freedom

[celforama]

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

- Universal declaration of human rights


Now one may say, on a private chat server, the owner has the RIGHT to govern its usage via the enforcement of preset rules. In my opinion, such action is merely an ABILITY and not a RIGHT. No human has the RIGHT to encroach on another's birth given human rights, whether they run the country or own the chat server. Should such action occur due to the ability and power being present to do so, a violation of human rights has occured thus creating an atmosphere of AUTHORITY over FREEDOM. Should I decide that I wish to use CAPSLOCK in a chat room, that is my method of sharing information and ideas through the media of my CHOICE. If the *rule* forbids CAPSLOCK then you may very well ban me but the principals regarding FREEDOM remain. This notion of "RESPECTING" fellow chatters is garbage, how does altering the mannor in which I choose to express myself due to popular opinion equate to respecting them. It equates to conceiding to consensus and that is a very dangerous notion. Respecting my fellow chatter would involve accepting what they say as their free opinion or accepting the mannor in which they choose to express it.

the end.

[roswell1329]

I know not the reason behind your posting (I probably can guess), but it's interesting, and I feel I have an equally interesting stance of opposition. Let me go over how I understand the crux of your argument -- freedom of speech. I will grant you that in this country, freedom of speech is protected. That being said, there are venues where freedom of speech is curbed or even squashed. You cannot say, "Fire" in a crowded theatre, you cannot say, "Bomb" in an airport terminal, and you cannot say "I will kill the President" at any time within earshot of law enforcement officials. There are laws in place preventing you from saying any of these things in a public venue. You agree to abide by those laws to live in this country.

Private schools have the right to censor the speech of its students if they feel the student is corrupting their curriculum ideal. Businesses that own periodicals or television stations are free to censor anything they choose -- so long as they do not falsely portray the truth. As a local store owner, I am free to deny the advertising space on my window for local groups or businesses. There are conditions in place for each of these private venues that you must follow to be a part of them. You agree to abide by these conditions to go to that school, publish in that periodical, speak on that station, or post on my window.

Your choice to engage in conversation on (I'm assuming) the AO irc channel may appear to be a public venue, but in fact it is a private venue. (I realize you recognized this distinction) This private venue is governed by moderators that have been granted full right to enforce the rules, protocols, and standards set up by the owner of that venue. If one of those rules, protocols, or standards included observing a commonly recognized axiom of net etiquette to use all caps sparingly, then those moderators are fully within their rights to ban an individual who breaches that axiom. If you were that individual, you entered into an agreement by joining the IRC channel to abide by the guidelines set forth by the moderators.

There is the possibility that you did not know about this common axiom of net etiquette. Knowing the moderators of AO IRC, you were probably given ample warning to stop using using all caps in your responses, however even if you weren't that is perfectly acceptable for a private venue. If you wanted to take a stand against such an oppressive regime, it appears you chose the wrong venue in which to do it. A more appropriate venue for such a political message would perhaps have been a government run IRC channel. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but there may be something out there.

In conclusion, I'm very sorry you feel disillusioned or disenfranchised with your treatment on the AO IRC channel. It is unfortunate that you feel your personal freedoms were trampled by the draconian rulers of that channel known as the moderators. Keep in mind, however, that you opted to engage in the discussion presented on that channel. Since your experience was obviously traumatic, perhaps you should seek other venues.

[celforama]

i believe that my previous statement made clear that i was speaking from a philosophical level. Freedom of speech is not infact truly protected in the USA. The example of shouting fire in a movie theater is irrelevant for such an action encroaches on others' right to safety and protection from harm. The point that I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter what venue i choose to express myself, this right is available to me in ALL venues world wide. Just like antionline cannot deny me service based on my religion, they cannot under international law and the law of simply LIVING, deny me service for acting in the way that I choose. Granted this is something miniscule like a chatroom, the more that people believe that because they are a private institution that they can dictate the way people act, the more dangerous our society becomes. It is ridiculous that private schools already are allowed to do this in the USA and it is ridiculous that the government is pushing to outlaw dissent, and it is ridiculous that instead of ignoring me, people with to ALIENATE me from my right to speak however the ****, I so choose.

And to whoever gave me negative antipoints for expressing my opinion, you are as much responsible for the decline in freedom as the president of the united states

I think this quote applies to any situations involving issues of personal freedoms, in this case it would be much more metaphorical

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one
-thomas jefferson of course

[powertoad5000]

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

- Universal declaration of human rights

You know, it's not like you're being kicked/banned because of your ideological opinions, or your political beliefs. It's caps lock.

Should I decide that I wish to use CAPSLOCK in a chat room, that is my method of sharing information and ideas through the media of my CHOICE

Turning off caps lock will not deny you your ability to share your information and ideas. One could argue that the ops should just deal with it, but they run the server - not you. You're seriously making a mountain out of a molehill, bringing human rights declarations into a something like this. Just deal with the fact that the ops don't appreciate all caps - how hard is it really to just press that button and turn it off?

[celforama]

and one final point
since freedom of expression is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT given at birth, the only thing someone can do is take it away, no government or private institution GRANTS this right.

[spyrul]

Originally posted here by celforama
and one final point
since freedom of expression is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT given at birth, the only thing someone can do is take it away, no government or private institution GRANTS this right.

look, just because you have the right to be an idiot, doesn't mean that you should excersize that right, nor should we have to tolerate it, should you choose to.

[paulie walnuts]

i have alot of negs for some stupid stuff i did when i first got on AO whining about it and posting comments like those wont help your cause it will only earn you much negs...i hope i can spare you some grey and red boxes with this warning, take it from me.....

[roswell1329]

Originally posted here by celforama
and one final point
since freedom of expression is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT given at birth, the only thing someone can do is take it away, no government or private institution GRANTS this right.

Here's an idea to ponder: The "human rights" that you claim are inalienable are in fact human constructs. No such rights are granted to us in the natural world. Only other human beings have the power to recognize or deny those rights. As Woodrow Wilson wrote, "Liberty has never come from Government. It has always come from the Subjects of Government." Apart from that, the idea behind freedom of speech is that Congress will make no law restricting, limiting, or abridging your freedom of expression. However, since the AO IRC servers are not owned or controlled by Congress, the first amendment does not apply there.

While it is true that no government or private institution may grant you the right of your free expression, it is certainly up to their own respective faculties to choose whether to defend and support that right or not. The AO IRC forum has chosen -- in the interests of all those potentially connecting -- to establish some simple net etiquette guidelines. You agree to abide by those guidelines when you connect to the server or put yourself at risk of being banned. Of course, it is your right to choose which venue in which to express yourself, but it is also your responsibility to abide by the rules that govern that venue.

[Tedob1]

The fact that you were born guaranties you nothing. It’s only threw organization that you have any rights at all. While it’s true that anyone on earth can do anything they want, its also true that anyone may have to pay the consequences for their actions depending on local customs and restrictions.

To say you can use any venue for your expression is to say you can graffiti walls, cars or anything that strikes your fancy. The fact is you can. The community at large is also free to express their displeasure with your actions by having you arrested.

Using caps to “express yourself” makes your postings more visible. Thereby making other’s posts less visible. Your ‘rights’ end when they encroach upon those of others. The act of booting can also be seen as a form of expression, which glorifies the ideals of a community.

You expressed yourself. AO expressed itself. So what’s the problem?



roswell1329: i wish your post had been there when i started writing mine, (my girlfriend decided i needed to see gifts she bought) i like yours alot better.

[rcgreen]

This reminds me of what I've heard about newbie newspaper reporters, back in
the "golden age" of major metropolitan newspapers. The newbie reporter writes
a fine article, submits it to his boss and anxiously awaits the glorious moment
of seeing his article in print.

Imagine his disappointment when he discovers that it was shortened, rearranged,
or maybe not printed at all. In great indignation, he goes in to the boss's office
ranting about "freedom of the press".

Then the boss teaches him one of the basic lessons:
"FREEDOM OF THE PRESS ONLY PERTAINS TO THE MAN WHO OWNS ONE"

The basic fallacy of your thinking is that you have the right to use someone
else's resources to express yourself, that you have the right to rant while
JP pays the electric bill. You are full of it.