3 ms·

Which is why noone said there was. This is what is known as an analogy.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
> It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. Your words.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Yes, thanks, but I am aware of the analogies I use. Are you actually confused about the fact that Facebook is not actually a court, and thus by definition whatever Facebook does is not actually a "criminal case", and that thus my point is not about whether or not what Facebook does would be referred to by a legal scholar as a "criminal case", but about whether it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case, in all respects except for exactly the detail that it is handled by Facebook and not by a court, which is exactly the problem that I am pointing out?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I'm not confused about the fact that Facebook is not a court and does not have the ability to impose a criminal sentence, and the ensuing criminal record.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      OK, so what is unclear about my words then?
      - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        Nothing. I just don't agree that if "it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case", because is handled by Facebook and not by a court. What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Limit your ability to speak in public. > Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook. That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includes the right that the state does not pressure/incentivise other people or corporations to limit your ability to speak in public. The fact that Facebook is allowed to prevent you from speaking does not mean that the state is allowed to tell them to stop you from speaking.
        TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        I'm glad we agree as to where we disagree, thank you for being reasonable and civil. > Limit your ability to speak in public. I disagree. I don't believe Facebook constitutes public speech. I'm open to be being persuaded though.
        Mithaldu 9y ago
        I don't think it even matters whether it is public speech or not. The constitution guarantees free speech only insofar it is not limited by "provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour". And http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1246 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... sets forth some pretty serious limitations. Nowhere is it mentioned whether any of this happens in private or in public.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Well, limit your ability to speak in private then? That only makes it even more of a constitutional headache!? Freedom of speech is not something that is limited to the public space, but rather public space is where there is most limitation to what you you can say, simply because of the greater potential impact, private speech is way more protected (including things like privacy of mail and telecommunication). I mean, not that I agree, this law is obviously targeted towards public speech, but I still wonder why you think targeting private speech would make it less of a problem?! Public speech (the legal concept) does not require that you have an audience of millions, it simply means that you are speaking to an audience of people who are not in some way personal acquaintances.

> It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. Your words.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Yes, thanks, but I am aware of the analogies I use. Are you actually confused about the fact that Facebook is not actually a court, and thus by definition whatever Facebook does is not actually a "criminal case", and that thus my point is not about whether or not what Facebook does would be referred to by a legal scholar as a "criminal case", but about whether it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case, in all respects except for exactly the detail that it is handled by Facebook and not by a court, which is exactly the problem that I am pointing out?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I'm not confused about the fact that Facebook is not a court and does not have the ability to impose a criminal sentence, and the ensuing criminal record.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    OK, so what is unclear about my words then?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      Nothing. I just don't agree that if "it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case", because is handled by Facebook and not by a court. What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Limit your ability to speak in public. > Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook. That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includes the right that the state does not pressure/incentivise other people or corporations to limit your ability to speak in public. The fact that Facebook is allowed to prevent you from speaking does not mean that the state is allowed to tell them to stop you from speaking.
        TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        I'm glad we agree as to where we disagree, thank you for being reasonable and civil. > Limit your ability to speak in public. I disagree. I don't believe Facebook constitutes public speech. I'm open to be being persuaded though.
        Mithaldu 9y ago
        I don't think it even matters whether it is public speech or not. The constitution guarantees free speech only insofar it is not limited by "provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour". And http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1246 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... sets forth some pretty serious limitations. Nowhere is it mentioned whether any of this happens in private or in public.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Well, limit your ability to speak in private then? That only makes it even more of a constitutional headache!? Freedom of speech is not something that is limited to the public space, but rather public space is where there is most limitation to what you you can say, simply because of the greater potential impact, private speech is way more protected (including things like privacy of mail and telecommunication). I mean, not that I agree, this law is obviously targeted towards public speech, but I still wonder why you think targeting private speech would make it less of a problem?! Public speech (the legal concept) does not require that you have an audience of millions, it simply means that you are speaking to an audience of people who are not in some way personal acquaintances.