RatCreature (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ratcreature) wrote2007-05-30 03:17 pm
ratcreature) wrote2007-05-30 03:17 pm
tangential to the whole "Strikethrough 2007" issue...
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.
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.
no subject