5217
Comments (738)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
Jaqen 0 points ago +3 / -3

This site could use a rewrite of its Rules, to address what you mention. The existing rules are good, and concise, but could be expanded to provide clear, helpful examples.

And then of course those rules need to be enforced, alongside public explanation of the enforcement. This is how the community can train itself to be more effective with how we communicate.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
0
Jaqen 0 points ago +1 / -1

You are conflating censorship with site rules.

This site already has rules, you can read them in the sidebar.

Since those rules do not grant you free speech, any resulting enforcement of said rules is simply known as enforcement, not censorship.

Do you understand the difference, or are you just being argumentative?

I don't mind arguing it further if you truly do not see the difference. 'm just trying to help you understand the reality of this situation.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-1
Jaqen -1 points ago +1 / -2

From the site rules:

Follow the Law:
No posts or comments that violate laws in your jurisdiction or the United States.

Laws are coercive. They exist above and beyond the site rules. The site rules stipulate you follow the laws.

Both Laws and Rules are ultimately suggestions. It is up to the individual to decide to comply or not, and if they are willing to face the consequences.

In any case, since it still does not appear to be clear for you: your first amendment rights do not apply to this website. The first amendment is a contract between you and the US government. This site has its own, different contract.