I think there is also a fine line between expressing an opinion in a public/private forum, or uttering a threat in public. Try loudly joking about having a bomb in your pants at an airport or a national landmark, and see what happens...

Also, just because some Black Panther or White Power guy got away with it before without being prosecuted does not make it okay to do the same. That is not a defense, legal or moral.

Which is what the whole freedom of speech thing is about anyway: you can say whatever you want, but there may be consequences (which, I might add, yubba acknowledged too.) So unless Subsim adopts a policy of the mods reading and censoring posts before they are posted on the forums, there isn't really anything to complain about anyway.

Thank you for your response.

In other words, you have the right to express yourself freely, as long as such opinion does not insult a person's personal integrity

So, personal integrity, is higher than your first amendment.

Even though you may write what you would in this forum, it will not make me use invectives words against my friends here, even if we were to disagree on some topics.

Markus

Markus - you misunderstand.

The first amendment guarantees the right of free speech. Yet it does not mean that you can say anything anywhere. It means you are protected from GOVERMENT oppression trying to "shut you up". The Constitution - and its amenments - apply to the rights the people have that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe upon. They do not apply to how individuals interact between each other.

Let me provide another example. The Constitution protects against "unreasonable search and seizure" - so the cops are not supposed to be able to come snatch you "just because". They have to have legal reason to do so. Now - that protects you from the GOVERNMENT seizing you and tossing you out of a public area, for example. However, if your on private property - the OWNER of the property has every right to toss you off his land if he wants - he doesn't have to have a reason at all. See the difference?

Because subsim.com is not a governmental entity, the 1st does not guarantee anyone the right to be here and communicate without interference. It says the GOVERNMENT cannot interfere - it can't come in and shut subsim.com down for example simply because they didn't like what was found here (they could - but then Neal could sue the bejesus out of em for it ). However, Neal - as the owner of the site - can set rules that are MORE restrictive than anything the government could legally place - because it is his "property".

I hope this makes the difference clear for you.

It's interesting (and, admittedly, pretty cool) how much US constitutional rights lean towards those of private property, more by circumstance than anything. Normally, there is a lot of hoops that the government needs to jump through to be able to show up at your door and exert its will. Arguably this is a very good thing.

The tricky thing, of course, is when you behave a certain way in a) public space or b) someone else's property. People on the internet need to remember that they're not in their own back yard, but that they're in a whole jumble of both public and private space. That can be difficult to grasp when you're sitting at your computer desk in your own home, but you've gotta have some respect both for public safety and for the wishes of those whose space you're using to speak.

I think Subsim is run in a very casual sort of manner where you get treated like a neighbour with common sense, but that don't mean there's no rules and wishes of the owner to respect!

:yep:

Very well said. A lot of people, even Americans, don't realize that the Constitution itself is a guidebook for running the government; what it can and can't do.

The Bill of Rights, and the Amendments that follow it, are for the express purpose of defining what the government may not do. If it applied to everyone we wouldn't see signs saying things like "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service!", or "Private Property...Keep Out!"

@ CaptainHaplo, thank you, your explanation helped me alot.

I see that our differences in free speeches is not that far.

Yes even the danish have the right to express him self-However there are some laws that he must obey

and that's
§ 266b(the most hated law in Denmark) and the royal law that forbids you to offend the Queen or some of her family. and some other laws, that in a way reduce the possibility to total free speech

Once again thank you, for clearing things out for me.

Markus

With certain restrictions - private property being used to serve the public, like a restaurant, store or theater, must abide by the Civil Rights Act. If you're a restaurant, you can't throw out someone just because they're black. If you're a hotel, you can't say you won't rent rooms to Jews. If you're a grocery store, you can't say Mexicans can't shop there.

Even the KKK or American Nazi Party can hold legal public rallies, as long as they have the legal permits from the local authorities.

Very true and a good point!

An interesting bit of morning reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19372177

It always makes me wonder with these 'overthrow Obama' and 'civil war' enthusiasts in the US, what do they intend on replacing Obama with? No-one would be able to agree on a single candidate and Congress would spend the rest of its short existence fighting itself over it. So perhaps you send in the military? Well, that's good...but do you really think they'd be willing to hand the power back over at the end of it?
Sometimes, you don't realise just how lucky you are to have something until you don't have it, in this case it is a stable 'democratic' system, and I hope for your sakes that you continue to have it because however terrible some Americans may think it to be, it is far better than the alternatives.

I think, we can beat him in the election, it looks pretty promiseing, same with the senate races, if it comes down to violent revolution it will come from the left, as history has shown us, communism and socialism has been forced on to a people by gun point. I stumbled across an interesting little group called, The Oath Keepers you can google them, I don't want to be accused of spamming and too think, I thought I was all alone, nice to know others take an oath seriously.:salute: I know I have been called a right wing nut job so, how constitutionally impared are you to call me that.???????:doh::doh::doh:

Yeah, patriot militia groups are always a great idea with a great track record of not acting absolutely friggin' insane in this country. They're something to be proud of, buddy.

Not always the communists and socialists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H..._rise_to_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Mussert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_m...7%E2%80%931974

Like it or not, both the Left and Right wings are quite capable of holding revolutions of their own.

So, I ask you again, if Obama wins the November elections, what are you going to do then? Join a Patriot movement? Seek to overthrow the government?

Well there you go, ruining a perfectly valid attempt at using "history" as a cheap two copper coin prostitute for hot air rhetorics. You evil, evil bad person man! I hope you feel better now! :stare:

Let me try getting this back on the track: physics has shown us that the sandwich always falls with its buttered side hitting the floor. Have you ever stopped to consider why? It's a conspiracy, I'm telling you! Physics has shown us so!