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.

Comments

Re:Parent needs a mod-up.

[Kreigaffe]

I'm half with you on that, and half with the government.

they'd never have established some bullshit "free speech zone" had protesters not made it a habit to intentionally create great disturbances in the travel and commerce of others.

Stop physically blocking people from doing what they want to do. That's fucking annoying. That gets you thrown into fenced-in areas where you can cry about Cause X all you want and nobody has to worry about you interfering with people trying to get from Point A to Point B, or you blocking the legal movement of goods.

In other words? Free speech zones were created because protesters had no clue what "free speech" means and thought it meant "Free (to be as obnoxious as it takes to make people notice me, up to and including violating their rights and disrupting lawful commerce)"

PS: If you're going to throw out the whole "fascist" label, I feel it necessary to point out that large mobs of people assembling in public and disrupting lawful travel of people and goods is, in fact, a page straight from the fascist playbook. Some of them wore blue shirts, some of them wore brown shirts. Google it!

Re:Parent needs a mod-up.

[plasmacutter]

that's a crock.

cops as a whole (though maybe not some individually) are hyper-conservative authoritarians.

They incite the crowd by acting first, then conveniently "omit" that in their final report.

By the way, if you acted in a way where a large enough crowd gathers to effectively block access to your property, then that's your fault and not theirs.