Slashdot Mirror
Online "Public" Spaces Don't Guarantee Rights
mikesd81 recommends an AP piece covering a lot of examples of the ways free speech and other rights don't exist on the private Web. One case featured was that of Dutch photographer Maarten Dors, who had this picture deleted by flickr. Without prior notice, Yahoo deleted the photo on grounds it violated an unwritten ban on depicting children smoking. While Dors eventually got the photo restored, after the second time it was deleted, the case highlights the consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations. "Rules aren't always clear, enforcement is inconsistent, and users can find content removed or accounts terminated without a hearing. Appeals are solely at the service provider's discretion. Users get caught in the crossfire as hundreds of individual service representatives apply their own interpretations of corporate policies, sometimes imposing personal agendas or misreading guidelines. First Amendment protections generally do not extend to private property in the physical world, allowing a shopping mall to legally kick out a customer wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a smoking child." Reason.com has some more analysis on the issues brought up by the AP story.
/ All your rights \ /
| Are belong to |
\ US
\
\
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
--
cpu0: Microsoft Clippium ("GenuineClippy" ChromedMetal-Class). Paperbinding, lockpicking, fish-hook-hack support.
template greedily stolen from this guy: http://slashdot.org/~ClippySay
Cue the Reaganites claiming nothing is wrong with this practice in 3... 2.. 1..
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Next you know, someone is going to tell me I can't have free speech in someone else's home!
If I can't go into random people's houses, and in privately owned property and say what I want, you are oppressing me!!!
Libertarians seem to forget or blithly ignore that the government is not the only means of restricting your rights. For the vast majority of US history, corporations have been bigger threats to individual rights.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Flickr isn't a public place. It's a private place they let other people use. You agree to their terms when you use the site. They can remove content they don't find appropriate.
It's private property. Your rights to do what you want have always been limited on private property. If you want to have free speech online, get your own damn website or find a site that's willing to tolerate whatever you have to say.
These spaces aren't public-they're paid for with private money by private companies (or their shareholders). Why is there a feeling of wrong doing here? They can do whatever they want with their own servers and websites.
It's just like any convenience store, it's a public space but private property. If you say something off color or for whatever reason whomever is in charge deems you an undesirable you can be forced to leave... I don't really see much of a difference here other then a website might have a ToS for you to peruse while in a store you have to rely on *gasp* common sense and social skills.
.02...
If this really is such a problem stop devoting so much time and effort onto areas controlled and governed by private entities. Seek out new places where rules are consistent and turning a profit takes a back seat to a good user experience or quality service provided... Just my
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
You are parking your property on private property. You are subject to the reasonable (very broadly interpreted) rules of the private property owner. YOU are CHOOSING to put your content on THEIR site.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Seriously. I am being censored, because I want the Weather Channel to show my nifty cartoons.
What?
They're not related to weather? So what! Free speech!!!! I'm being violated!
... film at eleven
Why do you give your photos to Yahoo? Domains and web space are cheap and you're in control.
free speech. If you host it on your own server, you have to abide by the laws of your municipality/state/country. So, if they don't like what you have to say, you're reprimanded, which can be anything from getting shut down to getting thrown into prison (America) to getting executed (Iran). One can say that you can always "buy" your country... till some other country drops a bomb on you/cuts off all food/electricity/internet because they don't like what you're saying (or showing).
Unless you're using a government service or paying for a specific service under contract the internet is not a public place. It's a collection of private places that allow you to post data publicly. Civil rights do not apply.
All the data you upload to a server belongs to whomever owns that server and will be treated as their usage policy dictates.
Of course other people should be able to control how others make use of their property. Nobody's denying that. The question is: where can you exercise your right to free speech in the Internet, without being subject to others' right to control how you make use of their property?
In real life, there exist spaces that are clearly public. In the Internet, there aren't any obvious ones. Even if you try to set up your own site, the various providers may censor you if they choose to do so.
Are you adequate?
Seriously -- is there anyone other than this AP reporter who really believes their constitutional right to free speech applies to other people's private web sites? Are there people really this ignorant that don't understand the whole point of the Constitution is to limit *government* power to oppress speech?
Given this AP's reporter's surprise, I would assume that the AP's web site will allow me to post anything I want there, otherwise they're suppressing my "free speech rights".
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Next you know, someone is going to tell me I can't have free speech in someone else's home!
If I can't go into random people's houses, and in privately owned property and say what I want, you are oppressing me!!!
"Next you know, someone is going to tell me I can't have free speech in the home I rented from someone else!"
"If I can't go into my rented house, and in privately owned property i'm renting and say what I want, you are oppressing me!!!"
Fixed.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
A corporation, by definition is an Artificial Legal Entity ( ALE ). Which means, that is is CREATED not by Natural Persons, but by another Artificial Entity. ( The State )
Given our State Constitutions, it's CREATED by The People of the Great State of whatever, by way of the Secretary of State's office.
Now, turning to examine the Declaration of Independence, we see that RIGHTS COME FROM OUR CREATOR.
So, we have a situation where the "rights" of an Artificial Legal Entity are *EXACTLY* what the Secretary of State's office ( their Creator in the context of "rights" w.r.t the Declaration of Independence ) gives them.
Now, with all this in mind, answer the following question:
Since the Secretary of State's office is limited by constitutional prohibitions, can that office confer on its own creation *more* authority than it, itself has?
I offer that , SoS > ALE , and therefore ALE's are automatically bound by the constitutional prohibitions of its creator.
I see NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence OR any Constitution saying otherwise. Anyone have citations to support the counter-argument?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
...some businesses have a dress code. Shocking!
Caveat Utilitor
If someone is hosting your images for free then you're going to find that the web host may have a different set of artistic and/or moral values. And they might not like pictures of children smoking because it's, uh, icky.
It's not that difficult to find a web host that could care less about what you post online so long as you pay your bills on time. Of course this means you have to register your domain and do a few other adminstrative things but now it's your domain and you can post pretty much whatever you like.
Free image hosting does not equal a right to free speech.
Free speech (within the United States) applies to government muzzles - it has never and should never apply to private areas that the public uses. Just as I have no guaranteed right to free speech in a mall, movie theatre, or someone's front yard, the same applies to online spaces. I'm a little puzzled why people would have legitimate reason to think that online freedom of speech would be guaranteed. They did read the ToS when they created the accounts, yes? (Yes, I know the answer to that question.)
Don't like the ToS? Then don't use the service. Ask the provider to fix the problems. But don't complain about "rights" being non-existent. The services being used are created and paid for by _someone_ - that someone gets to set the rules.
Part of what is great about an open web is that there is a very low bar to entry for people (at least those in first world countries, which the article primarily deals with) to create their own services and sites (limited only be laws). Most of the cases being cited are either free or very low fee sites. It's unrealistic to expect a lot of handholding and hands-on care if you're paying $10/year for photo hosting. If your artistic statement of kids smoking is so important that you have to make it, pony up for a web site someplace. If it's not important enough to the artist to pay $20-100/year for a cheap account why would a corporation be expected to pay the same amount in support costs on the user's behalf?
Yahoo is not the government. It has no obligation to respect your right to free speech. In fact, you give Yahoo the right to delete anything you upload if it contravenes Yahoo's difficult-to-discern standards. When Yahoo deletes publicly displayed content (or when TalkLeft does, for that matter) it is not playing a "governmental role," as this writer asserts. Substitute "managerial role," and the writer has a point.
None of the AP writer's observations are shocking. It has long been understood that freedom of the press belongs to those who own a press. The electronic equivalent of the press is a website. If you want to participate in a privately owned website, you play by the owner's rules, whether or not they seem fair to you.
TalkLeft
Or how about cue some common sense? If I'm on your private property, I have no fucking rights over you or your property. It's your private property. You have the right to control who can be on it, or use it. Otherwise it's not really yours. It's that simple.
If I happened to be over at your house and started spewing stuff that you find offensive, you're well within your rights to ask me to leave or not to let me in in the first place. Or are you saying that I can drop by your house at any time I wish, and start telling obscene jokes to your wife? I mean, if you don't, you're censoring my free speech, right? You wouldn't want to sound like a "reaganite", would you?
I'm not even a "reaganite", I'm a western european socialist, if you must put a label on me, but even I'm... amazed at the idiots who think that screaming "first amendment" gives them essentially rights over someone else or their private property. Get this: freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone else is forced to listen to you, nor that anyone else must help you spread it. Freedom of press applies to whoever owns the press. That's it. It means that if you have a newspaper (or in modern days a server), the government can't come tell you to remove an anti-Bush column. No more.
It does _not_ mean that you can force anyone to listen. It does _not_ mean you have rights over someone else's newspaper. It does _not_ mean that they must give you a page to spew your speech on.
In short, it doesn't grant you power over anyone. It just says that the government can't have certain powers over you.
In other words, it does _not_ mean I can come over and tell you, "OK, I wrote this rant, you must put it on your blog."
Or if you don't find anything wrong with that, then put your wallet where your mouth is, and provide such an uncensored server for others. That's freedom of the press. You're free to do that. But just demanding that someone _else_ has some duty to provide you with free stuff, is just lame.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Any private company or citizen can censor all they want. The protections of free speech are toward the government NOT against free citizens or the companies they own.
If Yahoo decides it does not want child nudity on flicker, they can decide such. It is their site, their business. To declare otherwise is "forced speech" which is just as bad as "censorship".
The government should not be able to censor your freedom of speech. But a private entity is not required to allow you the same leeway. If your employer says you cannot discuss the current project if you wish to retain employment - they are within their right to do so.
Some where along the way, we let politics !@#$% everything up. So people get offended if Blockbuster (a private company) decides to censor the property they own. Or if Yahoo decides to limit what content can be posted and hosted on their site. Thinking some constitutional right has been violated - it hasn't. But instead they want to tread the dangerous ground of forcing open speech and acceptance on private companies and citizens. Blind of the dangers such actions lead too.
This guy needs a mod-up.
The establishment of "free speech zones" marked the end of the US as a free constitutional republic.
We entered fascist territory then, and have been plunging into the abyss ever since.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
On the one side, yes, we do lose our First Amendment right to freedom of speech by posting in online forums, since it's not really "public" (even if it may have the illusion of being public). On the other side of the coin, I'm actually glad somebody is able to step in and moderate this stuff, or else all of our forums would be overrun with viagra/peni$ enlargement spam, pirated material, child porn, and god only knows whatever else. Just look what happened to Usenet,... they tried to keep that as open and free as possible, and today it's practically useless as a discussion forum.
> Free image hosting does not equal a right to free speech.
What?
You're telling me that "free image hosting" is free as in free beer, not free as in free speech?
No one is forcing anyone to use YouTube, MySpace, Flickr, Facebook, or any of the other social networking and media sharing sites. People just use them because they are free and convenient. If the administrators on those sites take your content down, tough luck. Nothing is stopping you from hosting your own website, however that would require effort. Yes, I RTFA and even your web host can block your site, but the odds of that are quite slim. If anything, review the terms of agreement of your webhost before choosing them. The logic here is the same as me letting people put signs on my lawn, but if I don't like one of those signs, and I remove it, they complain. Too bad, it's my lawn.
Not until Slashdot gives me a killfile!
The problem with your analysis, the way I see it (which might not line up with current law in any way, shape or form), is that it fails to recognize that corporations are fundamentally composed of people. Slashdot commentators like to reduce corporations to fancy names like Artificial Legal Entity, but those entities are created to provide some organization to the collective exercise of natural rights by groups of real people (shareholders, management, and employees - ok, mostly management, but management are people too. . .).
If I am the owner (shareholder) of a corporation, and I operate servers, I have the right to freedom of speech (and freedom of the press, which is basically just an aspect of freedom of speech, ultimately) with regards to the content I do or do not choose to host on my servers. The government should not be able to compel speech - freedom of speech also implies the freedom not to speak, not to be compelled to say something I choose not to.
Of course, with regards to services like Flikr, this raises thorny questions of liability - to whit, to what extent should Flikr be held liable for the content it hosts. After all, if the corporation Flikr wants to argue that it should have the right to take down images it does not agree with, based on freedom of speech, then it is essentially claiming that the content hosted by it represent *it's own* speech, and not the speech of others which it is merely a hosting infrastructure for - that's the real problem, that corps want to have their cake and eat it too - in one court, claim they can suppress speech they disagree with, and in another court, arguing they shouldn't be held liable for illegal content (e.g. kiddie porn, copyrighted images which weren't uploaded with the owners' permission, etc) which people might try to upload to their servers.
If you want to put up an image, article, or movie, which some corporation won't host for you, maybe you need to think about getting your own server. That still leaves the possibility of getting cut off by your ISP, but that's where contract law comes in (service agreements, where if you made sure the contract you were signing wasn't all screwed up, you can sue them for breech of contract if they cut you off) and where you can take more action to protect your own rights. With free services, the terms are never going to be fair to you. With services you actually pay for, you can negotiate terms which don't screw you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is a certain concept postulated by Wittgenstein that I think would resolve this confusion. "Public" as is meant with respect to the first amendment is used in a very different game from "public" as is meant by MySpace or Flickr being public (that is, open to general consumption). I've always found it rather silly when people get incensed by their first amendment rights being "violated" in privately owned fora. Unless I'm really missing something this is just such a non-issue.
It's not even the always propagated anarchy. It's a collection of tiny little dictatorships.
Basically, every server is owned by someone who can make his rules. I can create a server and dictate that you may discuss anything but pink socks and frilly dresses, because they scare me (and clowns! Nobody discusses clowns on my page!). I needn't publish the info that discussing such things is a nono. I just delete your submission and you can't do jack about it. Why? Because it's my server. My house, my rules, you don't like it, get lost! You wanna talk about those scary clowns that will eat me in the night, do it on your own server!
That's, on the other hand, the benefit of the net over the real world. YOU make the rules on YOUR turf. You don't like my position, you can very easily move away, something you might not so easily be able to do in reality. If your country bans the discussion of certain topics (it does happen, people. And I'm not talking about Iran or North Korea), you have no choice but to accept it. Moving away isn't always so easy. But it's easy on the net.
This is also the reason why servers with tight and outright silly restrictions (like my "no socks, no dress, no clown" example above) don't survive for long: People avoid them. So yes, I do consider such information important, to make people aware of such practices and give them an incentive to move their "business" elsewhere, where the ideals of free speech and expression are held in a higher esteem.
But complaining about it, or even outright demanding that something has to be allowed on a sever, is silly. The server is owned by someone, and he has the right to impose his own rules. You don't like it, move away, choose another server or, if free speech is offered nowhere, create your own.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I can't believe this isn't obvious on /.
Free speech has never meant freedom to use someone else's podium. It's not free beer, to make an analogy that should find a natural home here.
The free press guaranteed by the First Amendment was never without cost -- and certainly never included the obligation to print something contrary to what the publisher wanted. We're all free -- at liberty -- to publish what we want to say on the web. We're all free to charge what the market will bear for that content. Unless one can show that Flickr operates a monopoly with the only means of publishing certain information (please!), I don't see what this has to do with free as in speech. It's just bitching about less than free as in beer.
I have to say Flickr is by far one the most disappointing experiences I have had online.
...my Flickr account
I am a professional photographer who uses Flickr as a means to promote my craft. I have even paid for a "pro" account to ensure consistency. Well, Flickr not only has taken censorship into their own hands, but have ZERO support for asking why and when and how to correct the situation. I have an account where I moderate my own material and have done it very well. BUT somewhere along the lines something happened and Flickr has made my account inaccessible for non-Flickr members and hard for even Flickr members to view. I tried to contact them through normal email channels many, many times with zero results and even rude replies from a moderator named "Terrence". I then went the phone method with Yahoo(their parent) only to find Flickr offers no support other than online, which has proven useless.
I have now lost noticeable business and online presence because of this, and all I was looking for was a little help. I have even thought to take Flick to small claims court for not only my membership price(which they refuse to refund) but also the time wasted and lost income. I also have fellow photographers who have lost their entire Flickr archive due to Flickrs weird self censorship.
I wonder how many people this has happened to. Now this article appears to show I am not the only one.
--tomjulio.com
On the one hand, if you phrase this as "Flickr can determine what runs on Flickr's Web site's", yeah, it's not shocking. But the truth is there is no online version of what in the real world would be thought of as public space. Which is fine, I guess, except that for the past 15 years we've been sold on the Internet as a place that allows for the free exchange of ideas and meeting of minds across cultures and so on and so on. Plus the R&D behind it and much of the initial infrastructure was built with public money.
It's not a problem restricted to the Internet. In the US, anyway, more and more of what had been public space is, in the 20th and 21st century built environment, private. A modern mall may serve the same social and economic function as a quaint 19th-century downtown, but in that downtown you could stage a protest and in a mall you can't. Increasingly, your only choices in daily life are to be inside somebody's house or inside a store.
You should find out the difference between "own" and "lease". And then there's also this thing called "contract" that usually goes along with "lease".
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Your being able to use even a public road for driving is not a right, but a privilege. This is the doctrine, which justifies licensing access to the public roads. Because if it is a right, only a judge can take it away, but if it is a privilege, than the Executive branch has complete discretion.
Wearing objectionable clothing on public commons is even more difficult, and protests/demonstrations on public land also require government's permits, while private property can still be used for any (political) speech.
That said, I'm alarmed, that my predictions for (even if only implicit for now) calls to nationalize Internet-businesses is getting fulfilled so soon...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I disagree. Artificial Legal Entities are created to provide PRIVILEGES to the Corporation (e.g.: Limited Liability ) .
But what I think people forget, ( and it's in the corporation's best interests, if not Good Faith that The People do forget this fact ) is that those PRIVILEGES carry DUTIES. Such as admitting the Health and OSHA inspectors onto the property, and obeying their instructions. Paying a lot of extra taxes, etc.
Now, we're back to my point. It *seems* that the so-called-rights of a Corporation are in fact a subset of their Creators ( The State ).
And I ask again, anyone have any citations for the counter argument?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
We are reminded of this daily, when some crotchety old CEO or Senator tells us to get off their lawn. Even though we were the ones that fertilized it, moved it, and kept it clean of pests. We the geeks made this *the internet*, and we sold it to the very people we hated growing up. For a shit ton of money yes but still... we sold it bit by bit. So this type of action should not surprise us.
Now with that said do we really want the government protecting our RIGHTS on the web. If we call them in over some You Tube Videos and Flickr photos, they will be here to stay. Sure it might be AWESOME at first, but Government World Wide has not had a great record as of late when it comes to rights. I would rather just do what we did before...
Start my own site. Place what I want there, and be the crotchety old fart who tells the CEO's and the Suits, and the politicians to get the FUCK off MY Lawn! This time maybe when they come with the briefcase of cash I can say, no thank you I like this yard. Grass is Green enough here.
However, using said power to (effectively) end-run the Constitution is just covering up tyranny. Using libertarianism to defend it only makes it more obvious.
There comes a point where The Unquestionable Market fails. When a private entity is able to exert influence by means nearly identical to censorship, the balance has been lost. That is, you've given too much power to entities that censor and use "private entity" as a shield.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This isn't so much going over to someones house randomly and saying whatever you want.
This is like them inviting you over saying "Don't cuss." and then when you say "Look at that fine mule you have, yes that is a rather fine ass." they take ducktape and tape up your mouth, then say "If you don't like it you can leave."
It's just like any convenience store, it's a public space but private property.
What part of attempted end-run around the Constitution do you not understand?
If this really is such a problem stop devoting so much time and effort onto areas controlled and governed by private entities
Nearly impossible to do when they can exert undue influence. When they are the only practical (as opposed to the favorite realms of libertarians, the theoretical and hypothetical) choice, the balance needs to be shifted away from the private entity.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
. In short, I had no rights at all.
My web domain.
No one is forcing anyone to use ...
Nothing is stopping you from...
The favorite excuses that do not apply. When somewhere is the practical choice, it is indeed censorship, albeit from an entity that end-runs the First Amendment.
Perhaps you would do well to remember the following:
Force is force is force even from a private entity.
The logic here is the same as me letting people put signs on my lawn, but if I don't like one of those signs, and I remove it, they complain. Too bad, it's my lawn
Forum != lawn. The only thing that should be done is to require a procedure similar to due process. This procedure would also have to discourage gaming it by the likes of you.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I have said it before.
The geek is libertarian only when it is convenient.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Bill of Rights
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies only to suppression of speech by the federal government - state governments were bound through the application of the fourteenth amendment.
Frederick Douglass had this to say about the pre-war South:
There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.
What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. Frederick Douglass: The Hypocrisy of American Slavery [Rochester, New York, July 4, 1852]
If the Pope decrees that discussion of the ordination of women is off the table within a Roman Catholic Church - then it is off the table within a Roman Catholic Church.
He has the right to keep order within his own House.
You have no right of appeal.
No private individual or institution is legally obliged to provide you a forum.
If you are a drunken fool mouthing off at the local gin mill - and disturbing the paying customers - you won't be asked to leave, you will be booted out the door.
> public servitude
WTF man, you sound like RMS on acid. Pipe down. You don't even understand the problem here, obviously.
The real question is will courts extend the logic set forth in cases like Amalgamated Foods to the modern day equivalent "virtual" properties, perhaps controlled by the type of activity (allowing passively posting otherwise innocuous content vs activism vs hosting vs commercial) or the site (destination sites like Yahoo or Facebook being more likely to be considered public forums than a storefront like bestbuy.com). In any event, should Amalgamated Foods be extended, private web sites that operate forums could very well be considered limited public forums with some First Amendment protection, despite being private property.
PS. Before you start believing statements like this which imply Amalgamated Foods is no longer good law, read the cases referred to (Hudgens v. NLRB was looking at the applicability of the NLRA, while Pruneyard was applying California's more liberal freedom-of-speech rights).
PPS. None of this should be considered legal advice, nor have I shepardized anything.
My thoughts exactly. You're calling me a Reaganite because I oppose you [hyperbole removed]?
No, you're being called one as you defend the end-run around the Constitution just because you're a "private entity".
It's been a practice around that time to stifle sentiment.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Thought I recognized you.
And then all the providers band together and deny service for the class of people they wish not to do business with.
Sounds like fascism to me.
If they suck and censor stuff that doesn't make sense, they go out of business.
Citation needed. When has that ever happened.
eToys.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Way the hell up.
Seriously, common carrier status. Yes, please, for ISPs, backbone carriers, etc.
Alos look at this example occured some time ago in russia:
Imagine: you are a local police officer, or rather police team - why not. You have just been criticized rather nastily by a 20-something in a blog entry. What do you do? Well, you wouldn't even notice because you don't bother to check blogs, right? Wrong. At least when we're talking about the regional authorities of the north-Russian city of Syvtykar. On this LiveJournal blog, 22-year old musician Savva Terentiev decried Syvtykar's militsiia in February 2007 for measures taken against the local oppositional press. Gripped by the event, Terentiev didn't take recourse to the friendliest possible terms: he proposed to regularly 'set a bad cop on fire' on the main square of every Russian city. The comment was recalled later, but by then the damage had been done: in August, Terentiev was charged with inciting hatred against public authorities. This week, prosecutors announced that he is sent to court, facing up to 2 years in prison or an 8.000 EU fine.
http://russ-cyberspace.livejournal.com/32016.html
Can't find one that does everything you want, start a business providing it. No demand for your business? Well gee, I guess no one really wanted to see that picture.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
Constitution
You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Here you go, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here, let me highlight the relevant portion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here, let me speak loudly and slowly to make sure you understand:
CONGRESS ... SHALL ... MAKE ... NO ... LAW ...
Do you get it now? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect private entities from private entities! It refers to the government legislating away the rights of the people. And last time I checked, Flickr or Yahoo or whatever web service was not recognized as the government of the Unites States of America.
If you're going to rant about "end runs around the Constitution" in four (at last count) posts, at least try reading and comprehending the Constitution first.
Humans have rights, including the rights to free expression. We make governments as our means of protecting those rights. When our governments don't protect our rights, we've failed.
Humans also make corporations to protect our rights. Sometimes these different rights conflict. That's the real work of getting along: negotiating those rights.
When human rights are abused for long enough, the people rebel. Along the way, those people might not rebel, at least not enough to succeed. But they underperform, resist in lame ways. They're ungovernable. The degree to which we create goverments that protect our rights, and form corporations that don't abuse them is the degree to which we can get along.
None of this is even the tiniest bit different on the Web. The Web is just the latest in spaces somewhere between public and private. Private property is used to admit the general public. And since the space is somewhere between public and private, the interplay of rights to public access with rights to control of private property are the subject of the negotiation. If that negotiation protects only the rights of the private corporations owning the property into which the public is admitted, and abuses the rights of that public, then the people will become ungovernable. Likewise if the public's rights are protected to the exclusion of the private rights, the people whose property is being used will become ungovernable.
Corporations will naturally tend to protect their own rights to the exclusion of others', of the public's. That's exactly why we have governments. The governments might also tend to prioritize the people's rights, except that our current governments are so much more interested in corporate people that such a conflict doesn't happen: the corporations have all the advantages. But if the people's rights aren't protected in the appropriate balance, the people will become ungovernable, and rebel.
--
make install -not war
Didn't Digg.com have to change their policy a year or so ago? If I'm not mistaken they backed down due to pressure from their members.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I would say that if BigCo decides they want my house (or, more likely, the land it's standing on), if they're big and ruthless enough, I probably can't afford the court costs to fight them off for that, either. It's just that big companies don't usually care enough about any particular piece of residential land to go to that kind of trouble.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I think I prefer censorship, conducted under public scrutiny, to any idiot with an agenda being able to whip up chaos.
You don't fight bad speech by censoring it you fight it with good speech.
Not that the US doesn't have censorship - for all intents and purposes, if Walmart won't carry your work you've been censored.
Funny, I buy most of my books and magazines, the ones I don't subscribe to, at Barnes and Noble though I also order books from Amazon. And if B&N doesn't have it and won't order it, which I've never had them do, I can go to Borders or another store. I don't recall ever buying a book at Walmart. And as for the First Amendment, it only restricts government from censorship, not businesses.
eBay forcing PayPal in Australia, which was ruled a monopoly action but probably would have happened in the US
eBay could lose a lot of customers. Some sellers only accept certain forms of payment, like VISA. Amazon would love to take some of eBay's customers. As would Yahoo!. My sister both buys and sells on eBay and I bet she'd switch in a heart beat if she had to use a payment system she didn't want to use. Ah, competition.
Whose rights, whose laws, do we respect on the Internet? Should the rest of the world be forced to respect America's laws when America isn't willing to do the same?
You follow the laws of the country you're in when you connect, unless you're willing to pay the price.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If Yahoo (or anyone else) is going to start exercising this sort of editorial control, their safe harbor protection may just have gone out the window.
When this happens, please let me know where the line forms to sue them for hosting offensive content.
Have gnu, will travel.
It isn't an end-run around the Constitution. It is a touch of common sense and nothing else. Yes, people have a right to determine how people use their services. MySpace can kick off pedophiles, Flickr can dump whatever it is they find offensive, and I can delete Viagra ads from my blog's comment section without violating the 1st.
The Internet of all places is where private censorship actually makes the most sense. It is hard and costly to avoid physical areas that don't conform to what you think is proper expression (be that free or restricted). What makes the Internet so wonderful is that you can easily bypass the areas that you find distasteful.
It takes no effort to avoid a right wing religious website that heavily censors their forms in a manner I find repulsive. It takes no effort to drop into a place like Slashdot that offers mild optional self mild self censoring options (karma and user ratings).
The Internet is better than a democracy in that it isn't majority rules, it is YOU rule. You pick the rules you want to live by. Feeling a little anarchist? Merrily only log into place that support your style. Feel like your eyes will bleed if you see a naughty word? Head on over to something safe and sanitized. Want to go some places where BDSM is the ONLY allowable topic of discussion and distracting things like politics are not allowed? I bet my soul that there is a place on the Internet for you. If you really can't find a place that fits you (you probably are not trying), you can make your own with a very small barrier to entry.
The Internet offers up something better than democracy. I want "free speech" on the Internet only in so far that nothing is made illegal by law. If Disney wants to ban sex stories on their forums, more power to them, so long as it is the website owners making the decision and not the government.
So long as the "gates" of the Internet remain open and website operators are given free reign over their tiny little domain of the Internet, I am happy. So long as Time Warner or the government can't hose my packets without my consent because they think I am about to see something offensive, great. If Time Warner wants to police their own personal website like the customer hating bastards they are, more power to them.
The "gates" to the Internet are what need to be protected. Preventing carriers and the government from deciding where you are allowed to go and deciding what packets are can be sent or delayed is where the fight is. Flickr though? Let Flickr set the rules for Flickr. Don't like their rules? I bet you can find another photo sharing website. Don't like that your comment got deleted off a blog? Find another one. Offended that Slashdot doesn't delete offensive posts? Brows at a different level or find a new website. So long as the gates remain open, the Internet is something better than democracy.
The hosting company will also be private. So what is stopping them to refuse to host you ? Nothing. If every single steps of the media dissemination private company refuse to disseminate you, then you are stuck with trying to distribute pamphlet around the corner of the street.
I thought that this was actually a myth and U.S. ISP don't have a common carrier status.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"the case highlights the consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations."
Fucking duh. If it's controlled by a private corporation - it isn't a fucking commons. Fucking internet jackasses who hijack terms with a long history behind them without a fucking clue what the term means.
The message below informs me that I have violated TOS but it will not tell me how. I contacted Yahoo support, requesting clarification and they did not even bother to respond.
I have already removed my Yahoo marketing account due to the inability of technical support to understand a spam report I filed. Now I will stop using Yahoo all together.
Dear REMOVED
By creating and using your Yahoo! account, you agree to abide by
Yahoo!'s Terms of Service (TOS). Pursuant to the TOS, Yahoo! reserves
the right to terminate your account or otherwise prohibit use of your
account in the event that, among other things, Yahoo! believes that you
have violated or acted inconsistently with the letter or spirit of the
TOS.
It has come to our attention that you may have violated the TOS
(http://www.yahoo.com/r/ts) on Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com).
Please reread the TOS and cease any use of your account that may
violate the TOS.
If your use of your Yahoo! account is brought to our attention again,
and we believe that such use violates the TOS, then we may terminate
your account without further notice.
Please do not reply to this email. Any questions concerning Yahoo!'s
Services should be submitted through the on-line form in the help area
( http://help.yahoo.com/ ).
-Yahoo!
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
This issue becomes more and more important as more and more IRL public spaces are privatised. We need to assert more strongly the position that if the public at large are admitted, their rights come in with them.
the case highlights the consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations
There is no such thing as "online commons" nor is there such a thing as "public online space" because all the servers that make up the internet are owned and controlled by someone or some organization.
The only way there would be such things is if there were publicly available, public owned servers, and even then, said servers would be controlled by the government and would be subject to the governments rules on internet use.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Then the landlord isn't "free" to use his property as he sees fit.
Someone's freedom has got to give. There has to be some restriction of freedom given your definition of freedom.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Right, just like the power company may "own" the appliances in your house because they provide you with a "service". (sarcasm)
Several long-time followers of The SCO Group have had messages deleted, entire threads removed, and, incredibly, their Yahoo accounts terminated, simply for telling the truth about the frivolous cases brought against IBM, AutoZone, Novell, and Daimler Chrysler...
How? Fairly simple - a well-known IT eccentric, who may have worked for Novell in the past, has discovered that, by creating a few throw-away accounts, and using each one to send multiple abuse reports on totally non-abusive and 100% factual posts, that Yahoo's automated system will purge the board of any and all material that is detrimental to SCO.
We figure that this is just the latest of his antics to get back at us Linux "loons" - exactly what for, no one is really sure. It's probably got something to do with toads, bad spinach, peyote abuse, or rhodium poisoning.
It isn't an end-run around the Constitution. [bunch of strawman comments snipped]
It is as it permits things that are normally in violation - the only difference is the non-involvement of government. That is what makes it the end run that it is. Marginalize a community, break up its dissent, they're effectively silenced. Works well when there is a presence that is hard to move.
So long as the "gates" of the Internet remain open and website operators are given ... over their tiny little domain of the Internet,
That gets abused enough times not to be funny.
Interesting that dictatorship finds a new home, outside of government. Force is all the same, no matter who initiates it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The bigger they are the harder they fall.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Pay somebody with some skill to make it not suck? Use some pre-existing software (gallery2) to handle the photos in a nice way?
WTF does not getting visitors to your site have to do with freedom?
People can go where they want. If they want to go to "corporate site X" because it has a nicer layout, that's a part of being free. What's the alternative, forcing people at gunpoint to visit your site?
Seriously, if I take a crap on a canvas an call it art, it's not likely anyone will buy it. That's their choice (and a smart one). If *famous artist X* does the same, and names it a masterpiece called "fecalartopia," (look at the soulful placement of corn nuggets) then if somebody buys it they're still free... just not very bright.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But does that make it fine for a private entity to do it on their behalf and hide behind their nongovernmental status?
Do you get it now? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect private entities from private entities
There's your end run. Simply by hiding behind a private entity makes them think they're $DEITY.
QED.
It's also an eCommerce site that went out of business when the bubble burst; it doesn't relate to censorship at all.
It went out of business during the bubble burst yes however it's attack of a Swedish arts group who used etoy as their domain name [WTO page with links to news articles] infuriated a lot of activists. If eToys had never attacked the group they may not of survived anyway, however by attacking them and trying to censor their domain name eToys made sure people would oppose them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?