Mr Man wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:03 pm
The forum has restrictions on certain kinds of speech. That is all I am saying. "there is not full freedom of speech in DW now". Do you think that what I said is incorrect?
The terms of service, which clearly restrict certain kinds of speech are in place whether an individual chooses to break them or wants to break them or doesn't want to break them or thinks they are good or bad or whatever. All members are restricted by the terms of service whether they choose to feel restricted or not.
I am not relevant to this point although for some reason you seem to want to make this about me. And infringement of rights? What has "rights" got to do with anything?
So just let's get this straight you are saying this "No there is not full freedom of speech in DW now. The forum is moderated."
Why don't you want to let this go Sam Vara?
P.S. This is very much off topic now. Perhaps the thread needs to be split?
By the same token, I am saying "There is no restriction on speech for those who do not desire to breach the ToS". Do you think that what I said is incorrect?
Speech on any forum, in any context, is constrained by many factors, including facility with the language, intelligence, access to the means of communication, syntactical possibilities, and so on. This is why the concept of an absolute right to free speech is nonsensical. What utterance could ever be free from all constraints? That is why, in turn, it only makes sense to talk of negative liberty in this context; it's all that this or any other forum can do in order to help you make your points.
Your claiming that there is not full freedom of speech invites the question as to what it is that you think you are not free to say. Of course, in the abstract, one can point to any number of constraints upon one's utterances, and the ToS are indeed some of those constraints. But that then invites the further question as to why that is even an issue worth raising. You have pointed to the ToS as a restriction upon absolute freedom. Why? Why not point to the syntax which restricts how you express yourself intelligibly in English? Either you have a substantive point about what you want to say; or you have a vacuous point.
We could say, of course, that the forum is constrained by being moderated. But if you are entirely happy with this, why even raise it? It's not about you - this is a public forum - but your claim is the occasion for me to make this point about the type of freedom we have here.