Somewoman’s thread about The Constitution, The United Nations, and their applicability to kicks from Chat Rooms

In international law, there is no single universal “free speech law” that applies everywhere. Instead, it’s recognized as a human right, mainly through international treaties and declarations.

Do we agree that a "right" is the same as "right in law"?
I guess I appeal to that then.
 
Sorry, one more quick point. Since you studied law I’m sure you’re aware that Free Speech means that people are allowed to freely express ideas and opinions without GOVERNMENT interference, right? This is a privately owned website with its own rules.
 
See, all I see is a bunch of cowards guarding their prized additions of their team of mods.
Using all kinds of arguments, which all prove my point.
 
you brought up imaginary laws to try and make a point. and all people are doing is pointing out there are no such laws and these made up laws have nothing to do with what can or can't be said in a chatroom.
 
Correction, see I had to look up this law, because free speech is complex.
I'm talking about limiting rights under international law.

I meant to say "limit my rights" with "no reason".
 
Yes — rights can be limited, but only under certain conditions, depending on the legal system.

1. In National Law

Most countries’ constitutions or laws allow governments to place limits on rights if:

rapinoes smirking revenge

This is what law says which I was referring to, limiting speech is warranted when:
​

The restriction is necessary (not arbitrary).

It serves a legitimate aim (like protecting public safety, health, or the rights of others).

It is proportionate (not excessive compared to the problem).

For example:

Freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to incite violence, spread child exploitation material, or commit defamation.

Freedom of movement can be limited during emergencies (like quarantine or curfews).

2. In International Law

The ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) says many rights can be limited if restrictions are:

Provided by law (not just arbitrary government decisions).

Necessary for things like national security, public order, public health/morals, or the rights of others.

⚠️ But some rights are considered non-derogable (cannot be suspended even in emergencies), such as:

Right to life

Freedom from torture

Freedom from slavery

Recognition as a person before the law

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

3. Balancing Rights

Often, rights are limited to balance them against other people’s rights. For example:

Your right to free speech stops where it harms another person’s right to dignity or safety.

Your right to liberty can be limited if you commit a crime (so others’ rights are protected).
 
so_me_wo_man said:
What rule did I break?
Click to expand...
That will be dealt with by Leigh in your kick appeal thread when she is online. That thread still exists and will be responded to.

You’re welcome to continue your legal debates and related SPAM here
 
all that is about governments limiting free speech and punishing it's citizens for speech. nothing to do with what a private company's rules are. you don't have a "right" to be able to chat on a chatsite.
 

Inkandtatts​

Surely, I'm glad to continue with the legal debate.
I don't see how any legal debate is spam nonetheless.

rapinoes smirking revenge

​

"all that is about governments limiting free speech and punishing it's citizens for speech. nothing to do with what a private company's rules are. you don't have a "right" to be able to chat on a chatsite."

Actually I do, if you let me in I have a right to be there, and am free to express in any form and manner, regarding normal conversation.
This is a right which is in every house, besides yours.

Also, a site on the internet equally when providing me access is there to invite me in, which is a media broadcast regulation and queries essential rights are provided and not limited as in speech.

If you think censoring is the same as not having the right of free speech you are wrong.
 
I frankly don't care about the rules of a private company.

Also, you have to agree with my rules then, because of your company being in my house.
Would that be fair?
 
see, I don't mean offense, I'm not biased, I appreciate what your company does, what it stands for and the amazing resilience it has shown.

Still, when someone asks what their rights are, and is limited to a political debate, essentially limiting rights is doing the same thing.
 
but you don't have a right to be here and express anything you want. same as you don't have a right to walk into any privately owned business and say and do anything you want. you have to follow the rules and policies of that business.

i'm not arguing if your kick broke any rules or not or what rule you broke. that's a different argument.
 
But to stick to the subject of the original inquiry which was relayed to this thread, and to limit the scope here, and to agree with me and agree with your side of the story, again, all I want to know is:

"What rule did I break".
To be able to comply in an orderly function with what is the general expectation of the rules, we are complying with.

Maybe I should ask for a printout of the scope of arguments which specifies this, and not be limited in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top