@ClayAndSilence said in #8:
>That's not a sufficient defence, as confirmed by two lawyers who post on here.
If that is not sufficient defense, then there is no free speech and we are all doomed.
@Alientcp said in #11:
> If that is not sufficient defense, then there is no free speech and we are all doomed.
I think you're a rapist. I also believe that you are a serial killer.
Just making use of my free speech, not accusing you or anything though.
@StefanBatory1576 said in #9:
> I suggest listening to a real lawyer:
>
>
>
> Opinions, as opposed to statements of fact, can never be defamatory. Lawsuit is a joke, nothing's gonna come out of it.
I'm sure, he's more real, than the antique phone in the bottom-left, facing the camera.
Funny as hell, what people think their streaming-background should look like. xD
@polylogarithmique said in #12:
Thats exactly how it works. You are learning.
@Alientcp said in #11:
> If that is not sufficient defense, then there is no free speech and we are all doomed.
free speech in america used to be in reference to the american constitution. i.e. in america, the government isn't going to stop you from saying what you want by arresting you, or whatnot. it never meant you could say whatever you wanted without consequences. free speech always had consequences.
free speech also has limits. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded cinema for a joke, a company director can't say things to try to artificially manipulate the stock price. you can't joke about having a bomb in your bag at an airport. those examples could be crimes. i'm only an internet bird lawyer, though. Don't believe me.
these days kids use the term free speech to mean anything they want. get banned from a facebook? they complain about free speech. it never used to mean things like that.
@h2b2 said in #15:
@h2b2 said in #15:
> free speech in america used to be in reference to the american constitution.
Free speech is roughly the same in any western country.
> free speech also has limits. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded cinema for a joke, a company director can't say things to try to artificially manipulate the stock price. you can't joke about having a bomb in your bag at an airport. those examples could be crimes. i'm only an internet bird lawyer, though. Don't believe me.
That is called "Call to action or reaction" IE asking someone to do harm to someone else, or cause a panic reaction where some one might get hurt or cause damage.
Thats the only limitation free speech has.
> these days kids use the term free speech to mean anything they want. get banned from a facebook? they complain about free speech. it never used to mean things like that.
Oh they can say whatever they want. As long its not an direct defamation nor the mentioned above, its not a crime, it is protected speech. However, Facebook and other social media are not ruled by the government, as they are privately owned, and they hold the right to enforce their own guidelines, which may hold you accountable with a ban Opinions, as controversial or offensive as they may be still fall in the free speech category.
If you check Magnus declarations, he never accused anyone, he merely expressed his opinion. Mass media was the one saying that Magnus made an accusation, but he never made any claim.
If you want free speech go to the Shroomery.
This is Lichess. So if you say to an opponent "You're so stupid!" "You're a moron," "You're an idiot!" You will be generally looked down upon, and pretty quickly be chat-banned to boot. Further, if you cheat perhaps even once you will get red-flagged and you can never hold down a rating again. Whoa?! Never. Essentially. So-- this seems harsh but is that a bad thing? It could be and it could be bad.
And yes if someone cheats -- okay; so if they do it once, I would forgive them. I wouldn't say a permanent ban on them
But let's say they do this 7-10 times? Let's say they, get help from a stronger player. (Well, both are cheating in this case!)
.
And I do absolutely agree and believe that the ratings of such people are invalid -- completely and entirely.
Cedur216 disagrees.
He thinks someone who cheats 7-10 times on here, should *Not* be Red-flagged, and so forth, and their rating *is* legitimate. Or maybe he doesn't think those who verbally insult others should be chat-banned.
One can only wonder what he thinks about Sam Sevian threatening a better Grandmaster with violence?
@Alientcp said in #14:
> Thats exactly how it works. You are learning.
Well of course, when a random person sahs that on a random internet forum to prove a random point it hasn't much consequence on tour life, so you won't care about it.
Now how would you feel if an influent member of ypur community started saying that? And maybe everyone would start looking at you funny and local stlres would refuse to sell you stuff?
@Alientcp said in #16:
> That is called "Call to action or reaction" IE asking someone to do harm to someone else, or cause a panic reaction where some one might get hurt or cause damage.
>
> Thats the only limitation free speech has.
I was responding to
> If that is not sufficient defense, then there is no free speech and we are all doomed.
which seems to imply free speech has something to do with what magnus said in the hans civil suit.
> Oh they can say whatever they want. As long its not an direct defamation nor the mentioned above, its not a crime, it is protected speech.
and you missed my point. I was saying people today use the term free speech to mean more that what it used to mean.
for example, mentioning free speech in a civil defamation/libel case, like below
> If that is not sufficient defense, then there is no free speech and we are all doomed.
> If you check Magnus declarations, he never accused anyone, he merely expressed his opinion. Mass media was the one saying that Magnus made an accusation, but he never made any claim.
I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just waiting for things to progress.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.