Public space vs Private property

[Vince_Fiero]

As usual I do not understand why people put so much attention on this topic:

I'll admit that I have a lot of trouble with this "private place" concept.

I did see you wrote very correctly: "There should be no such limitations in the public domain".

Agree AUP is linked to GTPlanet.

But the streets are linked to a state (I do not agree with the concept, but they are), they again restrict religious practices like a Male Digambara monk running around naked, they might restrict my freedom of speech, ....

If you stay to live in a country you seem to accept the restrictions they put in place to run this country (as you accept the AUP if you want to be on GTPlanet), even if it is a restriction on "freedom of speech".

If I want to go to the another country, since I believe their restrictions are better they might not let me in (as GTPlanet can refuse members or restrict parts of the site to premium only.)

The issue is that even in your "private place" you need to obey laws, some laws might only apply to the public domain, some apply generally.
e.g.: from what I have seen in this GTPlanet "private place", a part of the moderators task is to protect the site from legal attacks against the site that could be caused by activity of members on the site.

So
1) the public domain with no limitation is very conceptual.
2) the private place where a limited group decides the rules is very conceptual.

So what is the point?

Wherever you are there are some things you can decide and some restrictions you need to keep to. Always debatable, since always a matter of interpretation.

this discussion seems to go a Human Rights thread topic though.

I did bring it up there, a justice system (based on laws) is there to bring justice when your rights have been violated and to discourage people to violate the rights of others.

and some excellent reply:

Public space is private property that belongs to every individual of that state. That means there cannot be any rules of discrimination, because any discriminatory rule impinges the property rights of an individual.

People are happy to take the thin end of the wedge with discrimination - no-one may be refused service because of their skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, name - but, for some reason, they baulk at all the associated baggage. Baggage like "If black people can call each other n****r, white people must be allowed to use the word too", otherwise you're discriminating - drawing lines that demarcate people based on skin colour. Baggage like making jokes about disabled or homosexual people, or Jews or Muslims. If you say "making fun of "x" is off limits" you're discriminating using "x" as a basis. We have to allow everyone to say everything, or we're guilty of discrimination ourselves, using arbitrary lines.

This means that freedom of expression cannot ever, morally, be limited in public places (including state-run radio channels). It means you can call me a :censored:ing 🤬 in a public place and not be a criminal (you might even be right). It means you can deny the holocaust, or global warming, or evolution and not be a criminal. It means a song with the word "faggot" in it can be played on the radio regardless of whether it upsets someone.

Earlier examples of limited freedom of expression by rule of law are based on existing laws. I cannot call someone a paedophile, print this allegation on flyers and distribute it around my hometown as it'd be a lie - I'd be libelling them (or slandering them if I did it out loud). I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded place without being liable for the injuries that result from it. These things don't limit freedom of expression, rather prevent people from breaking more fundamental rights.

"I may dislike what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


Private property, on the other hand, is "My house, my rules, like it or get out".

Base on this I decided to create this thread: with basic rules:

1) Human Rights discussions belong in that thread, they should be respected towards any Human anywhere.
2) Discussion here is limited to Public space vs Private property (My house, their rules).

Public space where more then Human Rights should be defended to discourage people to violate the rights of others.
================================================

I still struggle with some basics I guess:

My father owned a piece of land => Private Property
He wanted to build on this, but could not get an authorization from the authorities. (My ground, their rules)

In Public space (more then Human Rights should be defended) I see a police officer, I make fun of his "Rubber stick"

I make fun of his Wellingtons:

I will be undermining an authority figure in society and most likely be fined for this (defendable according to me). However I did not violate any human rights, since I do not see a reason to get everyone fined that makes fun of me.