Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah
I sorta agree but, I think it's a little deeper, if the website is hosted out of the U.S. and they hold the website out as place where you can express yourself and your thoughts, censoring them is imo un-constitutional. Put a ****in buyer beware on the site. By just doing that you aren't infringing on the rights of others, while keeping your feelings and opinions sacred to you.
|
OK rewinding a bit in this thread to this. Ok. So you are saying that websites hosted outside the US should hold to US standards? Why should they? They are not in the US. Websites such as Facebook and Google have huge server farms in both the US and Sweden (Sweden mainly because of the cold up in the north..although we also have a great infrastructure...5G will be up and running in Stockholm in 2018, two years before it hits most places...but that is a whole nother subject..much like the God thread in this debate
). So does this mean that US law applies only on the Facebook servers in the US and if you all in the US happen to be using a server in Sweden a warning pops us? (although to be fair, Sweden was the first country in the world to abolish censorship. ).
In other words, why should international servers be held to US laws in regards to the Internet? I cringe when I see things such as American constitutional amendments be taken up in regards to the Internet as it is international...it does make me think of "Amerika" by Rammstein. Better to take up Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this case:
"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."
But there is also a clause that states that "the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"."
So what does this mean? Well going back to what I stated. I can post what I want but I can also be censored for it. A great example is this:
BREAKING: Daily Mail CENSORS story about Swedish woman stabbed by refugee - The Rebel
The article in question cast doubts upon the legal age of the attacker and infringes upon his rights in Sweden. It also can affect those in Sweden reading it to start questioning the governments policy on refugees at the moment to the point that they will be swayed to the far right or increase thoughts of discrimination against refugees. But I cannot read it as it is censored for me here (here is that clause of Amendment 19 in action).
In other words, there is no standard for what can be taken down from the net. Each to his own you could say.