







Updated 10/2/2007


Comments     Threshold


By rcc on 10/1/2007 4:56:44 PM , Rating: 5
You really don't have freedom of speech anywhere on the internet. Try dumping a post full of expletives here on Daily Tech and see what happens.

When you enter a website you are entering a place of business, if you don't conform to the rules, they can and usually will, kick you, delete your posts as necessary, etc.

What they can't do is stop you from speaking in person to your neighbor about how lousy your AT&T service is, nor can they terminate your service for that. Would be a fun court case tho.

RE: Newsflash
By rcc on 10/1/2007 5:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
However, if you posted the "I Hate AT&T Website, and This is Why They Suck" sit on their servers, I'm sure they would have a nice discussion with you regarding future service.

RE: Newsflash
By GaryJohnson on 10/1/2007 10:12:03 PM , Rating: 4
A, uh, 'friend's' parent's AOL account was terminated when I, er, HE was in Junior High for making an 'AOL Sucks' page on their free webspace.

RE: Newsflash
By Farfignewton on 10/3/2007 12:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
Now I know what to tell people who can't get AOL to stop billing them for their no longer desired disservices. :D

RE: Newsflash
By Farfignewton on 10/1/2007 9:08:39 PM , Rating: 4
You really don't have freedom of speech anywhere on the internet.

I have to disagree with that. Freedom of speech does apply on the internet. It is just that "freedom of speech" is NOT the all encompassing umbrella many think it is.


It does not say anything about daily tech having to put up with expletives. Nowhere does it say that the public must continue to buy Dixie Chicks albums if they say something unpopular. It does not say Don Imus gets to keep his job if he sends advertisers running for the hills. It wasn't intended to protect us from any and all consequences of speaking. Just the government.


Yep. Personally, I love it when some dimwit says something profoundly idiotic, generally in front of a large audience or national media, and then cries into the uproar, "What about freedom of speech?"

Someone should ask them if they're enjoying it. :D

RE: Newsflash
By drebo on 10/2/2007 1:18:53 AM , Rating: 5
Fantastic point.

This is exactly right. The First Amendment applies only to the government. Not to corporations and their customers, not to the Internet, not to individuals.

The First Amendment says that the government cannot punish me for saying something. It doesn't say that businesses, people, internet forum moderators, and the like cannot punish me.

So, no, AT&T's new ToC has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with AT&T protecting itself from libel and slander and exercising its right to refuse service to anyone.

I know that people like to color things purple when it comes to massive conglomerates, but being that this is supposed to be a "reputable" media outlet, could we at least see a little less bias when it comes to these types of articles? It makes you all look a little foolish.

RE: Newsflash
By bhieb on 10/2/2007 9:44:48 AM , Rating: 1
Be careful they might pull your post and infringe on your "freedom of speech". What a slanted article, I personally expect more from DT.

RE: Newsflash
By Ringold on 10/2/2007 1:26:52 PM , Rating: 4
Okay, you can all quote from the constitution! Fantastic; keep your copies handy for when we get a forced mandate by the federal government for health care. The 10th may be of interest.

But to move beyond legal scripture, the reason for DT posting such a thing is obvious. We aren't a society of cloned lawyers. We have cultural and moral values not reflected in the Constitution -- for good reason as it's meant to be a minimalist document for what once upon a time was a minimalist government. People around these parts expect the principle of free speech to be upheld to as strong a degree as is possible or reasonable everywhere. At least, that was my take on it.

RE: Newsflash
By Murst on 10/2/2007 2:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
I would be more than happy to pay up to 10% more taxes to provide basic health care to all Americans, if that is what it takes. In my eyes, this is the same resposibility we have as citizens as the need to educate minors.

Of course, I realize that not all people are willing to do that, but then again, I'm sure there are people who do not like to pay the government for police, school, roads, etc.

When Thomas Jefferson used John Locke's natural rights as the basis for our declaration of independance, its a shame he only included life, liberty and happiness (property). John Locke had listed 4 natural rights, and the one Jefferson omitted was the right to health.

RE: Newsflash


RE: Newsflash
Testing, testing. Hello, can you still hear me?

Great comment!

RE: Newsflash




And no, I don't want to move to Europe :)

RE: Newsflash




RE: Newsflash


RE: Newsflash


RE: Newsflash
By mdogs444 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Newsflash



RE: Newsflash






RE: Newsflash
By Spivonious on 10/2/2007 3:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
The reason health care is so expensive is because insurance companies pay for it. Do you think they could get away with charging $500,000 for a heart surgery if you had to pay for it out of your pocket? No one would ever get heart surgery.

It's like when you go to the car body shop. The first thing they ask is "is this going through insurance?" because you know they charge more if it is.

What we need is government-controlled pricing of medical procedures, not state-supported healthcare. If you want that, move to the UK.

RE: Newsflash
...or Canada.


RE: Newsflash
By senbassador on 10/3/2007 6:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not really true. Actually providers are known for charging more for people WITHOUT insurance more than those with-- probabbly to cover the costs of people with no money and no insurance. Remember that insurance companies want to keep their prices low to get customers from other companies. So they would have some clout how much they are willing to pay for.

RE: Newsflash
By Ringold on 10/2/2007 4:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think the non-OT part of my post was the best part, but I opened the door so I'll continue.

One of the Federalist Papers also indicates their fear of a critical flaw in our republic and democracy in general; the ability of the majority to, through the power of the federal government, infringe upon liberties or desires of the minority.

We didn't "copy and paste" Europeans; we're not Europe. We were founded on neo-classical liberalism (modern day Goldwater style conservatism). Including health would've created a massive federal government responsibility; I think they'd of rather been smited by the anti-Christ himself than do that. You must remember that before the New Deal especially we had a nearly Hong Kong style/level of federal government. The ND expanded the government such that the first years budget was larger than that of the entire rest of American history to date combined. These perceptions of government owing us this or that is entirely new.

I pointed to the 10th by way of pointing out that States, on the other hand, would have the right to implement health care based on the desire and needs of its own citizens. It was clear to them that constantly expanding federal power doesn't typically end well in the long run for anybody.

RE: Newsflash
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 8:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, your nuts. The democratic universal healthcare system is same as their child care system.

Their solution is to raise taxes to pay for preschool child care, which will require more mothers to work outside the home to pay the taxes, which will require them to put their children in government child care. Except welfare mothers. Those are the only women in America who democrats think should not work.

How is this method of thinking different from the universal healthcare system (making you work more to live the same lifestyle due to higher taxes because now you have to spend your hard earned money taking care of someone else?)? Exactly.


Related Articles
