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.
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
I don't know. It's been recently ruled that shopping centers are considered public spaces as people have an expectation of them being public spaces even though they are privately owned. I could see, both fortunately and unfortunately, something like myspace being ruled as a public space just due from the public perception of it being reasonably public.
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.
/. claim. In the US, in 1980, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to rule that under its own Constitution shopping malls were public forums. link Private property, but free speech.
Not quite. Suppose Flickr decided to remove any pictures of black people or catholics, do you think they would be exercising legitimate property rights? Do you think that they could get away with it? Property rights are not absolute. They can be trumped by other rights - free speech can be one of those rights. This case isn't so clear cut as many on
except theyre renting it out to individuals for the express purpose of their own expression, whether it's for directly paid fees or advertising revenue from traffic.
Sort of like a newspaper or magazine advertisement or editorial column then?
Their interference/censorship at any point in this process is equivalent to a landlord entering your house in the dead of night and ripping down your kids rap posters because he doesn't like that "negro music".
So when the paper refuses to run something they find offensive in the ad space I've purchased or refuse to run the column I wrote this week that's equivalent to people sneaking into my kids rooms at night to remove their rap star posters?
Get real.
false dichotomy. I am not opening my house and advertising it as a public forum like these web hosts are.
There's your mistake. They aren't opening their web servers and calling it a public forum. Read the terms of service... they actually read much like the submission guidelines for a newspaper or magazine ad.
And nobody is forcing you to visit the websites or view the pictures hosted there, but they have an obligation to treat people equally and not discriminate on them based on political views or aesthetic tastes.
Good luck posting an ad for your S&M party in the local church newsletter, or even a campaign ad for the pro-abortion / gay marriage candidate. Its their forum not yours. They might be offering to let people contribute content to it or even sell space, but its their space, not yours, and they have final say on what goes in it, not you.
If you want to post something on the internet, retain all your rights to the content, AND be protected by the first amendment: just host it yourself. If no one will print your ad you can always print your own handbills, similiarly on the internet you can host your own content.
Yes and no. For instance, some types of private property are considered public accommodations by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Restaurants, hotels, etc. As such, the owners of these properties cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion or national origin. So in the general case it is not true with regard to your personal property that, "You have the right to control who can be on it, or use it."
In this particular case, though, I doubt Flickr qualifies as a public accommodation. Also, from what I can tell, there is no speech issue here since the constitutional protection of speech only prohibits congress (and, by extension, lesser govt. entities such as states) from prohibiting speech, not private entities. It's ridiculous that someone would conflate Flickr's removal of this photo as violating their constitutional rights. Now, it's quite possible that the removal violated Flickr's terms of service...in which case a lawsuit may be in order.
No. The only restriction is on the modification of property. A landlord cannot discriminate based on your beliefs, nor stop you from inviting associates, sign a petition, etc. Typically such clauses on signs are generalized, with the purpose not being to restrict specific speech, but to protect the visuals of the property. It's not that the landlord doesn't want you to put up your "I Hate the Mayor" sign, you also can't post your "Go local sports team" sign either.
The US Constitution was not designed to remove feudalism. Originally it was designed as a structure for the association of the member states. Some of the founders like John Adams believed an aristocracy was needed to ensure a stable country. In fact, a psuedo-aristocracy was in place given that Senate members were elected by state legislatures and not individual citizens.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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
ISPs are not common carriers.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
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.