查看完整版本 : 網上言論自由

hksitison 2018-9-24 04:03 PM

網上言論自由

網上言論自由
《世界人權宣言》第19 條及《美國憲法第一修正案》明言保障言論自由的權利,確認言論自由的基石重要性, 言論自由為一項人權

美國總統有私人網站, 佢刪除反對者戶口滅聲.   被法院裁判違反美國憲法第一修正案.
香港基本法第二十七條都話居民有言論自由.

如果網站隨意滅聲, 握殺言論自由, 任由原貼者 (樓主) 開貼後, 將反對者列入黑名單, 不得進入討論.
想請教除了基本法, 網站和會員之間,有冇合約關係?

Can law of contract be applied to website membership? Members accepted the terms and conditions and are given the right to publish comments although without consideration. If a member were blocked unreasonable, can the member sue?

剛剛收到一個回覆, 一齊討論下

Jonathan Elder, Working in marketing for 20 years, digital marketing for 10.
Answered 1m ago

Law of contract does apply most of the time: the consideration is being given free use of the website services.

The member can sue, but they would have to decide what for, and if it was enforceable. The site owner has the ultimate right to say who or what appears on the site. They also have the ability to change this.

The only time I have seen this working legally is where the site owner was both applying it’s own rules inconsistently, and that inconsistency was based on gender, race or another protected characteristic.

The person had to prove that other people of a different race were being allowed to post exactly the same comments, that they were being reported in the same way, and that a different action was being taken. Tricky, but possible.

Other than that: it’s their site. They can do what they want with it

hksitison 2018-9-24 04:10 PM

外國網站, 第二個回覆

Stephanie Vardavas
Former Assistant General Counsel, MLB and Nike
Answered 6m ago

If the contract is violated, a member could sue, although the member might have trouble proving financial damages, and without damages, it’s an expensive thing to sue.

But more importantly, 99.9999999% of the time, the terms of service of the website will say that the management has the right to moderate the site as they see fit and the users must accept the management’s decisions as final

金鴻峰 2018-9-24 07:42 PM

呢度係中國香港

坐六年 2018-9-24 09:07 PM

言論自由唔係絕對嘅自由,好似勒索,恐嚇,發放不實消息,都係要負上刑責。

111x111=12321 2018-9-24 10:26 PM

無睇晒, 不過....
「私人網站, 佢刪除反對者戶口滅聲.   被法院裁判違反美國憲法第一修正案...」

私家地方喎:smile_19:

hksitison 2018-9-25 05:17 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]坐六年[/i] 於 2018-9-24 09:07 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=487868264&ptid=27736445][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
言論自由唔係絕對嘅自由,好似勒索,恐嚇,發放不實消息,都係要負上刑責。 [/quote]

這個當然要負上刑責
此外違反版規 (see pic) 亦當然可以被滅聲

不過現在想討論事件, 完全沒有涉及上面兩項
希望不會再被滅聲, 可以公平理性繼續再談

30902018HKG 2018-10-17 10:09 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

hksitison 2018-10-18 06:37 PM

Re #7, the case quoted
Yiu Shing Yin (姚盛賢) vs Kwok Yik Ho (郭奕河) et al
is irrelevant as no defamation, libel are involved. No bad or insulting words are used, at least on my part.

It’s a simple debate on fact, whether people have been charged with contempt of court for CRITICIZING A COURT’S JUDGEMENT (not any other kind of contempt of court charges)
My post here is related to another post of mine,  “本人在貼文 [香港第一惡法] 被滅聲”,

a summary of which is as follows:

Someone posted a thread saying contempt of court was [香港第一惡法]
(Hong Kong’s No. 1 Bad Law).

He went on that people criticizing a court’s judgement could be charged with this offence and thus suppressing freedom of speech. Obviously he was referring to the recent criticisms against Chief Justice Ma for his so called “lenient” judgement.

I challenged him to give examples of people charged for criticizing a court’s judgement; he cited cases concerning newspapers and editors prosecuted for divulging details of cases while on hearing. I replied that it’s another kind of contempt of court, and not that he was referring to.

Instead of letting debates continue, the website administration allowed him (the OP) to blacklist me from further posting despite the fact that I did not contravene any of the website’s rules. It seems to me that he did this because he was losing the argument.

This is exactly what Donald Trump has tried to block opposing voices on his own twitter. He was ruled by a US court for violating The First Amendment…

hksitison 2018-10-18 08:12 PM

#5
[quote]原帖由 [i]111x111=12321[/i] 於 2018-9-24 10:26 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=487871557&ptid=27736445][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
無睇晒, 不過....
「私人網站, 佢刪除反對者戶口滅聲.   被法院裁判違反美國憲法第一修正案...」
私家地方喎:smile_19: [/quote]

某些私家地方法律都容許公眾進入
網站公開接受會員, 係咪私人網站,有得拗

111x111=12321 2018-10-19 12:33 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]hksitison[/i] 於 2018-10-18 08:12 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=489152944&ptid=27736445][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
#5
某些私家地方法律都容許公眾進入
網站公開接受會員, 係咪私人網站,有得拗 [/quote]
都係.
依家都好多公開的私人地方.

fwho 2018-10-19 09:30 AM

美國將"言論自由"定為基本既"人權"
香港將"法院判決"定為神聖不可侵犯既真理
大陸就將"國家既和諧"定為至高無上既法則
所以, 要在法理上講"網上言論自由"之前,
要睇埋唔同地方對法律既理解同用法先.
頁: [1]
查看完整版本: 網上言論自由