Cr@p
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 1:18 AM EDT |
There are no distinctions as to what constitutes freedom of speech, only the conditions under which it is protected and/or permitted. If Lxer editors decide that certain topics or certain manners of speech are not to be allowed on the site, they are indeed restricting freedom of speech. They are within their rights to do so, but it doesn't change the nature of the act, nor does it alter the lessons that have been learned in 200 years of defining, refining, and protecting constitutionally protected speech. Restrictions tend to have a chilling effect on the range of thought and conversation. If you repress speech long enough, people will begin repressing themselves and some ideas/expressions never come to light. Yeah, a private site has every right to do that. Visitors have no recourse except to decide the conversations are no longer very interesting and to look elsewhere. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 1:26 AM EDT |
dina: In a word, nonsense. Nobody has a right to dictate what someone should or should not publish. That takes away the publisher's freedom of speech. There is a difference between public and private. There is no difference between the LXer.com editors exerting editorial control and the New York Times deciding what is in the paper. You have the right to decide whether to read the Times or not and the same is true of LXer.com. What you are saying is that if the Times doesn't publish your opinion then they are restricting freedom of speech. Nonsense! The same is true of LXer.com. Media is media is media. Private is private and public is public. |
| azerthoth Nov 29, 2009 2:10 AM EDT |
Another way to put it is, everyone is free to say and express as they will and choose. This does not obligate Madison Square Gardens to supply that venue because someone wishes to express themselves there. Proprietors of establishments have long had the ability to limit actions that take place in their venues, if a website will not publish someones views, this in no way prevents them from expressing them elsewhere. If push comes to shove, make your own website to express your views. If you lack the ability to create that site, it still in no way hampers your freedom to express yourself. It just means that in a digital age you are a mute standing on a corner with a bullhorn. The right exists, the physical ability is missing, unlike the mute though, the knowledge to express oneself in a digital world is an easily acquired ability. p.s. cailtyn, wonderful piece. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 2:43 AM EDT |
Thanks, azerthoth. Also a great analogy on your part. |
| cubrewer Nov 29, 2009 3:59 AM EDT |
caitlyn: I think you've misunderstood dinotrac. You say "Nobody has a right to dictate what someone should or should not publish" and dinotrac says "a private site has every right to [decide what to publish]" So where's the disagreement? Or is "dina: In a word, nonsense" your way of agreeing with someone? I think the sad truth is that people aren't very thoughtful in their comments and I think you've just illustrated that point nicely. |
| jerrys Nov 29, 2009 5:34 AM EDT |
cubrewer: The two statements you quote do not have the same meaning. The statement you quote from dinotrac is not in dispute, nor is it the crux of dinotrac's point. What dinotrac says is that the exercise of that right ("a private site has every right to [decide what to publish]") to the exclusion of a third party's comments constitutes a violation of that third parties right to free speech. What caitlyn says is that there is no such right held by any third party that is violated by a private party exercising control over what they publish. The right to freedom of speech does not grant such authority, and thus cannot be violated by it. If I wanted to make a statement by having someone else wear a shirt that has my statement printed on it, can I justly cry "censorship" and demand "freedom of speech" when they refuse to wear the shirt? |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 8:49 AM EDT |
caitlyn - Nice misdirection and utterly dishonest response that comes as no surprise from you. Leave it to you to claim that: Quoting: Yeah, a private site has every right to do that. is not the same thing as: Quoting: Nobody has a right to dictate what someone should or should not publish. Unless you object to: Quoting: Visitors have no recourse except to decide the conversations are no longer very interesting and to look elsewhere. Perhaps you believe that publishers have the right to demand that we visit their sites or buy their books no matter how heavily they compress the conversation. The answer is no. As I said while you were steadfastly averting your gaze, our actions have consequences. Yes, a private site has every right to restrict the conversation. Sometimes, a site is all but obligated to do so. However, actions have consequences, and heavy hands tend to steal life. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 8:54 AM EDT |
jerrys -Quoting: constitutes a violation of that third parties right to free speech. What? I said nothing of the sort. I made reference to constitutionally protected speech only because we have two hundred years of Supreme Court decisions that probe the effect of restrictions on expression. There is no better source I can think of for lessons in both the power and fragility of free discourse, or the consequences of its repression. As I stated explicitly, private sites are free to do as they please. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 8:54 AM EDT |
cubrewer - Congratulations. I am pleased to see that somebody here can read for comprehension. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2009 10:12 AM EDT |
> ...constitutes a violation of that third parties right to free speech. As Dino noted, he said nothing of the kind. You have no "right to free speech" on LXer. LXer as a private entity can limit the speech it allows on it's property in ways that the government legally can't. That doesn't change the fact that LXer IS limiting said speech. What Dino is saying is the fact that they have the right to do so doesn't change the nature of what they're doing. In that,he's completely correct. |
| montezuma Nov 29, 2009 10:50 AM EDT |
Great piece Caitlyn. My thoughts exactly. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
@jdixon: We are going to have to agree to disagree. As long as LXer.com doesn't prevent you from posting a contrary opinion somewhere where people can read it they are not limiting free speech. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 1:55 PM EDT |
jdixon -- You are of course, correct. Others are free to disagree, no matter how much they must batter logic and english to do so. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 3:25 PM EDT |
It's not battered logic or English. You definition of free speech shows a clear misunderstanding of the concept. Your rudeness shows something else entirely. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 3:33 PM EDT |
Caitlyn - Nope to the first. Yup to the second. |
| cubrewer Nov 29, 2009 3:35 PM EDT |
caitlyn: If rudness is bad, why are you bring rude to dinotrac? Do you think that two wrong make a right, or that this is in any way conducive to a positive, interesting community? I think your reply borders on abuse. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 3:43 PM EDT |
I haven't been rude. I see the pot calling the kettle black. Who is being abusive here? Hey, if you don't like the message attack the messenger. I get it. |
| tuxchick Nov 29, 2009 3:54 PM EDT |
Quoting: Restrictions tend to have a chilling effect on the range of thought and conversation. If you repress speech long enough, people will begin repressing themselves and some ideas/expressions never come to light. Sometimes I think a good chilling is exactly the right thing to do. If it chilled the right people, that is, the ones who fill online forums, lists, and chat channels with stupid stuff. Not expressing ideas and viewpoints, but noise and thoughtless kneejerk reactions to headlines. Heck, even a whole headline is too long anymore and all it takes is the first word or too. Don't read articles or other comments, don't think, don't do four seconds of Web searching to make sure they're not spewing complete nonsense, don't develop a fully-formed opinion, but rather emit a self-indulgent Tourette's-like stream-of-consciousness. Zero value in that, and as the noise increases it has a chilling effect of its own. Even so, you are right dino, because when there are no venues for free speech what good is having the right to it? Executive summary: I am firmly in the waffle camp. |
| cubrewer Nov 29, 2009 3:57 PM EDT |
caitlyn: If "Your rudeness shows something else entirely." wasn't a rude comment, what was it? Was it a constructive argument? And the rest of your post was just (childish) nay-saying without adding anything new. Again, you think this is constructive way to build a community? I think it sad that you stoop to personal attacks. And the way that you feel that you must vehemently answer even the slightest criticism makes me feel that this is less a constructive discussion and more a pointless exercise in thought policing. I get the impression that unless I post replies agreeing with you (or just give up and go away), I will can be sure that you will respond with another attack that doesn't really address the points that I have raised. |
| cubrewer Nov 29, 2009 4:00 PM EDT |
tuxchick: Exactly! I'm really disappointed how toxic LXer has become, over the past couple years. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
cubrewer - Not to worry. She has the freedom to be rude, just as I do. I don't worry about it and you shouldn't either. The bigger point is an understanding of what freedom is and why it matters, something that caitlyn seems unable or unwilling to grasp. Any child knows that freedom is constrained and that constraints can come from multiple sources. When you're ten, your parents define the limits of your freedom. At school, your teachers do. When you're on Lxer, it's the owners and editors of Lxer. No insight required to to grasp that simple reality. Caitlyn wishes to focus on the simple question of what can be done and avoid the more interesting question of what ought to be done. I can see why. One is neat and tidy, the other messy. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 4:03 PM EDT |
TC -- Waffles. Love 'em. I know what you mean, though. The internet seems to be an unsafe place for free speech, which contrary to some conceptions, is not equal to bile. |
| montezuma Nov 29, 2009 5:28 PM EDT |
The internet is an interesting new social phenomenon which leads at times to rather extreme and unproductive social interactions. In the days of the writing of the US constitution freedom of speech really meant the ability to say in a public place anything on your mind (within the limits of profanity). It never meant the right to tell someone they were wrong in their own home or the right to cause social disruption at a private gathering. The problem with the internet is that this divide has blurred somewhat so that sites like Lxer have the character of a public place even though they are actually private property. In my opinion every internet forum should have a set of rules (terms of service) which prevent social disruption. If they don't then the site will have a limited future because only people who "fit in" will frequent it. I really don't see that as a "chilling" effect on free speech since there are many alternative fora with different rules. If you wish to discuss (for example) libertarian philosophy as it pertains to FOSS, there are many places where that is possible. Usually they are places where the same basic philosophy is shared by participants so that every conversation does not end up in angry incomprehension. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 5:53 PM EDT |
I agree with montezuma's last post wholeheartedly. tuxchick, it's interesting that you describe yourself as waffling on free speech issues. I will freely admit that my views on some aspects of this issue (and of issues pertaining to other civil liberties) have been evolving in recent years. In the case of free speech in some cases my views are now 180 degrees opposite of what they were for a very long time. Even if I accepted dinotrac's argument (which I obviously don't), opening up the comments completely and removing editorial control would allow more of certain types of speech but would almost certainly deny publishers (including web publishers) their own freedom of speech and expression. Could a group of satanists then hijack Christian websites or vice versa? In general the noise could and would drown out the message. Many websites are either narrow in scope (like this one) or are a means of promoting specific ideas. I feel that there is no free speech guarantee for private space nor should there be. That isn't what free speech, as defined by the laws of various free countries around the world, is. Even if we expand the definition of free speech to include dinotrac's ideas then it becomes an issue of allowing one sort of free speech at the expense of another. There are good reasons free speech is defined the way it is. If we define free speech in absolute terms (as dinotrac attempts to do) then there is no real free speech anywhere. It is always limited in some way or another. If we stick with legal definitions that make sense it's a lot easier to draw lines around what clearly should be protected speech and the limited cases where free speech does more harm than good. I don't think even the most ardent civil libertarian would argue for the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded room when there is no fire. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 6:24 PM EDT |
Caitlyn - Nobody has argued for abandoning rules. Again, a simple reading would reveal that: Quoting: Yes, a private site has every right to restrict the conversation. Sometimes, a site is all but obligated to do so. Freedom is more complicated than you try to make it and certainly more complicated than the view you keep trying to pin on me. I suppose I should not expect honesty from somebody who can't comprehend freedom. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 6:44 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that you argued for abandoning rules. I said that you had a non-standard definition of freedom of speech, one which strong differs from the legal use of the term. I comprehend freedom. I'm not sure you do. I've been nothing if not honest. I know, I should stop feeding the two trolls in this thread. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 7:00 PM EDT |
Perhaps you're using non-standard english:Quoting: If we define free speech in absolute terms (as dinotrac attempts to do) |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 7:04 PM EDT |
Nope.
Quoting:There are no distinctions as to what constitutes freedom of speech, only the conditions under which it is protected and/or permitted. By stating there are no distinctions you are defining it in absolute terms. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 29, 2009 7:27 PM EDT |
Just to add .02 FRNs to the discussion, It is important to realize that the 1st Amendment, where the _Constitutional_ right of freedom of speech is enumerated, is a restriction upon _government_. Congress, specifically, although it's arguable that it applies to all governments. There is no _Constitutional_ free speech where private property is concerned. Only public. And so far, web sites are private property. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 8:03 PM EDT |
Bob - Yes. When referring to Constitutionally protected free speech, that is absolutely the case. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 8:08 PM EDT |
Caitlyn - Now you've got me intrigued. How would you define free speech other than relying on, ahem, freedom and speech? And I do apologize for misunderstanding you. I presumed your use of the word absolute to mean without limit or restriction. My bad. |
| tuxchick Nov 29, 2009 8:29 PM EDT |
Just remember folks-- if you can't cut the mustard, then cut the cheese. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 8:36 PM EDT |
@dinotrac: Apology accepted. Good to be back on civil terms. An intelligent debate is always something I'm usually up for. First, let me start by doing something I rarely do: agreeing with Bob_Robertson 100%. To answer Bob's point: for the sake of discussion we are talking about free societies, all of which, AFAIK, have some sort of free speech protection in their basic law. Obviously it doesn't apply to all governments. Comment moderation (which is what I initially wrote about) doesn't restrict your ability to freely speak and express your ideas. It restricts *WHERE* you can express those ideas but not your ability to effectively express them. The example I used in the blog post, Thomas Holbrook's disagreement with the LXer.com TOS, is a perfect example. The editors here may restrict such a discussion but that didn't stop him from putting his opinion out there in a way that was pretty darned easy to find. If LXer.com or the government or anyone could somehow prevent Thomas Holbrook from voicing that opinion that would be censorship and would be infringing on his freedom of speech. Restricting the ability to place it in a private media, whether online or print or broadcast or whatever, is not preventing him from speaking and making his opinion known. That is my point. So, in fairness, I am still defining free speech in terms of freedom and speech. You are correct there is no other way to do it. However there is nothing about location in the definition of freedom or speech. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 9:14 PM EDT |
caitlyn - Re: comments on comment moderation -- That is completely consistent with the very first sentence of my very first comment. But... The fact that I can turn around and speak freely to my wife has no impact on the quality of discourse at LXer. Good communication and good conversation depends on the speakers feeling free to express their thoughts. Control the conversation too tightly, and that sense of freedom dies, taking the quality of discourse with it. This is not rocket science and it is not new news. |
| montezuma Nov 29, 2009 9:44 PM EDT |
Dino,
Conversely control the conversation too laxly and again the quality of conversation drops due to unproductive abuse hurling. A good balance is always needed. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 9:50 PM EDT |
M --- Yup, though tis usually better to risk controlling too lightly than too tightly. Messiness ensues, but little of what is interesting in life is all that tidy. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 29, 2009 9:54 PM EDT |
The difference between "government" and "governance". Governance of your own actions, moderation whether personal or "site", is a very good thing. The other, is a TOS violation. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 9:56 PM EDT |
Bob -- Yup. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 29, 2009 10:05 PM EDT |
Dino, you might (and, indeed you might not) be surprised just how many otherwise highly intelligent people do NOT understand that there is a difference. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2009 10:12 PM EDT |
B_R - Nope. Long past being surprised by such things. |
| caitlyn Nov 29, 2009 10:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yup, though tis usually better to risk controlling too lightly than too tightly. Messiness ensues, but little of what is interesting in life is all that tidy. You know, I used to believe that. However, my life experience and the development of the internet and the way it is used and abused have changed my views drastically over the years. I used to be quite the civil libertarian and was a defender of any and all free speech. I'm treading awfully close to a TOS violation here, but... It might surprise you to know that I defended the ACLU's position regarding the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, IL when most of my Jewish peers felt that permit should have been denied. Many quit the ACLU in protest. I've come to believe I was completely wrong at the time, FWIW, but back then I saw free speech as paramount. I've recently become convinced that more regulation of speech, not less, is necessary due largely to some rather extreme situations which do exist on the 'net. I think the Wild West mentality which permeates the net is due, in part, to the fact that the laws which regulate speech, ones which you might well agree with, have not kept up with technology and the new media. The problem, as I see it, is to add regulation which does not impede legitimate discussion and debate and does not trample on the First Amendment or the equivalent guarantees in other free countries, yet which prevents the net from being used for things which would not be tolerated in other media or in society in general. I don't want to wander too far off topic and I will be writing more about this in my blog and possibly for O'Reilly as a follow-up to the article I did on hate speech (white supremacists and racism, Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism) on Facebook. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!