Weighing in

[textualdeviance]

So, 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

Comments

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

FWIW, the two groups behind the pressure to purge are part of the generic anti-sex religious movement. Folks like Gonzalez and Ashcroft don't actually give a shit about whether kids are being harmed. They want to shut down any discussions about sex that aren't strictly parents telling their kids about the birds and bees. They're usually the same people who are against sex education and free contraceptives (or, in some cases, any contraceptives at all.)

It's unfortunate that these nuts have latched on to a legitimate issue to piggyback their anti-sex bullshit. It cheapens real discussions about how children can get fucked up when adults interfere with their sexual development (which includes artificial repression--something that doesn't get a lot of discussion at all.)