square4 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Registration on FDR requires: "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this board to post any material which is [....] violative of any law." There are state laws that require people to remain silent about certain crimes of the state (a gag order). Other such restrictive rules exist, or if they don't exist, they could be enacted by them in the future. Even if current state laws allow free speech, there is no guarantee that they will continue to allow open discussion about any of the subjects on this message board. Some people live in countries with more oppressive governments than the US. In some countries, it might be against the law of the state to publish texts that encourages peaceful yet illegal behavior. Why would a libertarian require that you voluntarily submit to the rules of the state during a discussion that is, among other things, about the evils of the state? Of course, people are free to set rules on their property or website, but I think it is counterproductive to your stated goals. We could take the position that any law that is unjust is not really a law. I hope this is the correct interpretation. The only problem then is that the way it is formulated currently, is confusing. In that case, I would recommend to amend the text to avoid the confusion with state rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Why would a libertarian require that you voluntarily submit to the rules of the state during a discussion that is, among other things, about the evils of the state? Because the libertarian doesn't want the state rushing in with billy clubs and assault rifles and shutting everything down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It's the sort of language one uses to protect oneself (however minimally such protection may be) from the threatened attacks of the state and its court system. This clause is a prohibition against things like child pornography and death threats (and, I suppose, bootleg copies of The Avengers, which the FBI treats roughly as seriously as terrorism). If someone does these things, and the perpetrator can't be found, the State's thugs will try to make themselves appear to be useful (and not the worse-than-useless parasites they are) by blaming anyone and everyone within a 10-foot radius of the perpetrator. This "don't break any laws" language, therefore, is a shield against their habitual knee-jerk reaction of blaming the website host for the acts of the individual commenter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It could be worse, there's a difference between "lawful" (explicitly allowed by law), "unlawful" (both not authorized and not forbidden by law), and "illegal" (forbidden by law). At least "violative of any law" only covers illegal activities. One of the sneaky things in so-called "net neutrality" (actually a price fixing scheme for the big providers) is slipping in the language "lawful" into what network traffic is being protected (that is, "regulated"). In general, one has to jump through a few hoops to keep their website from getting slammed by the authorities. The language used is intended to allow moderation to remove illegal material if posted and to prevent a site-wide shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts