User blog comment:Doc (K-)Flux(7)/Free Speech- How it applies to us, and how we should use it/@comment-24842353-20140606224541

There are better examples of individuals and organisations who use their right to free speech publicly than the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church is a hate group. While what they do is constitutionally acceptable, that doesn't make it morally acceptable. If you want a better example of a current individual or organisation making use of their right to free speech, I'd say what Edward Snowden has done is a lot more respectable and agreeable.

Now to continue on your other points...

If the internet was monitored, if every website was subject to the same rules, we wouldn't be the internet.

We would be the government's handiwork, its drones.

That's why each website is subject to it's own set of rules, and the person who created or runs the website is in charge of creating and monitoring the rules.

While websites are able to establish their own rules and regulations, they aren't free to do what they want. The country in which the website is based still has governing control over the activities of the site. If the activities on the site, or what's said on the site, those performing these actions can be sued and prosecuted. An example of this would be if you wrote libel on a wiki here at Wikia, whoever you libeled could sue you and would almost certainly win the case. "Free speech" is not a defense in situations such as this as it harms another individual or group of individuals.

(Sorry about using America, South Americans. For future reference, when I say America, I'm referring to the better one.) That's a very flawed statement. You seem to forget that the United States isn't the entire continent of North America, and I can tell you're referring to the United States, not the entire continent of North America. Plus it's quite demeaning to consider the United States "better" than the continent of South America when the two are not comparable.

PM is the tricky subject here. Can we use any form of words or phrases if both people are consenting, and won't bring it to public chat? Should admins be allowed to monitor PMs? What you say in private messages is like what you say in your own home if you live in the United States. The United States judicial system doesn't know what you say in your home to someone else. The admins and chat moderators here don't know what you say in private messages. However, what you say in your home is still said in the United States, so if who you're talking to were to report to the police something you did in your home, your actions are still punishable by law. What you say in private messages is still said in this wiki's chat, therefore if the person you are private messaging reports your messages to an admin or chat moderator, they have all the right to punish you for what you did if it were in violation of the policy.

This wiki *should* be run as a democracy, not an anarchy. (Keep in mind, not all anarchies are bad.) This wiki is in no way an anarchy. It has established policies and user groups. These are two primary characteristics that are not present in an anarchy. This wiki is a combination of republic and oligarchy. It inherits characteristics of an oligarchy in that it is primarily run and maintained by a group of administrators. The republic characteristics are that the members of this community have a say in how things are done here. Examples of this are the request for rights system and the petition system. In fact, it would not be good if this wiki were like a democracy. If this wiki followed a democracy's power structure, everyone here would have administrator and bureaucrat rights. I'm sure we can agree that wouldn't end well...