Is hurting someone's feelings good reason to limit freedom of speech? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is hurting someone's feelings good reason to limit freedom of speech?
in General

   What is your opinion on people being silenced or posts erased because their thoughts may offend others? How far should this go if it should be acceptable at all? 
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Hurting someone's feeling is not a reason to limit free speech and "I'm offended" is not a valid argument.. That said, there's a difference between having the right to say something and the right to have our opinion publicly displayed on a platform we do not own, be it a newspaper, website, etc... Each platform owner is free to limit what is displayed through their medium, at their sole discretion.  
    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987OppolzerYUpeeping777
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  •  Good points and agreed but why would any legitimate platform want to limit who's opinions are acceptable and who's opinions are not? The media itself and all other platforms exists because of freedom of speech. Is it not then hypocritical for them to limit the same rights to others? @Plaffelvohfen
    YUpeeping777
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 685 Pts
    edited April 19
    @BrandyKnight

    Free speech is about ideas, about the right to have and express ideas right? 

    Well, the public space is the market where those ideas are traded. Think of platform owner as shopping malls owner in a market context. They offer you a space (that they own remember, not you) to display your ideas, there are many reason a shopping mall owner would refuse certain types of business to operate within their mall right? It would be a bad idea to allow a sex-club next to a kid oriented business for example...

    It's not hypocrisy, it's usually market related though sometimes it's a personal value of the owner of the platform and since he owns it, he's free to establish any rule he wants... As a restaurant owner I'm free to throw out any customer I deem disruptive to my business...   

    If you want your idea to be seen in the market and no platform owner will allow your product to be offered there's only one alternative, build or buy your own platform...

    If an idea is good enough, there will be a demand for it, if not well maybe one should realize there's something wrong about the idea to begin with...
    YUpeeping777
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @BrandyKnight Yes , google fighting words doctrine .
    YUpeeping777
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @BrandyKnight Yes , google fighting words doctrine .

    Fighting words are words addressed to another individual face-to-face.  They don't apply to online posts.
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited April 21
    @BrandyKnight ;

    The internet, is its own type of an educational platform.

    Various activists, advocates, the anti religious, the religious, the pro illegal drug crowd, the, (this or that matters crowds,) the crowds that questions the actions of law enforcement, but will be purposefully silent, when various crimes get committed by various career criminals, and offenders?

    And protest some of law enforcement, but not the criminals, or the offenders?

    Double standards, opinion oriented news, in the place of basic journalism?

    Welcome to the artificial internet underground, classroom, 21st century style.
    Zombieguy1987
  • If the remark would be found pointlessly offensive by a reasonable person it should be restricted speech, all non constructive speech should be supprossed
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    If the remark would be found pointlessly offensive by a reasonable person it should be restricted speech, all non constructive speech should be supprossed

    That isn't the definition of "fighting words"

    Texas v. Johnson (1989)

    In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`

    R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)

    In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @BrandyKnight

    Free speech is about ideas, about the right to have and express ideas right? 

    Well, the public space is the market where those ideas are traded. Think of platform owner as shopping malls owner in a market context. They offer you a space (that they own remember, not you) to display your ideas, there are many reason a shopping mall owner would refuse certain types of business to operate within their mall right? It would be a bad idea to allow a sex-club next to a kid oriented business for example...

    It's not hypocrisy, it's usually market related though sometimes it's a personal value of the owner of the platform and since he owns it, he's free to establish any rule he wants... As a restaurant owner I'm free to throw out any customer I deem disruptive to my business...   

    If you want your idea to be seen in the market and no platform owner will allow your product to be offered there's only one alternative, build or buy your own platform...

    If an idea is good enough, there will be a demand for it, if not well maybe one should realize there's something wrong about the idea to begin with...

    So it would be ok for phone companies to get together and have their customers and potential customers fill out a form about their political and/or religious affiliations, scan phone conversations for key words, and deny service to people who they decide are talking too much to, in their opinion, the wrong people or are saying the wrong things?
  • @CYDdharta
    So it would be ok for phone companies to get together and have their customers and potential customers fill out a form about their political and/or religious affiliations, scan phone conversations for key words, and deny service to people who they decide are talking too much to, in their opinion, the wrong people or are saying the wrong things?
    Of course not, why would you think that? You missed the publicly displayed part... Those phone companies would be infringing not on free speech rights but privacy rights...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts

    Of course not, why would you think that? You missed the publicly displayed part... Those phone companies would be infringing not on free speech rights but privacy rights...  

    OK, just clearing things up.  So Amazon's deplatforming organizations which don't conform to Bezos' leftest ideology needs to be stopped.
  • @CYDdharta
    OK, just clearing things up.  So Amazon's deplatforming organizations which don't conform to Bezos' leftest ideology needs to be stopped.
    You'll have to bring me up on this... Is this not a privacy issue with facial recognition software sold to government agencies or other corporations?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • No, just because an individual might get upset by what someone else says are not good enough grounds to support the limitation of free speech. 
    YUpeeping777

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts

    You'll have to bring me up on this... Is this not a privacy issue with facial recognition software sold to government agencies or other corporations?

    No.  GoDaddy dropped Gab, Google and Apple blacklisted Infowars, GoFundMe dropped Yiannopoulos, etc.,etc.
  • @CYDdharta

    Ok, sorry... Well, as long as corporations are persons they have the same property rights as individuals... The problem really is the size of certain players in the market (Amazon, PayPal, etc), but even if those are split by government intervention, they still would have the same property rights as the former entities and would have the right to establish their own Terms of use and make them as restrictive as they want and so it doesn't solve the original problem...

    A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to be on Facebook because it made it easier to sell your grandparents vitamin supplements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place families (and their grandparents) won't visit. Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.

    And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes anyone an audience at the most popular ones.

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • The First change made in America as a nation upon common defense to the general welfare is set on a impartial scale of words, speech, and religions in a united state set with no cost or self-value Versus organized form of grievance, meaning filed as a way to set the principle of order. The filing method is left open for public understanding but has never been placed in writing of any kind to be independent from unite states of constitution. Although this claim of civil independence is on record as being made by some political regions of the United States.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Ok, sorry... Well, as long as corporations are persons they have the same property rights as individuals... The problem really is the size of certain players in the market (Amazon, PayPal, etc), but even if those are split by government intervention, they still would have the same property rights as the former entities and would have the right to establish their own Terms of use and make them as restrictive as they want and so it doesn't solve the original problem...

    A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to be on Facebook because it made it easier to sell your grandparents vitamin supplements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place families (and their grandparents) won't visit. Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.

    And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes anyone an audience at the most popular ones.


    Telephone companies are corporations as well, so which is it?  Are domain registrars and tech companies and crowdfunding platforms going too far with their terms of service, or are you changing your mind about how far telephone companies can go?

  • CYDdharta said:
    Telephone companies are corporations as well, so which is it?  Are domain registrars and tech companies and crowdfunding platforms going too far with their terms of service, or are you changing your mind about how far telephone companies can go?

    What do phone companies have to do with public display of opinion??? Phone conversations are implied to be private, not public...   
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • An argument is pointless without truthful facts and everything about truth it’s in the hands of of the winners and everything else is just arguing between one another we debate without truth , but to win an all of our history is in the hands of the winners! That’s not the truth, just facts written by others. So to bitter I give love. To a liar you give truth!
  • Why argue with someone who knows what they have been told everything is debatable even truth! 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    Telephone companies are corporations as well, so which is it?  Are domain registrars and tech companies and crowdfunding platforms going too far with their terms of service, or are you changing your mind about how far telephone companies can go?

    What do phone companies have to do with public display of opinion??? Phone conversations are implied to be private, not public...   
    What does issuing domain names have to do with public display of opinion???  What does crowdfunding have to do with public display of opinion??? What does a tech company have to do with public display of opinion???

  • CYDdharta said:
    What does issuing domain names have to do with public display of opinion???  What does crowdfunding have to do with public display of opinion??? What does a tech company have to do with public display of opinion???

    @CYDdharta

    Yes, that's what I'm asking... What is the common problem with these, if any? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • In this case we as a nation would never allow monopolies and it is global now and everything is recorded now the freedom of privacy is a illusion that is why we broke up  one Monopolies we have this thing called the constitution and we are giving the right of privacy and now that is a form of control communication is progress and controlled by the gate keepers and if Roosevelt was here know every monopolization would be split just like att was. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely!
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    edited April 22


    Yes, that's what I'm asking... What is the common problem with these, if any? 
    The common problem is that NONE of these companies have to do with public display of opinion.  I thought I made that pretty clear.  Why, in your opinion, is it ok for 3 of the 4 companies to suppress speech through restrictive terms of service, but not the fourth?
  • CYDdharta said:
    Yes, that's what I'm asking... What is the common problem with these, if any? 
    The common problem is that NONE of these companies have to do with public display of opinion???  I thought I made that pretty clear.  Why, in your opinion, is it ok for 3 of the 4 companies to suppress speech through restrictive terms of service, but not the fourth?
    Sorry but "issuing domain names" & "crowdfunding" are not companies but activities... And "tech company" is rather vague... Still don't see free speech issues here...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts

    Sorry but "issuing domain names" & "crowdfunding" are not companies but activities... And "tech company" is rather vague... Still don't see free speech issues here...

    Issuing domain names is done by a web hosting company.  Crowdfunding is done be a crowdfunding company.  Connecting a telephone call from one phone to another phone is done by a telephone company.  Now that we have the remedial terminology out of the way, why do you think companies that issue domain names or provide crowdfunding services should be allowed to deny their services to customers based on ideological beliefs, but a company that connects one phone to another phone does not have such liberty?

  • Let’s put it this way:
    My friend takes my sh*t and breaks it. I “hurt his feelings” because I called him an *insert random term*. If we limite free speech based upon that, I would be Punished.

    yes I know this is very simplistic
    YUpeeping777
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @CYDdharta

    I still don't see how phone companies relate to this debate at all... Seems you're mixing multiple issues together, privacy issues, free speech issues, property issues... 

    Let's tackle them one at a time, let's start with crowdfunding service provider, if you don't like one, try another, what's the problem?? They should not have terms of use or what?? Give me a concrete example of where or how, you think a crowdfunding service provider could infringe on free speech. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    I still don't see how phone companies relate to this debate at all... Seems you're mixing multiple issues together, privacy issues, free speech issues, property issues... 

    Let's tackle them one at a time, let's start with crowdfunding service provider, if you don't like one, try another, what's the problem?? They should not have terms of use or what?? Give me a concrete example of where or how, you think a crowdfunding service provider could infringe on free speech. 

    The same could be said of phone companies that decide to turn you down because of your political beliefs.  If Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, MetroPCS, and Virgin all get together an ban all people of a particular political persuasion, what's the big deal?  There's still Cricket and Straight Talk, right?
  • CYDdharta said:
    The same could be said of phone companies that decide to turn you down because of your political beliefs.  If Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, MetroPCS, and Virgin all get together an ban all people of a particular political persuasion, what's the big deal?  There's still Cricket and Straight Talk, right?
    Are there evidence that they do that? That's a big "if"...

    And anyway I was asking an example of where or how "crowdfunding companies" are/could be infringing on free speech right... 
    YUpeeping777
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts

    Are there evidence that they do that? That's a big "if"...

    And anyway I was asking an example of where or how "crowdfunding companies" are/could be infringing on free speech right... 
    Dude, just stop being an idiot already.  I've already post examples.  Do you believe crowdfunding companies can deny clientele based on their political beliefs where phone companies cannot?
    YUpeeping777
  • CYDdharta said:

    Dude, just stop being an idiot already.  I've already post examples.  Do you believe crowdfunding companies can deny clientele based on their political beliefs where phone companies cannot?
    The examples you posted relate to breaches of Terms of use, not about denying service because of religious or political beliefs... I'm looking for examples of denial to even register as a user based on religious or political beliefs, prior to any use of said service, can you give any? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    edited April 22

    The examples you posted relate to breaches of Terms of use, not about denying service because of religious or political beliefs... I'm looking for examples of denial to even register as a user based on religious or political beliefs, prior to any use of said service, can you give any? 
    The "breaches" of Terms of use because of political beliefs

    Just answer the question, do you believe crowdfunding companies can deny clientele based on their political beliefs where phone companies cannot?

  • @CYDdharta

    First, terms of use are not free speech issues but property right issues... 

    Second, I don't think your question makes any sense... Are you really saying that you believe crowdfunding service providers can refuse anyone the use of their service based on religious or political beliefs?  That crowdfunding service providers specifically ask and make it mandatory to provide religious or political affiliation at registration?? Now that could be problematic, especially the mandatory part, but I've yet to see a single case of this happening... If they don't ask specifically for this information at registration, then there's nothing to talk about, abide by the rules you agreed when you registered or be banned and try to register elsewhere where the rules are more permissive, simple really... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    First, terms of use are not free speech issues but property right issues... 

    Second, I don't think your question makes any sense... Are you really saying that you believe crowdfunding service providers can refuse anyone the use of their service based on religious or political beliefs?  That crowdfunding service providers specifically ask and make it mandatory to provide religious or political affiliation at registration?? Now that could be problematic, especially the mandatory part, but I've yet to see a single case of this happening... If they don't ask specifically for this information at registration, then there's nothing to talk about, abide by the rules you agreed when you registered or be banned and try to register elsewhere where the rules are more permissive, simple really... 
    Um, yeah, Yiannopoulos was booted off Patreon for supporting "hate groups", most definitely a political consideration.


    You continue to avoid answer the question I'm asking, so I'll boil it down to a simple YES or No question.  Can a phone company demand the same terms and conditions and deny people service that a web hosting company can demand?  Once again, this is a YES or No question.

    YUpeeping777
  • @CYDdharta

    See, you said "Yannapopoulos was booted off", not "was prevented from"... He was banned AFTER he broke the terms of use, he was not prevented from using the service in the first place... In other words, he threw himself out by his actions... 

    And still your question doesn't quite make sense... Here's how I'd answer your question... Neither phones companies or any other type of company can ask, in a mandatory way, your political or religious affiliation in order to allow registration as a user of the service they publicly offer... If any actually does that, which I highly doubt is happening, then you'd probably have a case to make in court... 
    YUpeeping777
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • OppolzerOppolzer 160 Pts
    You either have free speech or limited speech; there is no middle ground. If you dictate limits on what can be said by one's volition, that is no longer free speech - that's limited speech.

    "Hate speech" is a figment of the imagination. There's no such thing. Someone may hypothetically say something in which you condemn with or actively detest, although that doesn't fabricate as "hate speech." It's merely something you disapprove. Whether you or anyone else for that matter conceives something said to be derogatory, that does not determine whether or not specific things can be legally spoken of under the freedom of speech.

    Expressing an opinion - even if it's an opinion that derives from animosity - does not incite or encourage anyone to do anything. If someone asserts something and it does incite someone to act, that action will be subjected to existing laws that don't even associate with free speech.

    In my opinion, any assertion directed toward a particular individual or group associated with the intention to conjure pain or mental anguish - is repugnant. Although, if I were to say "You can't say that.", that would be an infringement of their freedom of speech.

    When your freedom of speech becomes more than merely an opinion and becomes an instrument to oppress and limit the rights of others, I believe that's going over the line - and that's too bad for me. It does not, and never entails, that someone can't say it.
    YUpeeping777MayCaesarZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    See, you said "Yannapopoulos was booted off", not "was prevented from"... He was banned AFTER he broke the terms of use, he was not prevented from using the service in the first place... In other words, he threw himself out by his actions... 

    And still your question doesn't quite make sense... Here's how I'd answer your question... Neither phones companies or any other type of company can ask, in a mandatory way, your political or religious affiliation in order to allow registration as a user of the service they publicly offer... If any actually does that, which I highly doubt is happening, then you'd probably have a case to make in court... 

    You failed to answer the question yet again.  Once again, You continue to avoid answer the question I'm asking, so I'll boil it down to a simple YES or No question.  Can a phone company demand the same terms and conditions and deny people service that a web hosting company can demand?  Once again, this is a YES or No question.

  • @CYDdharta

    Ok, I'll slightly modify your question like this: Can a phone company demand the same terms and conditions that a web hosting company can demand? I'd answer yes.

    What no company can do, is make it mandatory to give your political or religious affiliation in order to register as a user or to use a service... Either phone companies or web hosting ones, can ban any user if the user does not follow the terms and conditions of use after registration... 

    Phone company would have no ground to ban a user from talking on the phone, because those conversations are private. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Phone company would have no ground to ban a user from talking on the phone, because those conversations are private. 
    That is increasingly untrue, a person has no legal rights to privacy if they are in public and openly speaking on the phone.
    YUpeeping777
  • @CYDdharta

    There, you finally acknowledge it, it's a privacy issue, not a free speech issue...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    There, you finally acknowledge it, it's a privacy issue, not a free speech issue...
    There's a distinction without a difference.  Do people not deserve the same privacy considerations based on their beliefs?
    YUpeeping777
  • CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta

    There, you finally acknowledge it, it's a privacy issue, not a free speech issue...
    There's a distinction without a difference.  Do people not deserve the same privacy considerations based on their beliefs?
    There's a world of difference... When I talk to someone on the phone, it's between me and another person, this is private matters... When I post an opinion on a website, I voluntarily chose to renounce this right to privacy, I'm the one making it public, my own actions make it public, I want it to be public... Big difference... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • When you take a public platform at least in the United States Constitution allows free speech and if you speak with passion and not hate speech We’re all allowed to have an opinion it’s how you express that opinion When you do it to incite a riot or cause physical harm that’s when you broken the law in the United States of America according to the constitution but that piece of paper now is like window dressing and the right speech is monitored On social platforms by algorithms  so their program that way there’s nothing wrong with having a conversation about a topic it’s being able to speak intelligently decisively and respectively when you’re doing so all it Shouldn’t be a problem but unfortunately some people just didn’t get the right home training values morals and respect that you should have for every human being you have the right to speech not the right to Incite a riot with your hate speech or because something doesn’t seem politically correct we’re all humans and we are divided by Ideology and that’s instilled at home. Most of the platforms in social media when you read the rules there’s to be no hate speech I was taught as a child if you don’t have something nice to say just don’t say anything at all platforms  seem to lean to the left and that is why I came here For this is why I went to war for this country For liberty and justice and the American way and that’s  instilled in a living breathing document the constitution it’s like saying America you don’t have the right to bear arms another reason there’s so much anger from both sides of the aisle in the states unfortunately controversy Is what sells and that’s what the media does selves you something that is manufactured as Chomsky stated in his book forgive them for they know not what they do. 


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1165 Pts

    There's a world of difference... When I talk to someone on the phone, it's between me and another person, this is private matters... When I post an opinion on a website, I voluntarily chose to renounce this right to privacy, I'm the one making it public, my own actions make it public, I want it to be public... Big difference... 

    No,we've just established that most phone conversations these days are NOT private.  The subject may be about private matters, but the conversations are usually NOT private conversations.  No one except you is talking about posting on a website.  It's no more the web hosting company's business what web pages are being posted than it is the phone company's business what phone conversations are taking place.
  • @CYDdharta

    There, you finally acknowledge it, it's a privacy issue, not a free speech issue...

     Also another freedom we have due to the constitution privacy the right to free speech right to bear arms but at this point everything has been or trying to be taken away speak truth and Passionate Just have a little couth when you speak in public you’ll aloud to have an opinion we all have them and some of them just stink! But when you spew hate instead of factual basis it’s very inciting and then violence Escalates due to the fact your opinion is not excepted. 
  • I guess when the bell rings you salivate Like Pavlovian ring the bell and the dog will salivate. True Instrumental learning
  • CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta

    See, you said "Yannapopoulos was booted off", not "was prevented from"... He was banned AFTER he broke the terms of use, he was not prevented from using the service in the first place... In other words, he threw himself out by his actions... 

    And still your question doesn't quite make sense... Here's how I'd answer your question... Neither phones companies or any other type of company can ask, in a mandatory way, your political or religious affiliation in order to allow registration as a user of the service they publicly offer... If any actually does that, which I highly doubt is happening, then you'd probably have a case to make in court... 

    You failed to answer the question yet again.  Once again, You continue to avoid answer the question I'm asking, so I'll boil it down to a simple YES or No question.  Can a phone company demand the same terms and conditions and deny people service that a web hosting company can demand?  Once again, this is a YES or No question.


  • Truthfully we supposed to have that right but do the patriot act nothing is ever a private anymore it’s all an illusion and words are flagged for national security they say  it’s still an invasion of our privacy if they want to listen to everyone else’s conversations they do but now they don’t listen to your content it’s all about the meta-data who you talk to and who you’re affiliated so yes you should be able to speak on your phone and say what you like because you pay for that service but read the fine print big brother is listening. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdharta said:

    No,we've just established that most phone conversations these days are NOT private.  The subject may be about private matters, but the conversations are usually NOT private conversations.  No one except you is talking about posting on a website.  It's no more the web hosting company's business what web pages are being posted than it is the phone company's business what phone conversations are taking place.
    Sorry, you've asserted this not WE, I don't agree with you at all that phone conversations are not private... Sure they can be accessed with a legal warrant but no one can access my phone conversations without one...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch