Freedom of Speech and Posting on Forums

[Thorin]

Firsting, spamming, trolling, socking, and promoting other guilds (as laid out in our Forum Rules) are not against the law; racist and sexist posts are.  The fundamental freedoms as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 2, limited by section 1, state that I have the fundamental freedom of expression except when such expression is against the law, and then only if such a law "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

So does that mean that I should be able to exercise my fundamental freedom of expression and be able to engage in these activities on our forums?  Would removing my access to the forums because I engaged in such activities actually breach my fundamental freedom of expression?

One must look at case law to determine what the courts actually rule on this fundamental freedom.  Typically, any privately-owned establishment is allowed to refuse entry to anyone they do not wish to allow in.  In this case, I would argue that the forums are privately-owned and privately-run, thereby allowing the owners to set rules that do not coincide with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Effectively, this means that while a person is always allowed to express themselves in public (unless doing so contravenes a justifiable law), it is up to the operator of a set of forums to determine who can say what, and to arbitrarily remove people's access.

Which explains why Shayne left - he wanted to be able to decide what the rules were.

Nevertheless, we are not able to exercise our freedom of expression on these privately-owned and -run forums.  The best we can hope for is that the owner will continue allowing us the privilege of accessing and posting on them.

I have always wondered just how much or how little our fundamental freedoms are actually supported in our everyday life...

I know that some of you have probably hashed this over on slashdot before, but still...  Thoughts?

[Thorin]

I've been trying to find examples that could argue either way (Freedom of Expression wins over Forum Rules/Forum Rules wins over Freedom of Expression), but I'm having a hard time at it...

And I'll say right now that reading the Criminal Code of Canada will make your head spin

[Mr. Analog]

It brings up a good question, because we have to sign up to the forum comment does that mean we are a private group and if so how much of that private groups rules should infringe on my fundamental freedoms?

CONVERSELY if I were to join a private group that discussed illegal activity does the Government have the right to silence me?

[Thorin]

There was a case a while back where the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervened on behalf of a private citizen who thought her fundamental freedom of expression was being impinged upon by the Toronto Star for refusing to publish her letters to the editor.  At the time, they ruled that the Toronto Star was a "service" and therefore was required to allow all parties to exercise their freedom of expression by publishing in the paper.

I didn't follow it up, so I don't know what happened, but I would guess that the Toronto Star fought back and said no way.

[Darren Dirt]

Buyer beware, reader beware... If there's any kind of "moderation" on a public or semi-private forum then it appears some cases have ruled that the forum owners are at least partially liable for damages done by members' posts. Which is why a lot of forums are moving more towards the "no moderation, but don't be an idiot" type of structure.

Not quite what you guys are asking/discussing but I thought I should mention that. (I guess it is on-topic with what Thorin says in the first post.)


On the subject of "free speech" itself, well keep in mind that nowadays a lot of actions are taken against "politically incorrect" viewpoint expressers (by government entities, though often it is really on behalf of individuals/corporations who have a vested interest in silencing dissent/whistleblowers etc.), and this is true whether or not those actions are "unconstitutional" (south of the 49th as well as "in the great white north")

So never presume your words will be properly understood and free of misunderstanding and free of (baseless?) accusations by anybody... Just hope that you have the time to deal civilly with the accusee before it goes to the costly and painful shark tank known as the courts. But heck even if it does get to the courts, some have found simply putting the onus on the "complaining party" to prove "standing" is enough to get a ridiculous case thrown out (e.g. civil case requires violation of a legal right, and damages -- if either is missing the complaining party has no standing).

Ugh I'm tired, not sure if the above even made sense. Sorry if not Private club, that's what we are. But since when does that stop "public servants" from interfering how private business is conducted?