44

Please print, tick what applies, sign, put on a wooden table, photograph and send by mail or fax. Attach an ID

My ❏ question  ❏ answer  ❏ post  ❏ tag  ❏ comment  ❏ chat  ❏ revision  ❏ message  ❏ formatting  ❏ spoiler box  ❏ gfycat  ❏ imgv  ❏ youtube  ❏ video  ❏ thumbnail  ❏ image  ❏ picture  ❏ link  ❏ photograph  ❏ of this form  ❏ clipart  ❏ mspaint  ❏ ART  ❏ fanfiction  ❏ astroturf  ❏ poem  ❏ ascii art  ❏ unicode art  ❏ emoji  ❏ avatar  ❏ username  ❏ about me box  ❏ insult  ❏ appellative  ❏ sentence  ❏ phrase  ❏ word  ❏ typo  ❏ vowel  ❏ consonant  ❏ punctuation  ❏ plenken  ❏ klempen  ❏ HTML comment  ❏ list  ❏ headcanon  ❏ deep lore  ❏ complaint form 

has/have been ❏ slightly  ❏ radically  ❏ completely  ❏ unceremoniously  ❏ hastily  ❏ meticulously  ❏ nastily  ❏ chastily  ❏ prudely  ❏ defiantly  ❏ automagically  ❏ definitely  ❏ repeatedly  ❏ maliciously 

❏ censored  ❏ falsified  ❏ flagged  ❏ closed  ❏ deleted  ❏ moved  ❏ anonymized  ❏ reattributed  ❏ reordered  ❏ reorganized  ❏ redecorated  ❏ altered  ❏ neutered  ❏ delayed  ❏ prevented  ❏ protected  ❏ locked  ❏ annotated  ❏ declined  ❏ annihilated  ❏ deprecated  ❏ suspended  ❏ shadow-  ❏ banned  ❏ dezalgoified  ❏ zalgoified  ❏ HE COMES 

by a(n) ❏ nazist  ❏ fascist  ❏ overzealous  ❏ misguided  ❏ malevolent  ❏ corrupt  ❏ violent  ❏ rude  ❏ power-tripping 

❏ dude  ❏ bro  ❏ pegasister  ❏ moderator  ❏ 20k censor  ❏ 10k moderator  ❏ 3k closer  ❏ 2k editor  ❏ random person on the internet  ❏ anonymous coward 

with clear intent to ❏ vandalize  ❏ plagiarize  ❏ revolutionize  ❏ editorialize  ❏ depersonalize  ❏ deglamorize  ❏ normalize  ❏ mordernize  ❏ deemphasize  ❏ harmonize  ❏ depolarize  ❏ decentralize  ❏ rationalize  ❏ reorganize  ❏ itemize  ❏ summarize  ❏ minimize  ❏ sterilize  ❏ downsize  ❏ satirize  ❏ penalize  ❏ resize  ❏ eulogize  ❏ publicize  ❏ criticize  ❏ oxidize  ❏ pulverize  ❏ suppress  ❏ repress  ❏ oppress  ❏ censor  ❏ pressure  ❏ displeasure  ❏ acupressure 

and I would like to ❏ formally  ❏ politely  ❏ strongly  ❏ vibrantly  ❏ firmly  ❏ condemningly  ❏ definately  ❏ defiantly  ❏ definitely  ❏ defininantly  ❏ denfinantley  ❏ posthaste  ❏ temporarily  ❏ tentatively  ❏ lovingly  ❏ threateningly 

express my ❏ surprise  ❏ disappointment  ❏ out-  ❏ rage  ❏ dismay  ❏ sorrow  ❏ letdown  ❏ befuddlement  ❏ discombobulation  ❏ displeasure  ❏ dissatisfaction  ❏ disenchantment  ❏ disillusionment  ❏ disenfranchising 

on/to ❏ Facebook  ❏ YouTube  ❏ Twitter  ❏ Google+  ❏ Reddit  ❏ 4chan  ❏ Tumblr  ❏ Discord  ❏ Medium  ❏ Killstagram  ❏ App.net  ❏ MySpace  ❏ Steam  ❏ HackerNews  ❏ LiveJournal  ❏ My Blog  ❏ Slashdot  ❏ Tindr  ❏ Use Perl  ❏ Ubuntu Discourse  ❏ IRC  ❏ Jabber  ❏ XMPP  ❏ Slack  ❏ Mattermost  ❏ Whatsapp  ❏ Telegram  ❏ chat.stackexchange.com  ❏ chat.stackoverflow.com  ❏ chat.meta.stackoverflow.com  ❏ meta.stackoverflow.com  ❏ meta.stackexchange.com  ❏ gaming.meta.stackexchange.com  ❏ gaming.stackexchange.com  ❏ the United Nations  ❏ Human Rights Watch  ❏ Congress  ❏ Conservapedia  ❏ Wikipedia  ❏ Uncyclopedia  ❏ Æncyclopædia Dramatica  ❏ Everything2  ❏ itch.io  ❏ TED  ❏ Instagram  ❏ Pinterest  ❏ Snapchat  ❏ Patreon  ❏ my belly  ❏ your face 

through the following immortal words of wisdom past:

Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Does this company not care about freedom of speech?

  • 5
    Any and all references to members of this community past or present are purely coincidental. – badp Oct 29 '13 at 19:17
  • 13
    -1 because I think serious topics need serious questions & titles. I also found the usage of ❏ to be obnoxious. – SimonL Oct 30 '13 at 22:37
  • 6
    I'm not so much mocking cries of mod abuse as much as cries of freedom of speech and copyright-based claims. Everything the system allows is basically legal; we can then start discussing what's right and what's wrong, what should be done and what shouldn't. – badp Oct 31 '13 at 0:02
  • block two is flawed, not all of the check boxes work in a sentence. – Ender Jan 26 '14 at 17:37
  • 2
    @Ender some knowledge of the English language required – badp Jan 26 '14 at 18:34
  • @Badp further thoughts show me that if one can check 'any number' of boxes it still works, although clumsily – Ender Jan 26 '14 at 21:07
  • 1
    You really should read xkcd.com/1357 – Oded May 6 '14 at 19:17
  • @Oded I'll try and work harder on my future reading skills! – badp May 6 '14 at 19:18
  • @badp - On my side, I'll try to read comments on the answers first. – Oded May 6 '14 at 19:20
49

No.

Freedom of speech is an individual's limited freedom to publish his thoughts. It is not freedom to be published by anybody: the Wall Street Journal doesn't have to publish everything you send them, and neither does Stack Exchange.

In particular, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government (or their agents) cannot restrict your free speech, but the First Amendment says nothing about corporations limiting free speech, because corporations cannot limit free speech.

Freedom of speech applies only to countries and similar entities who cannot prevent certain kinds of expression (with exceptions such as libel) from being expressed at all. Feel free to exercise your freedom of speech by publishing your speech on a piece of paper placed against your window or something. Depending on your ISP, you might also be able to run your own web site on your own pocket by using your own hardware and software you have a licence for.

Posts made on this site (or chat) are published on the site because you, the owner of the copyright, gave the site a licence to do so.

You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.

http://stackexchange.com/legal

Of course Stack Exchange has the right not to exercise its licence, but if it does, it has the right to exercise it fully, including its right to publish derivative works. Your moral rights to your works of course remain valid; contact the team if you would like to anonymize your contributions. Your right to the integrity of your work is maintained by marking posts that have been edited as such (with exceptions such as question titles in lists thereof or chat messages on the list of starred messages), allowing you to audit its post history (with exceptions such as comments).

  • 16
    Your message is good but it is hidden behind a confusing title and a joke, when really it isn't a joke. – Resorath Oct 29 '13 at 23:12
  • 2
    @res feel free to link directly to the answer. The question is there for our amusement only. :-D ...or trample my "freedom of speech" and just fix it yourself :-) – badp Oct 29 '13 at 23:15
  • 1
    I like the question as it is, and would be very likely to revert it if it were heavily modified. – SaintWacko Oct 29 '13 at 23:18
  • 9
    Please don't edit war. – badp Oct 29 '13 at 23:19
  • 1
    I dont understand how the question and answer are related... – 3ventic Oct 31 '13 at 7:46
  • 3
    Question seems a little heavy-handed, but the answer is spot on – Robotnik Nov 1 '13 at 11:29
  • 7
    XKCD is relevant, as always. – MBraedley May 6 '14 at 17:51
  • @MBraedley This post predates XKCD by a few months, but yes, essentially that. – badp May 6 '14 at 17:56
  • @badp I know, but it articulates the point so well I though it necessary to add. – MBraedley May 6 '14 at 18:07
  • Darn it @MBraedley, I was about to post that! – Braiam May 6 '14 at 22:41
  • I hate this argument. "Freedom of speech" does not automatically mean the First Amendment in the United States. It is a concept that can be applied to anything. I have never, ever heard anyone claim that their freedom of speech was being violated by a private site and therefore that site was breaking the law. – forest May 15 at 23:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .