[ryan_lane]

Restriction of freedom of speech only applies to the government and not to communities or private organizations. Just because you believe everyone should have the right to say these things wherever they want doesn't make it true. You're free to say these things, but you're not free from the repercussions of saying them in a private community.

If you're unhappy that a community implements a code of conduct, you're free to not join it, and if you're someone who does any of these things I'd recommend you not join any open source community.

Really, seriously, the entire point of a code of conduct is to tell people they can't be shitty people and continue to be in the community and it shows people joining the community that it cares enough about shutting down trolls that they're willing to advertise that they're willing to shut down trolls.

[gravypod]

> Restriction of freedom of speech only applies to the government and not to communities or private organizations

That's not how morals work.

[javra]

But freedom of speech is a political concept which only makes sense for states. Any smaller community can add rules to the ones that hold by law. Be it you bowling team or software company. That's why clubs have by-laws/charters.

[gravypod]

> But freedom of speech is a political concept which only makes sense for states

No, it's a principle. Morals and principles are not necessarily politics.

> Any smaller community can add rules to the ones that hold by law. Be it you bowling team or software company. That's why clubs have by-laws/charters.

This has nothing to do with my principles. My principles dictate that they are allowed to self-govern provided they don't, themselves, revoke the freedoms of anyone unable to consent.

From my (and other's) principles we can derive laws.

This works as follows: "Murder is unethical in specific cases because <insert logic> so we should <insert law> and if this is broken <insert punishment>".

As you can see, the law is derived from the principle. The law is an enforcement of the group's principles. Laws don't generate principles, principles and morals generate laws.

This can easily be proven by asking the following: If freedom of speech is only a principle to be upheld by government, then what about the other essential freedoms of humanities? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If the common man does not need to uphold freedom of speech principles then surely it is ok for us to encroch on other freedoms such as life. It's surely ok for us to kill or own people. It's ok for us to steal. It's ok for us to pollute and otherwise destroy the sources of happiness that the world provides.

These principles, that are self evident, that all men are created equal, that all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what our laws are derived from. It's not only our government's job to uphold these principles. It's for every citizen of any civilized society to uphold them. If we loose the cornerstone right of humanity, the right to free discorse, then humanity looses all rights.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Legality SHOULD be an expression of the common shared morals of all of our society. Sadly that is being lost and many people like you are now holding opinions that are the exact opposite of what was just stated. You seem to be of the mind that things that just because something is legal it makes it right, and just because somethign is illegal it makes it wrong. Why? I don't understand this. Just because "the government said so" isn't really a good reason.