Fake it till you make it – a take on fake users
- Thread starter Hotfix
- Start date
frm
Well-known member
That'd be moot if they were EU citizens working abroad. They can still affirm their rights, if I'm not misunderstanding, while working at a tech firm in Silicon Valley.
All just hypothetical. But, it seems that even blocking EU countries couldn't prevent anything.
I wonder if a personal custom field checkbox that states something like "I solemnly swear that I am not a citizen of any EU nation" would provide the best protection, or if they can even opt-out of their rights.
ForumFan
Well-known member
We're from different cultures. So, we're going to disagree on that. I have a HUGE problem with any infringement of Freedom of Speech.... even so-called "hate speech." There's no such thing, IMO. In any case, ALL speech is protected here. But I don't want to derail this into a political debate. I grew up overseas and have traveled extensively. I do understand other cultures have their own social proclivities and mores. And of course, "when in Rome..." I'll absolutely assimilate. It's part of the fun! Really! But I'm not "in Rome" anymore. I'm here in the "Land of the Free."
I simply disagree and WILL NOT comply with other countries' laws. I just won't. My choice. So, it's just best if I "head'em off at the pass" and avoid any legal liabilities possibly incurred by agreeing to participate within other countries' laws and moving goal posts. I'll do well enough to operate in just my own country.
And I'll just have to live with the self-imposed restrictions that include not catering to an international audience / membership. C'est la vie! 
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
It's hardly cultural or even political, although I did think free speech was originally a concept to stop legislation against different religions or dissent in general. And it has exceptions in most countries such as copyright, defamation, trade secrets, incitement to riot (which is what mostly covers hate speech). In regard to forums I am pleased I have the freedom to just choose not to go there if, for example, they allow pornography or racial slurs.
ForumFan
Well-known member
It's definitely both political and cultural. Big time. And this conversation is ample evidence of that. Free Speech isn't a "concept" here. It's codified in our Constitution specifically to prohibit any infringement by the government.
Exceptions are different than protections. We have no exceptions to Free Speech here. None. Exceptions means that you cannot say / write / express something specifically statutorily. There are no laws here against saying anything. That's called "Prior Restraint," and it's been ruled unconstitutional. The gov't cannot preemptively prohibit ANY speech. Not even so-called "hate speech." We are unique in the world in that regard. So, yeah... cultural and political.
HOWEVER, one cannot claim Free Speech protections (here) if they cause tangible damages to someone. This would include libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc. If such damages are caused, that person is liable for the DAMAGES, not the words he or she said. There are no laws against certain words or phrases. Hurt feelings don't count as "damages."
As a matter of MY rules on MY forum, direct personal insults to include racial slurs are not allowed. Also, no porn. It's entirely MY discretion.... as a private entity. I am opposed to any government imposing such laws. Laws are often very poorly written / defined. Furthermore, they are up to interpretation, which is often a "moving goal post." Since there can be penalties imposed with such laws, I simply choose not to participate where there are laws governing speech. The only law governing speech here is the one prohibiting the government restricting or infringing Free Speech.
frm
Well-known member
As a free speech absolutist, I have to interject here.
It's neither. It's more religious than anything as it's intended to be an inalienable right, codified because so.
FTL
Well-known member
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
No disagreement there. But hurt feelings aren't really an issue. I just have a problem when people use the term Free Speech to defend the use of racist words and phrases, especially on a forum website. I've had members complain about moderating such language citing their "free speech" "rights". I happily point out that it does not apply to a forum, and send them to look up the definition.
Last edited:
ForumFan
Well-known member
Your forum, your rules. Period.
Constitutional protections do not apply. You're not the government. At least that's how it works here.And you are absolutely right there. I would do the same.
I don't moderate foul language.... and drop my share of "f-bombs." We're adults. I don't think we're fooling anyone with "****" replacing the word. We know what the word is! LOL!
However, on MY forum, racist words are not allowed. But I'm talking about LONG-established racist words. Not newspeak invented or contrived "racism," which involves a constant moving of the goalposts. There's no need for it. Same with porn. Not because I'm a prude. I'm definitely NOT. Ha! But because it is unnecessarily disruptive and bothersome to most people. I say that my forum is "Rated R," to borrow from the movie industry.
But a "classy rated R!"
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
What is invented or contrived racism? I think we need to adapt to changing times and understand that racists may find new ways to couch their foul rhetoric, while trying to excuse it as someone "not being able to take a joke."
ForumFan
Well-known member
I'm not going to go there, lest this turn into a political debate. I'll just use one example of contrived offense... invented pronouns. Your countries consider it a LEGAL offense to refuse to use newly made up "pronouns." I will not abide compelled speech any more than I'll comply with speech restrictions.
Bottom line... as forum owners we can make up whatever rules we want. I'm on some forums that have what I consider to be very stupid rules. But I abide them or I leave. Their house, their rules. And on my forum.... my house, my rules. Freedom goes BOTH ways.
I draw the line at the gov't telling me the rules for MY house (forum). And that's why I won't abide the GDPR or any other European laws / rules. I simply won't. And the easiest way to deal with that is to restrict registration of members from those countries. No harm, no foul. Happy happy.
I understand you find those laws acceptable and reasonable. I do not. Vive la difference!
I think you'll find there are many things you can't discuss on your forum, as stipulated by your own government.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
This is just weird. Pronouns are not racist. Nor is refusing to use them illegal as far as I know.
Last edited:
ForumFan
Well-known member
You would be incorrect about "things you can't discuss." 100% incorrect about that. Prior Restraint is unconstitutional and illegal in my country. The gov't cannot prohibit ANY speech preemptively.
But you are correct about consequences, as I have stipulated in previous comments. Damages caused by speech (libel, slander, inciting riots or violence, etc.) are not protected by the 1st Amendment. So, that person can be held liable for those damages caused by speech and cannot claim 1st Amendment or Free Speech protections. Again, I'm talking ONLY about the USA.
So, for example... If someone gets on a podium (or a forum) and says, "Burn this city down!" and the crowd riots and burns the city down... the speaker can be held criminally and civilly liable. Liable for the damages.
But if that same someone gets on a podium and says, "Burn this city down!" and the crowd laughs at him and walks away... No damages... no liability... no penalties. He cannot be punished for the words he said. Again... in the USA.
Not just in the USA.
ForumFan
Well-known member
I didn't say they were. I was speaking in generalities about compelled and "offensive" speech. They invent "racism" and "offense" by RE-appropriating words and "newly offensive" designations of political convenience. Or inventing new pronouns. There are now dozens of them. "Zir???" LOL! Nope. Not gonna do it. Using "they / them" for a single person??? Nope! It's poor grammar! They / them is PLURAL.
So-called "misgendering" is reportedly punishable over there. It's "hate speech" because "feelz." I'm going to pass on that nonsense.
Aka "moving the goalposts." I will not play that game. I will not abide compelled speech, nor will I even try to keep up with what is "now offensive" and being used as a social or legal cudgel.
That's my point. I'm not playing that game. Accordingly, I'm not allowing any EU members to register on my site. I will not abide by GDPR. So, if I don't let them join, I'm not doing business there. It's the simplest and easiest way to deal with that legal minefield. I want to keep my life simple. Your mileage may vary.
I completely respect anyone's choice to participate in the game.And with that... I'm out. Have a great day!
Last edited:
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
Not really. It’s accepted use in all English speaking countries and better than “him or her.”
Here is an example:
House owner: “I saw an intruder climb out of the window.”
Policeman: “can you describe them?”
Correct use of them as a pronoun to refer to one person whose sex you do not (yet) know.
frm
Well-known member
Maybe replying with that question posed as a GIF is a good example of invented racism.
Though you don't know my race. Society also lets me now identify as Black if I want. If you don't agree that I'm Black, that just makes you a double-racist.
I kid you not.
Transracial (identity) - Wikipedia
These are just two examples of the goal post moving and what's included in "hate speech" if you don't agree with me. This is why I adamantly hate the phrase "hate speech" used in terms of service as it can literally be applicable to anything that hurts anyone's feelings. Just explicitly state what you do or don't allow on your forum, because "hate speech" can be anything a member feels "physically threatened" by, even so much as replying with a GIF of a Black person.
Or you could start by stating the color of the clothes that they're wearing. It's easier to identify a suspect on foot in a red hoodie, whether they're a they; them; or their, over a male or female. This is again because of how stupid things have gotten with a 3rd example of moving the goalpost, you're not going to get the accurate pronouns that they identify as while they run off.
They could be male but still identify as female, and your description of "he" could be seen as transphobia after the fact because you mispronouned them. Then, the script is flipped where they're the victim of a hate crime because you used the wrong pronouns in the police report/courtroom, if it even goes that far as the DA could drop the charges just because they don't want to handle the backlash of prosecuting someone in a scenario like that.
Suzanne O
Well-known member
just on these laws affecting uk.
Is it possible that when people register and they say they are from the UK that they have to tick a box to say that they have to go by their laws so that we forum owners can also comply with the laws of the uk?
Or am i talking out of my backside again?
Is it possible that when people register and they say they are from the UK that they have to tick a box to say that they have to go by their laws so that we forum owners can also comply with the laws of the uk?
Or am i talking out of my backside again?
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
I think you may have missed my point, this wasn’t about how to describe someone. It is about how top refer to someone. I was merely pointing out in any circumstance the pronoun they/them has been correctly used to refer to a singular person whose sex you do not know.
If people want to make up their own definitions of Hate Speech that's up to them, but for the purpose of this discussion, it was mentioned as a legal term and as such it has nothing to to with someone being offended by pronoun or a meme of a black person. Nobody would be prosecuted for those as the term (in legal definition) generally refers to inciting violence due to actual hatred. That is of course open to interpretation but that interpretation must follow legal prosecutorial guidelines.
NB: in the UK this dates back to 1986
In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:
(and amended in 2006 to include religious beliefs)
Note that for those worried about their freedom of speech or expression rights:
