5 ms·

That would violate freedom of speech. Which is the first amendment of the bill of rights of America. And blizzard being an American company this really irked

That would violate freedom of speech. Which is the first amendment of the bill of rights of America. And blizzard being an American company this really irked a lot of us. "The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. ... It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely." Freedom of speech does not protect you from harming others directly (yelling "bomb" on an airplane is not protected). But the issue with HK and China is -entirely- what the first amendment is trying to protect (albeit usually this is usually to protect Americans to complain about America). When Americans see an American company denying someone what we perceive as an unalienable right it becomes infuriating.

seattle_spring 5y ago
You're misunderstanding how the first amendment is applied. Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation.
- seneca 5y ago
  > Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation. This is absolutely incorrect. To Americans, Freedom of Speech is, as the person you're replying to said, an inalienable right of all human beings. It's a fundamental principal of our society. The first amendment is a legal constraint on the US government that keeps them from violating that right. It does not grant the right, the right belongs to all humans simply from the nature of being. Think of it like this. People don't think murder is wrong because it's illegal. We have laws in place making it illegal to setup how government handles murder, and we want those laws because murdering a person is wrong at a deep and fundamental level. The laws follow from the underlying ethical beliefs. Freedom of Speech works exactly the same way. So a company like Blizzard censoring an activist is not a violation of the First Amendment, but it is arguable a violation of Freedom of Speech.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Many Americans, myself included, would deeply disagree that "freedom of Speech" translates to "can say whatever you want wherever you want." Otherwise we'd all opt for 8-chan style message boards where anyone can say whatever they want. It's not at all unreasonable to want a particular event to remain on-topic to the event, and not allow literally everyone to use it as their own personal soapbox for their cause of the week.
    - seneca 5y ago
      Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. I was just taking exception with the claim that the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech are the same thing. I'm also generally on board with Freedom of Association though. I wouldn't, for instance, put up with someone screaming obscenities in my front yard simply because stopping them would violate their Freedom of Speech.
    - sharken 5y ago
      Not an American here, in principle i agree. But in reality you can't hide the fact, that limiting freedom of speech is very much in the interest of those who want full control on what we can say. A good example is the Muhammad cartoons, which reminds us that there is a very long way to go before religions can exist peacefully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_car...
      - virtue3 5y ago
        I mean, that's exactly the point. So when we see it being limited it freaks us out.
    - Levitz 5y ago
      Sure, I think that's fair, yet a restriction on freedom of speech, which doesn't have to be inherently bad. Going with the same kind of example: society agrees that murder, thievery and lying are bad things, yet find it justifiable to kill in self-defense, to steal in order to eat, and to lie in certain situations. I'll also say that it's very different to limit a certain type of speech than to limit speech you disagree with.
Byteflux 5y ago
Like individuals, businesses also have an inalienable right to free speech. Whether you like it or not, censorship among private individuals and businesses is an exercise in free speech. It's within my right to free speech to set the terms of your speech in my home, in my businesses or anywhere else on my property. Your right to free speech is not violated by private censorship. Although the concept of free speech can exist independently of the First Amendment, the "right" to free speech cannot.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Like individuals, businesses also have an inalienable right to free speech. Nonsense. Humans have inalienable rights. Businesses exist on our sufferance, they don't have an inalienable right to anything.
  - Byteflux 5y ago
    Your statement doesn't align with reality, so I'll assume you're stating an opinion rather than a fact. Free speech is an inalienable right protected by the First Amendment and afforded to both individuals and businesses, that is a fact.
    - hhjinks 5y ago
      Free Speech is inalienable under the constitution, until it isn't. The First Amendment isn't a natural right. Humans have a natural right to free speech, businesses don't.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      "Businesses" is not a useful distinction here, because an individual can be a business in their personal capacity. What matters are legal corporations, which would not exist at all if not for the government chartering them. The question is whether those fictitious legal entities have a right to free speech that is separate from such right of all the persons who constitute them.

seattle_spring 5y ago

You're misunderstanding how the first amendment is applied. Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation.

seneca 5y ago
> Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation. This is absolutely incorrect. To Americans, Freedom of Speech is, as the person you're replying to said, an inalienable right of all human beings. It's a fundamental principal of our society. The first amendment is a legal constraint on the US government that keeps them from violating that right. It does not grant the right, the right belongs to all humans simply from the nature of being. Think of it like this. People don't think murder is wrong because it's illegal. We have laws in place making it illegal to setup how government handles murder, and we want those laws because murdering a person is wrong at a deep and fundamental level. The laws follow from the underlying ethical beliefs. Freedom of Speech works exactly the same way. So a company like Blizzard censoring an activist is not a violation of the First Amendment, but it is arguable a violation of Freedom of Speech.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Many Americans, myself included, would deeply disagree that "freedom of Speech" translates to "can say whatever you want wherever you want." Otherwise we'd all opt for 8-chan style message boards where anyone can say whatever they want. It's not at all unreasonable to want a particular event to remain on-topic to the event, and not allow literally everyone to use it as their own personal soapbox for their cause of the week.
  - seneca 5y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. I was just taking exception with the claim that the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech are the same thing. I'm also generally on board with Freedom of Association though. I wouldn't, for instance, put up with someone screaming obscenities in my front yard simply because stopping them would violate their Freedom of Speech.
  - sharken 5y ago
    Not an American here, in principle i agree. But in reality you can't hide the fact, that limiting freedom of speech is very much in the interest of those who want full control on what we can say. A good example is the Muhammad cartoons, which reminds us that there is a very long way to go before religions can exist peacefully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_car...
    - virtue3 5y ago
      I mean, that's exactly the point. So when we see it being limited it freaks us out.
  - Levitz 5y ago
    Sure, I think that's fair, yet a restriction on freedom of speech, which doesn't have to be inherently bad. Going with the same kind of example: society agrees that murder, thievery and lying are bad things, yet find it justifiable to kill in self-defense, to steal in order to eat, and to lie in certain situations. I'll also say that it's very different to limit a certain type of speech than to limit speech you disagree with.

Byteflux 5y ago

Like individuals, businesses also have an inalienable right to free speech. Whether you like it or not, censorship among private individuals and businesses is an exercise in free speech. It's within my right to free speech to set the terms of your speech in my home, in my businesses or anywhere else on my property. Your right to free speech is not violated by private censorship. Although the concept of free speech can exist independently of the First Amendment, the "right" to free speech cannot.

lmm 5y ago
> Like individuals, businesses also have an inalienable right to free speech. Nonsense. Humans have inalienable rights. Businesses exist on our sufferance, they don't have an inalienable right to anything.
- Byteflux 5y ago
  Your statement doesn't align with reality, so I'll assume you're stating an opinion rather than a fact. Free speech is an inalienable right protected by the First Amendment and afforded to both individuals and businesses, that is a fact.
  - hhjinks 5y ago
    Free Speech is inalienable under the constitution, until it isn't. The First Amendment isn't a natural right. Humans have a natural right to free speech, businesses don't.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    "Businesses" is not a useful distinction here, because an individual can be a business in their personal capacity. What matters are legal corporations, which would not exist at all if not for the government chartering them. The question is whether those fictitious legal entities have a right to free speech that is separate from such right of all the persons who constitute them.