At this point I'm refusing communications outside my guild

Doesn’t change a thing.
If you break the rules of this forum, you’re going to get flagged.

Actions have consequences.
There might be freedom of speech, but if you come into my house and say stuff I really don’t like; I’m going to ask you to leave - or throw you out, depending on how horrible the things you said were.

Same with a forum. Blizzard is our host. They get to throw us out if we don’t behave.

1 Like

that makes no sense at all. you said yourself the law of the land overrules everything but now you say company policies can overrule the law of the land.

you can’t have it both ways.

“Hey judge, if you didn’t like me murdering that guy, its ok i was just following company policy”

Give up Tahra, this guy just doenst get it.
Lets just call him a Waaaambulance to cart him away to a nice safe padded room.

1 Like

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression is being used pretty much a buzzword these days.

Those laws ONLY allow you the right to proclaim your views in public or criticize the government without the fear of being “visited by the secret police”.
It does not give you the right to go into private avenues and homes to spit out everything whats in your head without any repercussions.
If I visit a home whose owner is very religious and start screaming all kinds of anti-religion stuff. The owner can’t sue me or get me jailed(in western countries at least) but he CAN throw me out from his property for being disrespectful and he has the RIGHT to do it.

Hence Blizzard forums: You can talk whatever you want on the public forums, but Blizzard forums? Their house = their rules.


first day on the internet, huh ? welcome

the law actually says public authority and the term isn’t actually defined in the the convention. these forums are public, you can access them without signing up.

trespass is a different issue, but it varies from country to country within europe. in the uk trespass is a civil matter.

bliz are required to follow the law, otherwise they could say their policy is no “irish, no muslims” and according to you it would be legal.

also, depending on what you say, the owner could sue you.

can’t we just all agree that freedom of expression is a very good thing that should be encouraged with some very limited restrictions?

It’s not hard not to attack other people for whatever reason. You can still make points without it :wink:

It’s up to the moderation team to judge.

That ones makes no sense at all!

I’ll have to test that one later too!!!

1 Like

You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Sure and whats “your limited restrictions then”?
Talking about politics in my view should be restricted on non-political forums cause those are conflict-provoking and will likely break any civil discussion into a verbal fight.
In your view, that should be “protected” under Free speech?

1 Like

It no be dat. Him just tryin’ to prove himself to da Darkspear.

I never said any such thing.
Please don’t start strawmanning me.

1 Like

This is an explanation aimed at Children, explained simply so all can understand.

What about free speech in privately owned public spaces?

There have been many instances where a news organisation or person has been banned from social media platforms — the most famous example being that of ex US President Donald Trump.

In this instance, it is not a government intervention that has blocked a person from expressing their opinions but a private entity with its own rules and regulations.

Read more: No, Twitter is not censoring Donald Trump. Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others

Let’s go back to our road example. If someone has a private road leading to a nice bluff overlooking the sea, they might allow anyone access to the bluff provided they follow conditions such as not speeding, sticking to the road and not playing loud music. If someone decided not to abide by those conditions, it is justifiable for the owner to ban them.

Private businesses also allow people into their stores so long as they accept certain conditions governing their behaviour. Most people think this is reasonable.

But what conditions are acceptable to place on public access to private property? What if we did not allow people of a certain racial background into our coffee shop? Or certain genders? Almost no one would think that was reasonable.

The conversation with children, therefore, needs to be about whether limitations are fair and reasonable.

Private companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are allowed to set conditions for those who use their platforms. In fact, in the case of social media, you have to explicitly agree to abide by those terms to be allowed to use it.

In a nutshell, you have to abide by the terms and conditions you agreed to when signing up for your account. You agree to abide by the forum rules when you post here.

All of those rules are explained in the pinned post


Mamma Puny has spoken! :rofl:

1 Like

Maybe now we can go back to discussing the strange phrases that are getting autoflagged by the new system.


it a nutshell its never been tested in court and the prhase public authority is not defined in the the convention, as i said earlier.

I think you’ve derailed enough. Good luck with your court case.


Great. Now I’ll always envision her in a red dress with white polka dots and an apron, serving spaghetti.

1 Like

Is that so terrible?

Remains to be seen :thinking: Might cause an increase in pasta consumption.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.