May. 31st, 2007 11:41 am
Weighing in
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceSo, I've been watching The Great LJ Purge debacle with some amusement. LJ's response to the kerfluffle is amusing, too.
But one thing that does not amuse me is the raft of people having conniptions about "censorship" and how their rights are being violated.
Um, folks?
There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on the Internet.
The vast majority of the Internet--the computers on which it lives, the connecting cables and wireless signals by which it is accessed--is privately owned. And almost everyone online does not own every means by which they access it. Some individuals may own a domain, but likely don't own the ISP by which they access it. Even independent ISPs have to get their connectivity from somewhere--usually large providers like phone or cable companies.
And as privately-owned spaces, the owners of those private spaces are completely within their rights to moderate or delete content as they see fit. I can delete offensive comments from my journal, LJ can delete offensive journals, LJ's ISP can delete LJ if they deem it offensive and the ISP's connectivity provider can cut them off if they decide they're supporting something they don't like.
The only legal protection U.S. citizens have online is that our government cannot censor what we say or do online if it is otherwise legal (not libelous, copyright infringing, etc.) if all of the companies that make our stuff show up online have no problem with what we post. It is legal, for instance, for me to say that I think Bush is a traitorous sociopath. The government can't stop me from saying that. But LJ could, if they wanted to. So could my ISP, if it decided I was violating their TOS.
I think the backlash against LJ for the purge is warranted. Customers raising their fists against a business that does something unethical is always a good thing. But enough with the pissing and moaning that rights are being trampled on. They're not.
People who really care about fighting for rights need to take the time to understand what those rights actually are before getting in a hissy.
/First Amendment Geek
But one thing that does not amuse me is the raft of people having conniptions about "censorship" and how their rights are being violated.
Um, folks?
There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on the Internet.
The vast majority of the Internet--the computers on which it lives, the connecting cables and wireless signals by which it is accessed--is privately owned. And almost everyone online does not own every means by which they access it. Some individuals may own a domain, but likely don't own the ISP by which they access it. Even independent ISPs have to get their connectivity from somewhere--usually large providers like phone or cable companies.
And as privately-owned spaces, the owners of those private spaces are completely within their rights to moderate or delete content as they see fit. I can delete offensive comments from my journal, LJ can delete offensive journals, LJ's ISP can delete LJ if they deem it offensive and the ISP's connectivity provider can cut them off if they decide they're supporting something they don't like.
The only legal protection U.S. citizens have online is that our government cannot censor what we say or do online if it is otherwise legal (not libelous, copyright infringing, etc.) if all of the companies that make our stuff show up online have no problem with what we post. It is legal, for instance, for me to say that I think Bush is a traitorous sociopath. The government can't stop me from saying that. But LJ could, if they wanted to. So could my ISP, if it decided I was violating their TOS.
I think the backlash against LJ for the purge is warranted. Customers raising their fists against a business that does something unethical is always a good thing. But enough with the pissing and moaning that rights are being trampled on. They're not.
People who really care about fighting for rights need to take the time to understand what those rights actually are before getting in a hissy.
/First Amendment Geek
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
In practice, this is largely true. However, I would hesitate to rely on this completely. The truth is that web hosts are just as subject to political and public pressure as any other business involved in putting content online.
And then there's the whole ISP issue and net neutrality and all that. The fact that the majority of the net's connectivity is handled by just a few companies is scary, especially when you realize how deeply connected with the Bush administration most of those companies are.
If Certain People had their way, user-generated content would be hard to find, if it existed at all. The only users that would get their stuff online would be those whom Verizon, Comcast, etc. had deemed acceptable. In other words, they want the net to be subject to the same kinds of corporate/government control that broadcast is.
The arguments they're putting forth against net neutrality, for instance, sound suspiciously as if they're aimed toward quantifying the net as a limited resource, much like broadcast bandwaves. And, as it's illegal for people without FCC approval to broadcast over airwaves because of the theory that they would clutter out "legitimate" content on those channels, so, too would it become illegal for people to post bandwidth-heavy net content, as it might slow access to "approved" content.
Once those premium payments for access start coming in, people without the financial resources to pay the toll on the infobahn would be shut out. Which is the point. We can't have the drooling masses going out and saying what they think to large audiences. Too damned hard to push propaganda on people when you don't control the means of information distribution.