I should make things clearer, having gotten that last post out of my system.
Free speech means a lot of things, but a lot of people automatically cry "Free Speech" when it is absolutely irrelevant. I can delete your obnoxious comments from my blog if I so choose. So can the Tribune. I can choose not to run your offensive ad in my paper. I can choose not to give a loony a platform in my paper by not publishing his letter to the editor.
Especially in the age of blogs, there is no reason why I can't be a dictator about the content that goes on my own site. This is true for a couple reasons--I'm libel for content on ErikEmery.com, for example. And because it's my voice here and I don't have to give you the right to voice yours here too. But you can just as easy go get your own Blogger account and set up a blog with an opposing view.
Google is not liable for anything we say when we use its blogging platform. And they shouldn't be. Network Solutions, Comcast (or some other provider who allows you to view my site) and any other company is not liable either. It would be like holding Gutenberg accountable because I say malicious things using a printing press (or at least, close enough).
But if they're not liable, they shouldn't be censoring either. I'm looking at you right now, Network Solutions, but Comcast is also on my list after trying to inhibit downloads from users using .torrent files (frequently used to exchange illegal copies of movies, which also happens to compete with Comcast's OnDemand offerings. Funny that).
And Google does have the right to clean up spam-filled blogs. With blogs as easy to create as they are, Blogger and other free and easy blogging platforms should be monitoring spam blogs built to give you a virus, steal your credit card information, or just get you to buy Viagra.
But these companies should not get a say in the content posted to their sites or using the fiber-optic cables that connect the Internet (AKA, a series of tubes).
Monday, March 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
The thing is, there's nothing that guarantees you the right to say whatever you want on the internet. Your free speech is not being protected by allowing your blog to exist-- whomever you use as your server or host is allowing you to use their infrastructure to build a site. There is no constitutional reason that they can't pull the plug on any site, at any time, for any reason.
Don't be so quick to assume that no one but the administrator is liable (that's liable-- not libel) for information on or use of a website. Napster never illegally traded music, but they took it in the shorts for allowing others to do so. Liability can extend beyond your own actions when you have the power (and sometimes duty) to prevent a harm.
Post a Comment