Free Speech and Censorship in Online Communities
Every so often in the business-oriented online communities in which I participate, the issue of free speech and censorship comes up, usually from someone (or several someones) who is testing or pushing the envelope of the acceptable boundaries within the community — profanity, flame wars, etc.
Is free speech an absolute right within online communities? Can an online community, regardless of its size and membership requirements, establish and enforce a more restrictive code of conduct?
There is a long, well-established precedent for moderation/governance in online communities — even ones that are open to the public. Whether it has been tested for constitutional validity in court or not (and I haven’t found any court cases, but would greatly appreciate any references anyone may have), online communities have for years been in the practice of having codes of conduct that were far more restrictive than constitutional protections. Even large, open membership communities have moderators who are able to edit or delete posts and suspend or eject members who violate those codes of conduct. To say that the boundaries of constitutionally protected free speech is applicable to any privately-owned online community is to go contrary to decades of business practices.
Do blogs change this? What about sites like Gather, Ecademy or AlwaysOn, in which individual blogs are aggregated or displayed in the front page and other pages? One could make the argument that blogs are somehow different because of the fact that they are an individual voice rather than a community space. However, the aggregation of them on the front page and the nature of the threaded comments would, I think, negate any such argument. The site may call them blogs, but if they’re aggregated and allow comments, they’re still really just one big threaded discussion forum. I doubt a court would see a substantial difference simply based on the slight technical difference.
Even so, most hosting companies, including blog hosting companies, also have terms of service that are more restrictive than free speech limits, typically restricting hate speech and pornography, among other things. For example, WordPress.com prohibits the use of PayPerPost. Is that a violation of a blogger’s right to free speech?
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, we all have the right to voluntary restrict our free speech by contract, and when we join an online community we are doing just that — subject to whatever the terms of service are. In fact, the contract doesn’t even have to be explicitily signed in order to be in effect. Consider that when you walk into a theater or restaurant, you give up some of your free speech rights. Do anything that is significantly unpleasant to other patrons — talk too loudly, let your kids run wild, etc. — and you’ll be warned and eventually ejected.
Why would anyone expect an online community to be any different?
You do have the right of free speech, but the owners of a community also have the right to establish and enforce codes of conduct within the community, and be joining that community, your right of contract supercedes your right of free speech.
So when you find yourself bumping up against the boundaries of behavior in an online community, you might want to consider whether that community is really the right community for you. If so, then you can either adapt your behavior to the code of conduct or you can use persuasive means to try to change the code of conduct. But don’t make cries of “Censorship!” — you gave up that right when you joined.
Ahhhh - free speech
as well as to speak
or not to speak
that is the question -
and then web site -
blog
or forum -
Well, to speak here or not on the particular topic is a freedom that I am allowed as a member
To express an opinion that may differ or contradict or even portray a different perspective is definitely a freedom
to interrupt with a different topic
or a profanity or some other innaporopriate distraction from a discussion
those would be rude
and to argue or fight with a person either as the originator of a topic blasting a person with a differing viewpoint or as a commentor blasting the originator of a topic - well - that wouldn’t do under any circumstance
however there is a fine point of distinction that gets untroduced online which is not the same as it might be off line or in the non virtual world - and that lies in the interpretation of a person’s intent when actually hearing their voice -
I believe that often some of the issues or conflicts that people may be having with others stems from an innability to hear the other person’s tone of voice and instead what might be happening - well they just might be injecting the tone of their thoughts or their fears or for whatever reason misinterpreting what it is that another might be attempting to convey -
It is a fact - that relatively speaking - writing and expressing thoughts in the manner in which it is done on the Internet whether on a web site -a blog or in a forum is a relatively new phenomenon in the long history of human communication (including the art of writing letters and business communications and public realtions) and the extent to which this art is mastered by each individual that is attempting to utilize this medium to convey or get across their ideas to others varies greatly with the extent to which they have mastered the new skill.
Were there classes or courses to teach people various skills in this art - then perhaps there might be better communications in the various arenas where this skill must be utilized -
Otherwise the learning is to be left up to those doing the doing -
thank you!
Walter
Comment by Walter Paul Bebirian — 1/7/2007 @ 2:42 pm
THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET IS AGAIN AT RISK: HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON CENSORSHIP BILL
This is brought to you by the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
A little more than a year after the Supreme Court struck down Congress’ last attempt to censor the Net, it’s deja vu all over again — a Congressional committee is poised to vote on a bill that threatens to chill free speech on the Internet. Like the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act (HR 3783), sponsored by Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH,) is offered in the name of protecting children from harmful content online.
______________________________________________________
November 20, 2006
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech on the Internet
San Francisco - In what is a victory for free speech on the Internet, the California Supreme Court ruled today that no provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable for putting material on the Internet that was written by someone else. In doing so, the Court overruled an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal.
Today’s ruling affirms that blogs, websites, listservs, and ISPs like Yahoo!, as well as individuals like defendant Ilena Rosenthal, are protected under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which explicitly states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Read the full case here:
_____________________________________________________
Here is an interesting page on this subject:
Censorship and the Internet
Jennifer Cannon
CEO/Founder/Owner: http://www.BusinessIIBusiness.com (Business Owner Networking)
CEO/Owner: http://www.LegnaMarketing.com (E-News & Promotional Marketing)
Leader/Moderator: BusinessIIBusiness Owners Network Ryze
Comment by Jennifer Cannon — 1/16/2007 @ 2:52 pm
The links for the above comment did not show…here they are again.
November 20, 2006
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech on the Internet
Read the full article here: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005017
Read this page…its good!
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/
Comment by Jennifer Cannon — 1/16/2007 @ 2:55 pm