waive and ceded many of those rights; your membership and ability to post here is at the pleasure of DDO/Juggle.

Then again, you don't have freedom of speech at a mall (see? NOW I said it).
http://www.slate.com...

Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

They don't have to violate your rights, they can just eject you.


What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?
No, but it would be quite legitimate for them to eject you for not having sex with their management, though not a very good business decision (I've never seen a mall with a **** in and of itself).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:17:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 2:25:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:14:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:49:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

I offer tax/accounting services out of my home.
My home is open to the public.

Is it really? Or is it appointment only. Big difference.
Why? If my appointments are open to the public, I have very specific hours, but I am still open to the public. Why would this be different from a professional's brick and mortar office who is by appointment only, like a dog groomer?

There is no legal distinction between me or my business as I am a sole propreitor.

Are you suggesting that the public gets to keep its rights to speech, guns, and "privacy" while in MY home?
If so, then you would support the losing of my property rights due to the MN law that bans smoking in businesses (i.e. MY HOME). This is not to say that you would agree with the law itself, but the specific provision that is addressed here.
Why should a normal brick-and-mortar business be any different?

Home business is a unique situation because it is a home AND a business. Obviously different rules apply if were talking about something that is more than JUST a business.
Why is a home considered private and not public, even if it is open to the public, but not a restaurant, which is open to the public but owned by a private individual?

There are different rules, but the constitutional rights of patrons should be equal; a business is a business regardless of its location.



What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

The issue with a mall is it is a common ground for numerous businesses. The property owner can have a set of rules, like maybe they will allow guns and speech, but the individual shops may still be able to have their own rules that may run counter to the owner's (assuming it is not in violation of the lease).

So, if a store bans guns/speech but the mall allows them, it makes for a more tricky topic.

To address you point more directly, can not malls/stores search you/your property upon entering? Strip your privacy by videotaping you without your consent? Enforce a dress code, like a nightclub or fancy restaurant?

You have the right to privacy on your own property. You can't go out in public or someone elses private business and expect privacy except privacy from government spying. Businesses can and should be able to have surveillance and I don't think anyone feels their privacy is violated except thiefs. Of course hidden cameras in fitting rooms would be a violation of business ethics and perhaps right to privacy.

So, you agree that businesses can strip you of your constitutional rights, specifically searches (4th amendment). The government cannot monitor you without a warrant, but the business can. So, why is speech protected but searches are not?

Your claim of "If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights" has been refuted. The public loses these rights upon entry by consenting to their suspension in exchange for entry to the business.

Being open to the public =/= public space. The former can deny rights, while the latter cannot.
This is only if the consent is informed. Businesses cannot hide cameras in changing rooms and then claim that I gave up my rights. I need to have explicit notice of which of my rights are being abridged before I enter the building.








.
.
.
.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:20:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I will concede only that they can kick you out for whatever reason. Which is consistent with what I suggested earlier that they can deny entry.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:21:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
we all work to suppress freedom to murder. mental forces can come to the same effect as physical forces. that saying "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is obviously bullsh1t, especially in light of cyber bullying and how it's affected people.
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:26:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:20:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I will concede only that they can kick you out for whatever reason. Which is consistent with what I suggested earlier that they can deny entry.

And that's all that's meant by "you don't have freedom of speech there"-- you can be ejected for speech.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:30:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:20:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I will concede only that they can kick you out for whatever reason. Which is consistent with what I suggested earlier that they can deny entry.

But if you claim that open to the public = public space, then it is illegal to deny entry. Have you ever heard of a public park saying you can't walk here, and was considered constitutional?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:35:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:17:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/10/2012 2:25:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:14:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:49:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

I offer tax/accounting services out of my home.
My home is open to the public.

Is it really? Or is it appointment only. Big difference.
Why? If my appointments are open to the public, I have very specific hours, but I am still open to the public. Why would this be different from a professional's brick and mortar office who is by appointment only, like a dog groomer?

There is no legal distinction between me or my business as I am a sole propreitor.

Are you suggesting that the public gets to keep its rights to speech, guns, and "privacy" while in MY home?
If so, then you would support the losing of my property rights due to the MN law that bans smoking in businesses (i.e. MY HOME). This is not to say that you would agree with the law itself, but the specific provision that is addressed here.
Why should a normal brick-and-mortar business be any different?

Home business is a unique situation because it is a home AND a business. Obviously different rules apply if were talking about something that is more than JUST a business.
Why is a home considered private and not public, even if it is open to the public, but not a restaurant, which is open to the public but owned by a private individual?

There are different rules, but the constitutional rights of patrons should be equal; a business is a business regardless of its location.



What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

The issue with a mall is it is a common ground for numerous businesses. The property owner can have a set of rules, like maybe they will allow guns and speech, but the individual shops may still be able to have their own rules that may run counter to the owner's (assuming it is not in violation of the lease).

So, if a store bans guns/speech but the mall allows them, it makes for a more tricky topic.

To address you point more directly, can not malls/stores search you/your property upon entering? Strip your privacy by videotaping you without your consent? Enforce a dress code, like a nightclub or fancy restaurant?

You have the right to privacy on your own property. You can't go out in public or someone elses private business and expect privacy except privacy from government spying. Businesses can and should be able to have surveillance and I don't think anyone feels their privacy is violated except thiefs. Of course hidden cameras in fitting rooms would be a violation of business ethics and perhaps right to privacy.

So, you agree that businesses can strip you of your constitutional rights, specifically searches (4th amendment). The government cannot monitor you without a warrant, but the business can. So, why is speech protected but searches are not?

Your claim of "If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights" has been refuted. The public loses these rights upon entry by consenting to their suspension in exchange for entry to the business.

Being open to the public =/= public space. The former can deny rights, while the latter cannot.
This is only if the consent is informed. Businesses cannot hide cameras in changing rooms and then claim that I gave up my rights. I need to have explicit notice of which of my rights are being abridged before I enter the building.

There needs to be no informed consent, do you need to tell your nanny you have a nanny-cam? I do not see many places that say I am being moitored, even though I am sure I am (like at department stores). Any sign saying you are being taped is a deterrant, not required.

However, there are laws that protect patrons, like not having surveilence in changing rooms or bathrooms. This is because you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a sectioned off area behind a closed door (being naked may have something to do with it as well, but I don't know).
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:37:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:30:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:20:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I will concede only that they can kick you out for whatever reason. Which is consistent with what I suggested earlier that they can deny entry.

But if you claim that open to the public = public space, then it is illegal to deny entry. Have you ever heard of a public park saying you can't walk here, and was considered constitutional?

You can equate kicking someone out and being denied entry, but if they deny entry, then they are stripping you of your right to assemble and associate (meeting friends for coffee). This is inconsistent with your overall point of limiting rights.
My work here is, finally, done.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:42:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:49:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:04:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:42:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
The mall is a public area open to all. DDO is a privately owned website in which you waive and ceded many of those rights; your membership and ability to post here is at the pleasure of DDO/Juggle.

Then again, you don't have freedom of speech at a mall (see? NOW I said it).
http://www.slate.com...

Your own article says a mall is private. It seems the Supreme Court had trouble deciding whether the 1st Amendment applied to malls or not. The private property owners resorted to absurd arguments saying that their free speech is taken if they can't control speech at that to do otherwise would be an act of the government taking away their property. Bollocks.


If your business is open to the PUBLIC, then the public gets to keep it's Constitutional rights. Yes, they can refuse entry into their business, but once your entry is granted, they can't just violate your every right.

I offer tax/accounting services out of my home.
My home is open to the public.
There is no legal distinction between me or my business as I am a sole propreitor.

Are you suggesting that the public gets to keep its rights to speech, guns, and "privacy" while in MY home?
If so, then you would support the losing of my property rights due to the MN law that bans smoking in businesses (i.e. MY HOME). This is not to say that you would agree with the law itself, but the specific provision that is addressed here.
Why should a normal brick-and-mortar business be any different?



What's next, can malls rape you too because you forfeit Constitutional rights when you enter their property?

The issue with a mall is it is a common ground for numerous businesses. The property owner can have a set of rules, like maybe they will allow guns and speech, but the individual shops may still be able to have their own rules that may run counter to the owner's (assuming it is not in violation of the lease).

So, if a store bans guns/speech but the mall allows them, it makes for a more tricky topic.

To address you point more directly, can not malls/stores search you/your property upon entering? Strip your privacy by videotaping you without your consent? Enforce a dress code, like a nightclub or fancy restaurant?

Youre back aye.