User blog comment:Doc (K-)Flux(7)/Free Speech- How it applies to us, and how we should use it/@comment-1693968-20140606200546/@comment-1693968-20140606202900

Ohhhh, I think I get it now. Free speech is such a tricky subject. While I agree that it'd be unreasonable to enforce the policy in a private message like that, it could very easily be included in our policy that "by using our service, you agree not to say _______ or _______." We can restrict their speech by disallowing them the use of this service if they talk about things we don't allow. Now obviously, that's just hypothetical, and I'd never expect that to happen, but it is a good example.

What free speech does mean, however, is that others cannot restrict a person's speech if it is done using private property (whether that literally be someone's land, or a person's website), where the owner has given their consent. If the owner of the property does not wish it to be used for that purpose, then it is still within his authority to prevent those people from using his property for such purposes. Since private messages are kinda sorta the property of our policy, they are also subject to the policy's authority. It's not that freedom of speech applies to private conversations, it's where those conversations occur that it applies. Again, it wouldn't be reasonable to restrict private messages like that, but it'd still be legal.

Really, then, putting limitations on private messages is not a violation of freedom of speech at all. Like you said, Loney, it does deprive the wiki of all forms of completely free speech. However, I wouldn't consider that a right.

Now, after taking the time to write this entire comment, I've gone back and read Kiff's blog again, just to find out that my entire comment was irrelevant to what he's saying. I think I understand it now, he's saying that people should make use of their free speech to protest the moderation of private messages, correct?

Oh well, I guess I'll post this comment anyways.