tangential to the whole "Strikethrough 2007" issue...

[ratcreature]

I've seen a couple of posts on my f-list saying that connecting the recent suspensions to "freedom of speech" issues was misguided, basically because LJ is a private entity and can regulate their service as they see fit. But see, for me the issue isn't that I'm unclear about the strict meaning of "censorship" (i.e. done by governments not private companies) and that these provisions for "free speech" in their various local forms are mainly intended to protect you from being thrown into jail for expressing something, not to actually help you distribute it to someone. I mean, in pre-internet days nobody was obligated to let you use their printing press or later on their copy shop for, say, publishing your porn either. Or let you onto their radio station or whatever. Which is why I'm not that bothered from a mere publishing perspective, that isn't really any different than pre-internet.

But the electronic sites are also social spaces and are replacing in a way physical gatherings by people. Only those take place in virtual spaces that are privately owned (often by companies, though certainly there are a few alternatives or non-profits offering their own infrastructure) and I worry about the implications of that. If all "public" spaces for gathering and for speech are vanishing (and even gatherings that formerly also took place in a different kind of private space, say a pub, are now more easily controlled through the internet features of social sites), that is either vanishing directly, because e.g. yet another piece of public street with stores became a "private shopping mall" entirely rather than remaining public (and seriously around here they for example privatized the plaza in front of the central station so now you can't sit there anymore if you look poor or something but are accosted and removed by scary private security guards who personally bother and intimidate me far more than a few drunk punks and drug dealers loitering there before ever did), or indirectly because people move into virtual gathering and communication spaces that are private infrastructure to begin with, well once that move is complete the "free speech" you are allowed when you gather with others in principle is kind of inconsequential if all (or at least most) infrastructure is commercially owned on some level, and on the cautious and conservative side to avoid trouble and not loose business or advertisers or whatever.

So I do think how well (or badly) private companies handle these issues is connected to free speech on a practical level, even if on a formalistic level it is not.

Comments

[mawombat.livejournal.com]

Nice, especially since parts of the internet are already referred to in real-world terms, such as Information Superhighway.

The Internet is a public space.

I feel the need to reread Jurgen Habermas now.

[ratcreature]

Well, on the one hand I understand that LJ reacts by just tossing potentially problematic content to avoid liability, rather than to try and fight to the bitter end for any content like they were some electronic freedom organization rather than a business, and I can ceratinly see why LJ wouldn't want to be the ones responsible sorting out in some court whether it's okay to host communities with discussion how hot Draco being raped by Lucius is or whether that is equivalent to facilitating pedophilia after all or whatever.

I don't really expect them to be on the "cutting edge" of electronic rights. And I get that these TOS usually always have some loophole for them to end your account just because they want to anyway. But OTOH I'd find it really annoying should they permanently suspend LJs that don't even have any TOS violating content, or even content that is in some gray area where it is unclear whether it is problematic, but just a "illegal" interest, yet are in fact book discussion groups or RPG villains. Obviously expressing an "interest" alone isn't illegal, and if the networking and search possibility being utilized for illegal activities causes this much headaches for their legal department (and I am no lawyer so I have no clue how that really works, but that seems to be what the response emails from LJ are implying) they may be better off just to disable the interest search altogether, and go back to just suspending for actual content someone reports, IMO. Otherwise they may as well end up with people randomly reporting LJs that list drugs or prostitution because there are also comms doing illegal things and listing those interests.

[the-lizard-rat.livejournal.com]

Stuff like this is certainly interesting to watch, or groan about, or whine about (as in the case of my own LJ, because one of the fandoms I am a part of can be sort of considered "adult", but that's for another time). I just hope it blows over quickly.

I love your user icons, by the way. Saw your posts in other journals (mostly due the situation mentioned in this post) and just had to visit.

Lizard Rat out.
Web Wandering Wolf in Albany NY

[ratcreature]

I'm happy to hear you like my icons. :)

And yeah, I kind of hope that at least this suspending for an interest alone gets resolved in some sane fashion, because IMO that's just a bizarre policy if those suspensions aren't merely temporary to give time check the actual LJs for violations or something.

[retsuko.livejournal.com]

Uhm, I have seen this mentioned a few times now, but have no idea what's going on. Could you please enlighten me?

[ratcreature]

They have (possibly permanently) suspended users and communities that had "incest" or certain other interests listed. Some were pedopile communities and such, but as long as the LJ got reported (presumably by some rather dubious anti-childporn campaign who are scarce with their credentials on their website, looke here for someone describing interaction with them and their responses), they suspended regardless of the actual content, that is a Lolita book discussion group got suspended, RPG villains with huge disclaimers that they are fictional (and actually the RPG has rules limiting explicit content), several HP porn communities, most prominently pornish_pixies, and I've seen at least one incest survivor saying their LJ got suspended. For a better overview check for example:
http://lolaraincoat.livejournal.com/253978.html
http://catrinella.livejournal.com/151812.html
http://ataniell93.livejournal.com/818441.html
http://femmequixotic.livejournal.com/292480.html
http://cordelia-v.livejournal.com/188534.html

[retsuko.livejournal.com]

Aha! I admit I cruised over to fandom_wank in the meantime and got the highly...uhm, wanky version. But thanks for the links. I wonder what the long term implications for LJ are.

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I've been getting pretty annoyed with people who keep insisting that since it's not a First Amendment issue, it can't possibly be considered a freedom of speech issue. As I commented in another friend's LJ, freedom of speech requires more than just legal protection. It also requires a society that actually values free speech enough to create forums where our legal rights can be exercised. Without that, the First Amendment (or whatever legal protection exists in other countries) gets you nothing except the right to quietly whisper whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, that's what has been getting on my nerves too.