Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Free Speech Rights Not Guaranteed in 'Public' Online Spaces
news.wired.com — Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative. Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
insaincain02- 1063 diggs
- digg it
- cmccool, on 07/06/2008, -3/+28Here is Dors' picture of "an early-adolescent boy with disheveled hair and a ragged T-shirt, staring blankly with a lit cigarette in his mouth" that was banned, temporarily, by Yahoo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maartend/1429385268/i ...
So is Yahoo really the bad guy at the end of the day if the "banned" picture is up on the net now? The friction between acceptable and unacceptable "free speech" will always occur, I'm glad that Yahoo is at least reasonable enough to recognize when to "give."- hmd1987, on 07/06/2008, -5/+8nah, i'd say at&t will be the bad guys at the end of the day
once they have a monopoly on the internet and one day yahoo
won't ever load on your browser for some strange reason...hypothetically let's assume because they've got money invested in google or some other search engine.
bam. - GeneralFailure0, on 07/07/2008, -1/+14That's a lot less artsy than I pictured it when I was reading the article. It actually just looks like some kid took a picture of himself smoking to show off like the thousands who do it on myspace all the time. If yahoo took it down thinking that and put it back up after the guy complained, there is no problem here.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Even if Yahoo didn't put it back up there is no problem here, they'd be well within their rights.
- locojones, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The First Amendment only applies to government action. It does not extend to the actions of private entities like those mentioned in the article. Yahoo, Ebay, Myspace, etc. can censor or prevent speech however they like, just as you can on your own privately run message forum or blog. The author's cry that Congress should force private people to enforce the First Amendment runs contrary to the entire meaning of the amendment itself, and only highlights the ignorance of the author.
- MariusAgricola, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Yahoo and all the other providers end up being the bad guys by thinking they can be the arbiters of decency. While I respect their right as a private enterprise to remove content they feel is inappropriate, I think that getting involved in this kind of game in the first place puts them in an awkward and untenable position.
- JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11You have a right to say whatever you want.
Yahoo has the right to restrict use of their servers.
Your rights end where Yahoo's property begins.
OK, so where's the problem?- ubuwalker31, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3The problem is that "The Internet" has both private and public elements. Politically, our tax money created the original technology, and our tax money helped fund the backbone. Lots of private money has gone into this infrastructure as well. Legally, complex agreements between Corporations and consumers and the government govern what acceptable use of the internet is. Socially, the public views the internet as a "Wild West" - a place where anyone can speak his mind and publish content and look at content that pushes the bounds of social acceptability.
So, while you have a right to say whatever you want, the internet has changed the rules of who can stop you from saying it. Yahoo's property is yours to use as long as you abide by the user agreement.
The problem is that corporations are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. ISPs want to meter the internet and prevent people from running servers. The problem is that conflicting laws on free speech between countries is creating zones of dead speech. The problem is that corporations are caving into overzealous governments who want to crack down on legitimate problems, but destroying entire portions of the internet in their zeal, like banning Usenet. - JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5"The problem is that "The Internet" has both private and public elements."
A server owned by Yahoo is not one of the "public" elements.
There are private and public elements in the physical world also. Just because my private property connects to a public road, that doesn't give the public the right to park on it.
- ubuwalker31, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3The problem is that "The Internet" has both private and public elements. Politically, our tax money created the original technology, and our tax money helped fund the backbone. Lots of private money has gone into this infrastructure as well. Legally, complex agreements between Corporations and consumers and the government govern what acceptable use of the internet is. Socially, the public views the internet as a "Wild West" - a place where anyone can speak his mind and publish content and look at content that pushes the bounds of social acceptability.
- jabberwolf, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I agree.
Since when is YAHOO or GOOGLE a public forum ?
Hell even DIGG isnt a public forum.
You can have your own domain and website and THEN you might call it public.
- hmd1987, on 07/06/2008, -5/+8nah, i'd say at&t will be the bad guys at the end of the day
- Skipperdo, on 07/06/2008, -10/+91Even though I'm from America I'm tired of Americans thinking that just because they live and connect to the internet in America that somehow the WORLD WIDE Web is an extension of America and therefore people are guaranteed Freedom of Speech and all that other tripe.
Companies have a right to say what is used on their webspace and what isn't, just like they have a right to eject someone from their buildings.
Though I agree that this is ridiculous, its not because of "Free Speech".- bradhart2, on 07/07/2008, -3/+9Here is another post dealing with the business side of it and calls any blogger a hypocrites who uses spam protection and then whines about freedom speech crackdowns
http://bradtheblogboy.com/hosting/cya-for-bloggers ... - ImOscar, on 07/07/2008, -3/+46Exaclty. Buried as innacurate. These are not public spaces we are talking about. If I run a website I damn well be able to put up or take down whatever I want.
- norman619, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12No ***** the poster and the article fail to understand posting on the internet is basically speaking your mind on private property. Just like you are not free to do/say as you like in a store like Best Buy. The public is welcomed but you must follow their rules or you WILL be kicked out.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1You are not a corporation. Stop pretending that what is good for the corporate goose is great for the public gander.
- thebaron2, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The point, geddon, is that WHOEVER is running the site is paying for the domain space, and as such it's their right to run the place however they see fit (excluding illegal material as determined by the country in which the site is hosted).
If I, as a private citizen, open up a corner meeting house I have property-owner rights just like Best Buy does. If you waltz into my place slinging racial epithets or trying to peddle your wares I have every right to kick your ass to the curb. Same goes for websites.
Are you of the opinion that all spam filtering should be ruled unconstitutional, and that website owners shouldn't have control over who can advertise what and where to draw the line regarding lewd comments? - geddon, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1No, I'm of the opinion that removing an offensive comment from my personal website doesn't have the same ramifications as AT&T blocking live broadcasts of Pearl Jam concerts.
Equating your personal rights to those of a multi-national corporation is ludicrous (to say the least). - thebaron2, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1How is it ludicrous? The only difference is how many visitors are going to be affected. What if my personal web site draws more hits and therefore effects more people than AT&T's sites? Do I become a corporation then? Is it still OK for me to police my own site, even though my decisions are effecting thousands and thousands of people?
Is the issue here that the website is owned by a corporations as opposed to a private citizen, or does it depend on how many people are affected (the ramifications you mention)?
Why shouldn't AT&T have the right to NOT broadcast concerts if they don't want to?
- samdu, on 07/07/2008, -2/+35I think it has less to do with people thinking that the Web is an "extension of America," and more to do with a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution by most Americans. Most average Americans have the false impression that we, as citizens of the US, are guaranteed free speech across the board. But the Constitution only prohibits GOVERNMENT from infringing on freedom of speech. Any private entity can establish terms of service that limit free speech.
- flygirl62, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5This is true so often with many things. People very often extend the constitution to say what they want it to say, rather than what it says or what it was meant to say.
However, I think it *would* apply if the Internet became a monopoly and you could not go to anyplace else to post your pictures or comments.
What is going on here is the equivalent of someone having a "hang your pictures here for free" art gallery saying "I don't like that picture and you can't hang it in my building." They are clearly not banning the picture from the Internet as a whole. - sodade, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1The problem is when major corporations become "the government"
- thebaron2, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2As long as private citizens (or individuals) can register their own domain space, both posts above this one are moot.
And to sodade, I think your post means exactly the opposite of what you intend: were corporations to become "the government" then they wouldn't be able to infringe on free speech. Then again, such a broad, unsupported implication that major corporations will become the government is pretty meaningless without some clarifying follow-up thoughts...
- flygirl62, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5This is true so often with many things. People very often extend the constitution to say what they want it to say, rather than what it says or what it was meant to say.
- Devrdander, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6When i use to run an IRC server years ago i would get all kinds of idiots claiming they have a right to free speech. Then i would have to use my big IRCop Clue Bat and show them that its a privately operated server and the US Constitution doesn't extend that right to my server. My goal was to keep the majority happy on the server and settle disputes peacefully. The more users i got the more potential money I could make off advertisements on the web client, the motd, and the website help pages.
- cawpin, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Agreed. It looks like insaincain02 is an incarnation of MrBabyMan's spam days. All he posts are dupes and inaccurate ***** like this.
- swrostmore, on 07/07/2008, -1/+15"Average Americans" have the profound misunderstanding that the Consitution "grants" rights, such as freedom of speech. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes fundamental rights that all people have (not just Americans), and prohibits the government from passing laws which infringe upon those rights.
- JCPahl, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Yeah, it's pretty scary to realize that many Americans believe rights are things the government gives you; maybe that's why Bush & Co. have gotten away with all they have. No, dumbasses, it's called a "right" because you don't need it granted to you. Freedom of speech is recognized, not given. Anyway, I logged in just to digg you up.
- urgeigh, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2JC, most people think we live in a freaking democracy, and you expect them to understand the constitution? Hahahah this country is so *****, and more because of the willful ignorance of the people than any President, Congressman, Corporation, etc. Lots of very informed and well said posts on this thread though, Diggers make me proud sometimes :)
- thepxc, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Considering that the WWW was born in the USA, grew up in the USA, and retains most of its infrastructure in the USA, and also the penetration of Internet-enabled PCs in the USA as compared to elsewhere, it's not surprising that the 'net/WWW sometimes seems USA-centric.
For better or for worse, that's the way it is.
As a side-note, I expect to retain my freedom of speech on the Internet. That is, I expect that nobody will come and try to arrest me for saying something online. That doesn't mean I expect someone to give me free reign on the servers that they pay for and work to maintain. That's different, and separate form freedom of speech.- whorunbartertwn, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Within limits, as you should expect the same limitations online as you have offline... no threatening to kill someone else, no claiming insider knowledge to pump and dump a publicly traded stock, etc.
- sodade, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I once had an idea for a cannabis related blog that focused on the positive aspects. No ***** way would I ever put that blog up because some lawyer would call it promotion of illegal acts and I'd get assraped.
I guess I could have forked out big $ to have it hosted in Sealand (or foregone the personal profit motive and had TPB host it), but then my government would probably call me a terrorist.
I don't feel so free these days. - warpbackspin, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1The WWW was born in Switzerland, at CERN.
- cliffski, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2you are thinking of the internet. the web was invented by tim berners lee, from the UK.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3In other words: If you support the freedom of speech, then you best be rich enough to support your own server space -- wait, that would conflict with the hosting company's privacy policy. You best be rich enough to support your own servers -- wait, that would conflict with the company that supplies your Internet connection. You best be rich enough to lay down your own pipes?
How about we just limit the freedoms of those who wish their freedoms to be limited and move on?- sodade, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3By what basis id this being dugg down? I'd say this is spot on.
- JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1"By what basis id this being dugg down? I'd say this is spot on."
Probably because it's juvenile and asinine.
If I support the freedom to stand in your front yard and shout obscenties at your house, I best be rich enough to afford a bullhorn --- wait, that would interfere with your property rights.
The conclusion to be reached by this f'ed up line of "reasoning"? None of any real value that I can see. So stop worrying about it and have another toke.
- thebaron2, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1On the basis that it misunderstands how the Bill of Rights is applied to the people: freedom of speech is something that the *government* cannot limit. Private entities can, will, and do.
A property owner (think of any supermarket, computer store, really and brick-and-mortar place of business) can limit MANY of your constitutional rights: you don't have a right to hold a protest inside of a Circuit City and Wal-Mart can refuse to grant the press access to their buildings. Pretty much any business anywhere can refuse service to anyone at their own discretion - and they don't owe you an explanation either!
So ultimately, freedoms are not being limited any more than they always have been. I don't have a right to hijack your blog and link my product all over your comment section (hence spam-filters). You don't have a right to enter my butcher shop to hold a war rally or protest. - JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"Private entities can, will, and do."
In other words, your right to free speech ends at my property line. And this applies on the internet the same as in the physical world. - sodade, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1So, basically, you guys are saying that only a select few corporations that own the pipes have the ability to speak freely on the internet? I can understand how you apply the constitution to come up with that claim, but how can you all fail to recognize that this goes entirely counter to the INTENT of the founding fathers. Don't you think that they expected "we the people" to evolve our constitution to be able to handle the changes in our societal structure? Treating the internet like it is just a corporate tool is asinine.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@sodade Their logic is lazy and long ago lead to the public airwaves (television and radio) being handed over to our corporate masters so that only Clear Channel is left with the freedom of expression. Indie labels and underground netwerks fought them as long as possible, but eventually found new channels through the Internet.
Now that the golden cash cow has been spotted on the interwebs, Corporations are hungry to lock down the technology so that only their "approved programming" appears in place of all this dangerous "public discourse" -- and far too many are willing to hand control over to them once again as if it represents ALL of our rights.
It doesn't represent me anymore than Reality TV represents me. I turned off the television AND the radio, and chose to express myself over the new "open airwaves" and I'll be damned if some idiot who thinks the Constitution was written for the Corporations is going to convince me to make the same mistake with a fourth (including print) communicative medium. - JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2"So, basically, you guys are saying that only a select few corporations that own the pipes have the ability to speak freely on the internet?"
No, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that this view defies the reality that exists on the Internet. Anyone who wants to get their message out can do it. At the same time, no one is obligated to help you do it for free.
Lots of hosting companies will sell you bandwidth with the only restriction being that it won't be used for illegal activity. - geddon, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1No one was obligated to give you ARPANet for free, either.
- sodade, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"Lots of hosting companies will sell you bandwidth with the only restriction being that it won't be used for illegal activity."
Define "illegal." I am pasting the example I posted earlier:
I once had an idea for a cannabis related blog that focused on the positive aspects. No ***** way would I ever put that blog up because some lawyer would call it promotion of illegal acts and I'd get assraped.
I guess I could have forked out big $ to have it hosted in Sealand (or foregone the personal profit motive and had TPB host it), but then my government would probably call me a terrorist.
I don't feel so free these days. - JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"I once had an idea for a cannabis related blog that focused on the positive aspects. "
You mean something like this?
http://www.cannabisnews.com/
"No ***** way would I ever put that blog up because some lawyer would call it promotion of illegal acts and I'd get assraped."
Anyone can be sued for anything ... but that is a different discussion. - sodade, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah well, notice the disclaimer on the parent site (www.drugsense.org): "DrugSense does NOT promote, condone, or advocate licit or illicit drug use."
Quite honestly, the site I imagined would definitely promote illicit drug use and I wouldn't want to be 1/2 assed about it because the whole point would be to counter the lies that the US govt has told regarding cannabis.
Sure, I could get someone to host my site, but they will just give my information over to the pigs, so what's the point? - thebaron2, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1"Sure, I could get someone to host my site, but they will just give my information over to the pigs, so what's the point?"
You can always find an webhost with a privacy policy that you find acceptable. You'd probably have better luck looking outside of the U.S., but there's *always* the chance that *anyone* will cough up your personal details for the right price.
There are hundreds of websites out there that do exactly what you're proposed site does - somehow those folks managed to find a way to do it. Maybe they did a little more research than you have, I don't know. The fact remains, however, that *anyone* can get a website and post whatever the hell they'd like on it. What you *can't* do is post whatever the hell you'd like on someone ELSE'S website.
- pdbailey, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4To be a little more charitable to the author, the point might have been that the freedom of speech gets watered down a lot when there is no public space. there are not parks on the internet. The problem with this claim is that if you want a free space in the internet, you can just buy one.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"..if you want a free space in the internet, you can just by one."
Not without conflicting with the privacy policies of your provider. - sodade, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Please explain to me how I can purchase a free space on the internet. As far as I can tell, I am stuck with the rules of my hosting company.
- JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"As far as I can tell, I am stuck with the rules of my hosting company."
Such as?
If the KKK can find hosting space, anyone should be able to for anything that is not blatantly illegal.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"..if you want a free space in the internet, you can just by one."
- bradhart2, on 07/07/2008, -3/+9Here is another post dealing with the business side of it and calls any blogger a hypocrites who uses spam protection and then whines about freedom speech crackdowns
- terminalpariah, on 07/07/2008, -3/+74The text of the first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Are these companies censoring you to comply with US law? Unless you're posting child porn or bomb-making instructions, probably not. It sucks to be censored, but if the government is not involved, it's not a violation of your First Amendment rights. You have to complain to Yahoo/Facebook/Digg or take your business elsewhere.- Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -5/+9Let's flip the question. Does Yahoo/Facebook/Digg have a free speech right to police and control its content?
- relic180, on 07/07/2008, -1/+30Not sure what you were getting at exactly, but yes, they have the right to police their own content.
- Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -1/+18To Relic, the article is saying that companies with "seemingly public spaces online" are wiping out content, and thus there is no "free speech" online. My point is that instead of seeing it as the right of individuals to post whatever they want, it's really a question of the right of companies to control their content.
Besides, "free speech" doesn't give you the right to be heard, just the right not to be interfered with. If you really want free speech, start your own server and do it. - userperson, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11Yes.
Just as you have a right to throw people out of your house if they are being rude. You aren't required to have Klan members over to your house due to free speech concerns.
When you are unable to police your own site, then property rights become meaningless (or more so). Then the government starts deciding what is and isn't appropriate, not just one site but all of them. Now if Digg or Yahoo, ban you, you can go somewhere else, were this to apply you could not. - Mononuclear, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Yahoo has every right to censor you. If you want to post your pictures or use your free speech you can run your own web server and post whatever you want on there. Then again your ISP or webhost might take it down.
There is no such thing as public space on the internet. You have to go through many different private businesses to surf the web and any one of them can censor you if they want. If one company is too harsh then you should find another.
- mikelieman, on 07/07/2008, -15/+1Let's examine this a little.
Now, a corporation, by definition is an Artificial Legal Entity ( ALE ). Which means, that is is CREATED not by Natural Persons, but by another Artificial Entity. ( The State )
Given our Constitutions, it's CREATED by The People of the Great State of whatever, by way of the Secretary of State's office.
Now, examining the Declaration of Independence, we see that RIGHTS COME FROM OUR CREATOR.
So, we have a situation where the "rights" of an Artificial Legal Entity are *EXACTLY* what the Secretary of State's office gives them.
Now, with all this in mind, answer the following question:
Since the Secretary of State's office is limited by constitutional prohibitions, can that office confer on its own creation *more* authority than it, itself has?
I offer that , SoS > ALE , and therefore ALE's are automatically bound by the constitutional prohibitions of its creator.- vexingmodstwo, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4No.
- Seldon2639, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3You're wrong in a couple of different ways. The constitution specifically notes prohibitions on *congress* and *the government* taking actions which impair the freedoms granted (and a few that aren't, but I digress). A corporation (legally speaking), is an individual citizen, which means that while (yes) they are an artificial entity insofar as they are an amalgamation of individuals which has been granted a legal status akin to one consolidated individual, legally and constitutionally, the corporation is specifically protected from government intrusion the same way any individual is.
Think of it this way: the status of "citizen" is an artificially created idea (there is no intrinsic "citizenship", aside from what the government declares as a citizen). Your logic, then, used in this completely compatible way would mean that every individual citizen is bound by the same rules as the government. While it works for non-discrimination (which, incidentally, it took specific laws from each of the states to compel corporations and individuals to follow), it wouldn't work well for freedom of speech.
Your logic would dictate that in addition to anyone being able to walk into a corporate headquarters and say whatever they like with impunity (which would probably interfere with the corporations' right to speech and right to commerce), it would also mean that I get to walk into your home, say whatever I like, and you can't so much as remove me from the premises.
That seems unreasonable to me, I presume it does to you as well - mikelieman, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"A corporation (legally speaking), is an individual citizen"
"legally and constitutionally, the corporation is specifically protected from government intrusion the same way any individual is."
I don't see that anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, Federal or State Constitutions.
Please provide citations to support your claims.
- imolaavant, on 07/07/2008, -2/+17The text of the constitution tells the government, not private companies, how to act.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3The last bastion of Capital Slavery -- take your business elsewhere!
- zomgwtfninjabbq, on 07/07/2008, -7/+1For your comment to be valid than child porn/bomb making groups should have the same rights you cant just say right oh and unless.... if your going to make a comment on free speech be prepared to protect all of it even the scummy ones however free speech is protected in this country and there is plenty of public forums to do it but realize i also have the right to the pursuit of happiness and that includes you not having the right to sit on my lawn that i work hard for and you ranting rhetoric
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Punctuation. Learn it.. love it.
- Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -5/+9Let's flip the question. Does Yahoo/Facebook/Digg have a free speech right to police and control its content?
- Fangsinmybeard, on 07/07/2008, -27/+3Good, bring 'em on. I want them to try and shut me up. The more they try, the more obvious it will be for those to notice that we are under a totalitarian regime.
- jwalt1776, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0You don't even know what the word, Totalitarian, Means!
Get real and stop cowering and stop being so pedant, it does you no justice.
By the way are you an alcoholic or do you just Drink Beer, Everyday (no difference).
- jwalt1776, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0You don't even know what the word, Totalitarian, Means!
- relic180, on 07/07/2008, -0/+18If anything, this merely opens the doors a bit wider for the next generation of online social spaces which have fewer censoring policies. It's stupid of them but at least it's not something that businesses like yahoo can control, internet-wide.
- Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9Perhaps but some people will want their kids to be able to go to the "Disney filtered so you can't say anything" world too. There will just be different levels of censorship.
- pyro789x, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2You mean like playing nintendo games online?
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2They've all got reasons to clamp down on our freedom of speech, and what's worse, the power, money, and influence to affect the laws which govern us "non-corporate entities."
- Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9Perhaps but some people will want their kids to be able to go to the "Disney filtered so you can't say anything" world too. There will just be different levels of censorship.
- MrCharlie71, on 07/07/2008, -26/+2Here's something provocative and scientific:
Twin Towers' Rates of Fall Proves Demolition
Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.
In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.
The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.
If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?
Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.- elnerdo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3You truthers still exist?
- mike17032, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Look a troofer, everyone point and laugh!
- ninesky01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7i can understand all of this. it reflects on the corporate image. unfortunately we all know how image conscience everyone is. all people do it... all companies do it... it's the way it is...
so, build your own server! then you get to do whatever you want! yeah!
for a simple and cheap way to do it, you may want to check out two companies:
http://www.rimuhosting.com/
http://www.slicehost.com/
PEACE- pyro789x, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The problem is, they want to be able to use the more popular sites for whatever purposes they see fit, because they want access to that wide user base. The funny thing is, one of the reasons why that space may be so popular could be because of the very same rules that they have which the person who wants access to that audience wants to bend in order to get their message across. It's a bit like the spam bots here on digg -- they want access to us because of our great numbers, but what they fail to see is that if we allowed spam bots all the time and actually allowed them all in here unrestrained, a lot of us would probably leave.
It's kind of like the whole 'grass is greener' metaphor, but the grass actually is greener -- not because of chance or location but because these peoples' methods involve actively killing their grass, which would destroy whatever green benefits the other grass has in a matter of time should they ever have access to it and their methods persist.
- pyro789x, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The problem is, they want to be able to use the more popular sites for whatever purposes they see fit, because they want access to that wide user base. The funny thing is, one of the reasons why that space may be so popular could be because of the very same rules that they have which the person who wants access to that audience wants to bend in order to get their message across. It's a bit like the spam bots here on digg -- they want access to us because of our great numbers, but what they fail to see is that if we allowed spam bots all the time and actually allowed them all in here unrestrained, a lot of us would probably leave.
- TheGambit, on 07/07/2008, -10/+5all your internets are belong to us!
- aenegeling, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3somebody set up us the bomb
- bcuban, on 07/07/2008, -1/+15I think this is a great digg. I however am not sure what JESDANUN's point is. Is it supposed to be a new-flash that private companies have the right to set their own content standards just like companies set their own hiring standards? The DMCA is not carte blanche protection for these sites. The author is correct in stating that there is no constitutional protection for private speech. If someone wants unfettered speech, they can set their own blog, bulletin board etc, and host it themselves and take all the liabilities that go with it.
- chiefbandit2200, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Agreed. The comparison between a public park and private websites doesn't quite work either. If the government was censoring the internet, then it would make more sense. A better analogy would be between going into a store and speaking your mind, and going onto a privately owned and maintained website and speaking your mind. The owner has a right to kick you out in both cases.
- bradspangler, on 07/07/2008, -4/+9The poster's summary mentioning ranting in a public park is a bit disingenuous. If your remarks begin to become popular, law enforcement agents will show up demanding to see your permit for a public gathering, proof of meeting statutory requirements for permit issuance and so forth. The poster is naive if s/he sincerely believes such restrictions are not used for purposes of social control. You're "free" to be the lunatic who mutters to themself. You have freedom of speech, just as long as you say nothing of any consequence.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1The other reason it's a disingenous comparison is that park is public owned property and a server is not.
- tvanwyk, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2That would be applicable if "public owned property" were a meaningful concept today. Almost everything that is claimed to be "publicly owned property" is, in actuality, unowned because the "public" (in this case, that means the state) can't be a valid property owner.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1The other reason it's a disingenous comparison is that park is public owned property and a server is not.
- h3smith, on 07/07/2008, -1/+43Since when does congress run the internet or any website you are on?
You are writing on private property and can be censored at any point in time.
Want to write whatever you want? Buy your own domain, pay for hosting, and write stuff no one will read anyway.- Mustard911, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Exactly! Listen to this about Google. http://reasonradionetwork.com/_archive/PS_20080704 ...
- Quisquis, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0"...and write stuff no one will read anyways."
I think that's the problem. To suggest that someone simply go somewhere else and have their free speech is a little ridiculous when you consider that the mere act of going somewhere else means that no one will hear you.
I understand that internet speech isn't protected under the 1st amendment, but because of the HUGE popularity of the internet, there is a large potential for abuse.- JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2"To suggest that someone simply go somewhere else and have their free speech is a little ridiculous..."
Nothing ridiculous about it at all. Yahoo is not obligated to help you spread your "free speech". In the same way that you're not obligated to allow me to use your front lawn for a political rally.
"... there is a large potential for abuse."
Maybe ... but the example provided isn't one of them.
- JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2"To suggest that someone simply go somewhere else and have their free speech is a little ridiculous..."
- mrraven200, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The dirty secret of so called Libertarians who claim to promote liberty is that your human rights including the liberty to speak out STOP on private property. Because I find that vile I consider myself a leftist and not a Libertarian for that reason among others. Remember boys and girls BOTH private and public concentrated power and wealth are a danger to your civil liberties. If human rights aren't universal in both public and private spaces they are meaningless.
- zacharytelschow, on 07/07/2008, -3/+20Companies are censoring content on their own websites for various reasons (so they won't be sued among them). La dee da. So freaking what? Buried as a waste of space.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2You're the same asshat who buried the discussion when this issue destroyed our freedoms on the open airwaves, aren't you? Rest assured that people are more educated and better connected than when we lost Television and Radio to our corporate masters.
- aftern9ne, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I understand these companies regulate what appears on their sites and servers to protect themselves from litigation. This speaks more about our country's affinity for suing than it does about the Internet's restriction of free speech.
- Rudegar, on 07/07/2008, -8/+0now thats just a big pile of ALL HAIL TO DIGG!
SINCERERLY LITTLE BOY!
[Edited ]
[Edited > - Xihix, on 07/07/2008, -3/+19The only thing I learned from this article is that I can go to the park and yell about anything without getting in trouble. brb
- MatthewDuke, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Anything within reason. You can't defame someone, obscenity laws are usually in effect, you can't conspire to commit a crime, solicit a prostitute, incite a riot, etc., etc. The "freedom of speech" right isn't a blanket right to say whatever you want, there are reasonable restrictions.
- CoMpUtErITGuY, on 07/07/2008, -10/+3It's reasonable what the article is saying.
- natastna2, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4The article is retarded.
- Crazymaniacc, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2I bet he didn't even read it.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Not if you have any knowledge of law or the Constitution.
- csimpkins, on 07/07/2008, -6/+6In USA, internets moderate YOU!
- Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6Would have been 0.3% funnier if you had said "Soviet USA."
- blanketfury, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4I'm curious.
What is Canada's percentage? - Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Around back-bacon.mooseturd%, give or take a few pinecones.
- blanketfury, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4I'm curious.
- Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6Would have been 0.3% funnier if you had said "Soviet USA."
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -3/+4As a couple of people have stated here, youtube and other websites are "businesses" and privately owned. By extension, your ISP is also a business and privately owned. So here's the deal: If you post to Youtube saying how much Verizon sucks, and youtube deletes it. Then you post elsewhere saying Verizon sucks, but they keep it up. Now Verizon sees your video, doesn't like your attitude, and disconnects your internet connection.
Now generally they won't do this because they are making money from you anyway, but at some point when they get to the point that your derogatory comments can cause them other customers (for example, many people seeing your view and agreeing with it, but leaving)--then you'll have trouble on your hands.
Yes, there is an erosion of rights with "private" property that a lot of supposedly right-wing constitutionalists don't understand or simply ignore.
But hey, at the end of the day--all is well because the "government" can't hold you and detain you within their premises, but a private entity with a private security guard can do whatever they want to you because it's "not government".- deadmoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3*****. "a private entity with a private security guard can do whatever they want to you because it's "not government". What the hell are you babbling about? There is still civil lawsuits at the very least for them to be concerned about.
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Ah yes, there are lawsuits--but only until some of the laws get changed, which they have been, to "protect" against civil lawsuits.
But what is there to provide us access to these lawsuits? Our government. Despite what you may talk ***** about them, and despite what you may think about privatization--the very fact that our government exists and our judicial system is bound by them allows us to actually make sure that these private entities stay in check so they DON'T do the things that I mentioned. - deadmoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I agree.
- Kzoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1That, and they still have to stay within the law. Not being bound by the constitution doesn't absolve them of that.
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1Kzoo:
Not being bound by the Constitution, which is the highest law in our land and the foundation of our country, I would say probably puts them "above the law" in a very strong sense. That is, if they're not bound by the Constitution, then any other law sits beneath that and by proxy they are above that as well. - frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4@magamiako:
You're understanding of the law is SEVERELY limited. Corporations are not "above the law" nor are they "above the Constitution." If you knew anything, you would know that the "laws" in question here are the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights isn't a "law" in the traditional sense, like the bills passed by Congress. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the governed (US citizens) and the government. Corporations, as has been decided by the Supreme Court, fall on the side of the people in this regard. Meaning the government cannot infringe upon the free speech rights or any other rights of Corporations. This includes the private property rights of the Corporations, which apply to any web forum or other site hosted on said corporation's servers.
Get back to me when you actually know something about the law, as opposed to making asinine claims like "corporations are above the law" - magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1frankingeneral:
No, I understand this process completely, which is precisely where the problem is. If the "government" can't infringe on the rights of the "corporations" as a result of this, then who exactly makes sure that these corporations don't infringe on the rights of others?
The laws? We already know that there are flaws with the current system in which laws have been passed "under the radar" hidden within other bills set forth by Congress. Or laws paid off to be implemented by lobbying groups, and so forth and so forth.
So the law really isn't on our side most of the time, with a very large hands off approach to the entire thing. This can be good or bad depending on what you want to consider, but look at it this way.
If you want to leave the entirety of your "privacy" down to capitalism and go "Well if I don't like their privacy policy I won't do business with them", that doesn't change the fact that they could sell your information to a Chinese corporation or someone that could use that information against you. Even after the fact, what are they going to do?
No, we need laws protecting you, who don't have similar privileges as they do on a day-to-day basis, to ensure that your economic status does not affect your ability to have a say in the land you live in. That is the power of the people, that is what the Magna Carta was created for, and that is the foundation of modern democracy. - MatthewDuke, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2@magamiako
What law school did you fail out of? - frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2@magamiako:
I didn't even read past your first paragraph because you are so completely stupid that you are completely missing the point. In your second paragraph you state:
"who exactly makes sure that these corporations don't infringe on the rights of others."
A CORPORATION, or an individual private citizen for that matter, CANNOT by definition, infringe on your rights. I suggest you READ THE CONSTITUTION.
The First Amendment starst with the phrase:
"Congress shall make no law..."
Meaning you were not granted the absolute right to say what you want where you want whenever you want. You were granted the right to be free from the GOVERNMENT infringing upon that right. Therefore the only entity that can infringe upon your RIGHT is the GOVERNMENT.
If you want to debate whether or not certain corporations have a moral obligation to protect specific moral tenants (ie free speech and exchange of ideas) I'd gladly debate this with you, and as liberal as I believe myself to be I still believe they have no such obligation. But stop acting like your rights are violated by censorship or that corporations are breaking the law.
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Ah yes, there are lawsuits--but only until some of the laws get changed, which they have been, to "protect" against civil lawsuits.
- deadmoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3*****. "a private entity with a private security guard can do whatever they want to you because it's "not government". What the hell are you babbling about? There is still civil lawsuits at the very least for them to be concerned about.
- imolaavant, on 07/07/2008, -2/+17Time for a quick civics lesson:
The constitution is a set of rules meant to limit government's powers. Its success or failure to that end is debatable, but in this case the constitution has no bearing. We're talking about companies and individuals interacting with each other, the constitution does not come into play because government does not come into play. If the government decided to start regulating the internet than you may be able to make a constitutional claim that rights were violated, but until that point, companies are not bound by the constitution, only the government is.- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3Which, in my opinion is a SEVERE loophole in the system of government since technically government entities can hire private contractors to perform operations, and anything asked to be done questionable can be hidden away from public eyes and ignored because it's bound by private entities.
"Privatization" and the Constitution not applying is a severe problem for democracy moving forward with the way our Democracy works.
It's more of a case of "One rich guy and takes your money and does whatever they want with you and your information that isn't bound by laws" versus "another rich guy who takes your money does what they want with it but they have to ask you first".- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Do you realize the complete idiocy of what you're claiming??? You are claiming that companies should be bound by the Constitution as well??? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. What purpose would it serve?
As for government contractors, in almost all cases, they are bound by the same restrictions as the federal government in almost all cases.
But I don't know what the hell you're talking about with your "rich guy" argument. But if you don't like the way a site is moderating or censoring it's content than don't use the damn site.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Do you realize the complete idiocy of what you're claiming??? You are claiming that companies should be bound by the Constitution as well??? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. What purpose would it serve?
- bfb8688, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0Right!
- deadmoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6I was just going to post something similar. In a US context: The company run websites are private property, they set the rules. They would have to be a government regulation forcing them to have free speech, if that is want people want. The necessity of such a regulation is debatable, however, since it is a free market. If you don't like the censorship policy of an online forum, just switch to another online forum.
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3Which, in my opinion is a SEVERE loophole in the system of government since technically government entities can hire private contractors to perform operations, and anything asked to be done questionable can be hidden away from public eyes and ignored because it's bound by private entities.
- benologist, on 07/07/2008, -2/+8I for one am shocked most websites and service providers aren't interested in assuming responsibility and liability for what their users say and do.
What is this world coming to when you're not welcome to use a business as your podium to say and do whatever you want, letting them eat the risk of prosecution while you hide behind anonymity? - AlanFang, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8This article ignores the fact the majority of the internet isn't publicly owned, but actually owned by private companies. Private companies have the right to delete whatever content they want on their sites. Even with these private organizations there is plenty of opportunity for free speech online, otherwise how would sites promoting racial hatred or pictures of men stretching their anuses stay up? Freedom of speech does exist on the internet, and it is what makes it a great place.
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't call passively ignoring negative aspects of the internet as a result of the inability to get rid of them via technological means "freedom of speech".
- MatthewDuke, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Well you've proven from your previous comments that you don't know jack about constitutional law, so go away...
- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't call passively ignoring negative aspects of the internet as a result of the inability to get rid of them via technological means "freedom of speech".
- Otto, on 07/07/2008, -3/+15There is no "public" space on the internet. If you want to say what you want to say, then buy your own space and say it there.
Buried as *****.- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2The Internet was created to be a free and open forum as opposed to simply being an additional source of revenue for our corporate masters.
Ignore these idiots who attempt to convince you that our freedoms don't extend to the Corporations. Before long they'll convince you that everything you own is a privileged provided by the grace of Rupert Murdoch.- Otto, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The internet was NOT created to be any sort of "free and open forum" and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling something.
The internet was created to provide researchers and other academics an easy way to share information and collaborate. It was expanded to provide that capability to anybody. And you're free to share information and collaborate.
But nowhere does it say that you are allowed to make other people pay for it.
If you want to set up your own forum with your own rules, then it takes all of a few hundred bucks and a couple of hours, maximum. So don't bitch about the "corporate masters" stopping you when the truth is a) you're too ***** lazy or stupid to figure it out and b) nobody really wants to hear what you have to say in the first ***** place. - geddon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Drop your ignorant support of the masters. They're working for profit and will leave you and your family to starve as soon as a cheaper tax shelter arises.
You said it yourself: the Internet was invented as a way to share information and collaborate. "Open architecture" allowed the web to grow into what we know today.
Handing our control of the Internet over to our corporate masters will lead us down the same FCC regulated path that television and radio have already been lost to. - Otto, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1What the hell? What ***** "corporate masters" are you even talking about?
Control over the internet rests with *NOBODY*. Sorry, bub, but what you are talking about is not what I am talking about.
When you make a post on a "public" forum, like, say, here on Digg, then you are a) using somebody else's money to pay for that post (like Digg's money) and b) they have the right to tell you to ***** off and stop using their *****. What's so difficult to understand about this? It's not a conspiracy, there are no "corporate masters" here.. If you were on my lawn shouting, I'd have the right to ask you to leave. In many states, I'd probably have the right to shoot you as well.
I mean, seriously, do you realize that you're a complete nutjob, or do you live in blissful ignorance of that fact?
- Otto, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The internet was NOT created to be any sort of "free and open forum" and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling something.
- geddon, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2The Internet was created to be a free and open forum as opposed to simply being an additional source of revenue for our corporate masters.
- Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8What does this have to do with "free speech?" It's a private property issue, not a first amendment issue.
Also I think some of us may have just been put on notice. - AchaIemoipas, on 07/07/2008, -1/+18"Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces"
Seemingly public = private.
Buried for dumbness. - doowttam, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11There aren't really any "public" places on the internet. The analogy used in the first part of the article mentions a public park, a park no doubt that would be owned and operated by the government.
All of the "public" places talked about here are really private spaces, owned by corporations, that are freely accessible, there is a big difference.
If you bought a domain from GoDaddy, but then hosted it on your own server you'd be about as free as you can get (with the exception of your ISP which will still shut you down if they're unhappy with you.) - natastna2, on 07/07/2008, -2/+10This is a ***** stupid article, "seemingly public spaces" are not public spaces. It is a space owned by a company and they have every right to take down what they want. It's like walking into a company's headquarters and shouting "I hate ......" they have every right to eject you.
- sandiegodude, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Heh, this brings back memories of fools running around in World of Warcraft spamming idiotic junk then screaming "FREE SPEECH!" (often peppered with plenty of expletives) before a GM would pop up with "Ye' Olde Ban-Stick." Sorry bub, when you're on somebody's space, you follow their rules. Go stand in the lobby of a bank and start preaching about how banks are corporate-evil and see how long you last if you don't believe me =)
- Kzoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I've noticed that kind of thing in other games too. It's particularly amusing with games based outside the US. . . somehow it seems a lot of people think that the constitution (and other sorts of regulation too) somehow governs other countries. . . .
- pyro789x, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1GMs don't usually 'pop up' on WoW, especially for something as small as that. One minute the guy is screaming, the next he's offline. They try to be as non-intrusive as possible -- you never know when there's going to be an unhappy RPer around.
- Seldon2639, on 07/07/2008, -2/+7The alarmist nature of the first few paragraphs speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge about why our constitutional rights are protected. The reason you can yell whatever you want on a sidewalk is because that's *public* property, owned and maintained by the government on behalf of the people. The moment you step on private property, you're subject to whatever restrictions the owner places on you. The owner needs no justification, except for the fact that you're on their premises.
Now, can someone tell me if there's any actual "public" property on the internet? The answer, as should be obvious, is that there isn’t. The funny thing is that the same evil, overbearing, government which is (if you listen to some diggers) the source of all problems in America is actually what allows us to say whatever we want in certain places.
You want freedom of speech on the internet? Lobby for the government to buy public webspace- magamiako, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up for the simple fact that you realize that despite the problems of the government system we have in place, our Constitution gives us the right to stand on the property and say and act without fear of a reaction from them. This is something that a lot of people seem to ignore when they argue "public" versus "private" ownership.
- Lunarbunny, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I moderate a moderately sized forum as a volunteer. From time to time we get some nut who complains that we're infringing on their rights to free speech - what many forget is that nearly every server on the internet is privately owned and the owners can do whatever the hell they like with the servers or their contents. The owners could delete every even numbered post and while it may piss everybody off it's perfectly within their rights.
- pyro789x, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1: Lobby for the government to buy public webspace
I doubt that such a website would be widely populated. Most people enjoy the freedom from government these privately owned webspaces allow, I can't really see teenagers posted about how high and wasted they got while having sex with prostitutes on a government-operated facebook.
- Monkeydew06, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3It's just like a privately-owned buisness, they have the right to set standards for their environment. i.e. "No Shoes, No Shirt, No service"
It's completely understandable, and shouldn't be a problem. The last thing we need is 4Channer's being allowed to say whatever they want in a childrens chatroom.
FYI: I'm not pro-internet censorship, I'm pro-making sure there is room for people of all ages on the internet (mods are a necesary evil).- userperson, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Though as you note, mods aren't always evil.
- Monkeydew06, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1True, but that's not exactly what I meant.
Mods are a necessary evil, like cops are a necessary evil. You may hate getting a ticket, but for every joe who is screwed for going 5 over, there's another guy who could've killed someone if he haden't been pulled over. So while we may view their actions to be abrasive, or personally offensive i.e. "evil", they are necessary for the maintainence of order. - userperson, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1@Monkeydew06
I follow your point per the expression.
Though I do not necessarily share your optimism about law enforcement, nor your fear of quick drivers. Where there is a disparity in power it will be abused.
Cops may abuse this disparity most anywhere, and there are not so many checks on their authority. Whereas it's in the moderators interest to general keep things as inclusive as possible or at least to cater to their specific market, and at worst there are other forums. Most of which was probably obvious, anyway.
Thanks for your reply. - Monkeydew06, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@userperson
I'm not sure why you took the "I don't like cops" route, because that clearly didn't have anything to do with my statement. I merely made a comparison between two authorities. I could have just as easily said Judge, Manager, CEO etc., and the results would have remained the same. While we typically don't like positions of authority and the sources of discipline/punishment, they are a "necessary evil" to keep us in check. So while I use the term "evil", if merely represents that they can appear "evil" to us because of their use of power to control us.
I'm not exactly sure why your standing up for internet moderators so much... You seem to have this idea that they cannot be evil (disagreeable) or corrupted. That is far from the truth. Any position of power can be corrupted.
And I HAD to say something about this...
"Cops may abuse this disparity most anywhere, and there are not so many checks on their authority."
There are soooo many problems with that statement. Granted, cops do abuse there power, I will not argue that point. But if a cop screws up, he/she has to answer for it. The cases you see on television/the internet where cops get away with murder is an example of a corrupted power; In which, an officer is able to convince his superior to talk the big boys down (or bribery,friendship, whatever it takes) and due process may be delayed or wrongly halted. Officers answer to Detectives who answer to Sergeants, who answer to Lieutenants, who answer to Captains, who answer to Majors, who answers to the Comissioner, who answers to the the city.. and on, and on, and on. Finally it comes full circle back to the citizens, who (depending on location) either elect a committee to appoint a chief of police, or vote for a chief of police directly, etc. etc. My point is, police have to listen to their superiors, and if you want a clean, well-run police force, do some research on your chief of police before blindly casting your vote. Get actively involved and make sure the right guy gets the job.
- Monkeydew06, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1True, but that's not exactly what I meant.
- userperson, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Though as you note, mods aren't always evil.
- retropunk, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2First amendment rights have nothing to do with forum moderation. Your rights are only guaranteed with respect to the US Government and not someone's forum, bar, or any other means that allows you to communicate with others. Buried.
- raybury, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2A free press does not mean you get the printing press free, or the paper or the ink or the spot near the checkout in the local store. My servers are my private property, and I may decide what I will and will not host on them. Get your own servers -- they're cheaper than a printing press!
- camiller, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly, this original article seems to be confusing "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press". Freedom of speech belongs to everyone, freedom of the press belongs to whoever owns a press. A website owner has no responsibility to provide you with a venue to say what you want!
- zeeklancer, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0I find it more and more disturbing how society seems to have some sort of separation of children. Children are the parents responsibility, not societies. I get so sick feeling when things are justified "because of the children".
As you can see how many laws and rules have been put in place "for the children" now affect adults in every day life.
We need to get back to the basics, human laws that do not discriminate agents age.- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1So you're saying we shouldn't censor the internet because of the children, but you have failed to state any reason or obligation corporations have to ultimately allow free speech on their sites.
- pyro789x, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1That's like saying that we shouldn't discriminate against handicapped people by putting in things like wheelchair ramps and handicap stalls -- things which affect non-handicapped in every day life. There's a difference between discriminating against and making accessible for.
- Zihuatanejo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
- darkfus, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5That is because there is no public space on the Internet except for newsgroups. Web sites are all owned by companies or private citizens that can legally control the content as they please. The only balance is that anyone is free to buy their own domain and hosting for a relatively low fee and say what they want that way.
- gttim, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2When Flickr first was developed, it was a great website to host pictures as well as network and become friends with other photographers. You were able to see lots of different types of photos, be exposed to different viewpoints and comment on other work. The Yahoo bought it. Suddenly they were censoring work. It is their site and they can censor or limit the images they wish photographers to display on their site, but they really screwed up a great place. It is still probably the best website to share photos and connect with other photographers, but it is not nearly as good as it used to be. In fact it sucks a little now. Hopefully somebody will eventually develop a better place in the future. However, somebody like Yahoo will end up buying it as well, and screwing it up.
- BradOFarrell, on 07/07/2008, -7/+1This article is 100% accurate. But I wish it wasn't.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3What is so accurate about this article? It completely misconstrues the meaning and concept of the phrase "public space" and it displays a complete and utter disregard for actual law?
Just because you think companies shouldn't censor doesn't mean they should stop it. YOU should find sites that don't censor.- BradOFarrell, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0You mean, by acknowledging that many people do, in fact, think of the internet as a public space, and then stating that it's not? I don't see what's inaccurate about that.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I don't kow what article you read, but the article I read did everything it could to twist the facts and skew things to make it appear like the internet was a "public space" and that corporations had an obligation to not engage in censorship. The article continually engaged in false comparisons to attempt to attempt to hammer home their incorrect conclusion.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3What is so accurate about this article? It completely misconstrues the meaning and concept of the phrase "public space" and it displays a complete and utter disregard for actual law?
- dygel, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9From the article: "Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online..."
Therein lies the problem. "Public" spaces online are only public in the sense that they are exposed to the public. In terms of ownership, they are almost always private.
The internet is more like a billboard than a park. You may have the ability to write on that billboard (be it with your name attached, pseudoanonymously, or completely anonymously), but the board itself is owned by somebody private. It is not maintained by the tax payers. So if you write something on that billboard that is deemed disagreeable they reserve the property and usage rights to remove it.
People often mischaracterize the right to free speech. A lot of people presume it means that you have the right to say what you want (within the public safety restrictions), when you want. To the contrary, it means that you have the right to never be imprisoned for the expression of your opinions. The First Amendment is a contract between the government and the governed, not any two individuals or companies.
We're a country of entrepreneurs. If you're fed up with seemingly "public" online spaces taking down your political cruft, roll your own blog.- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Well said, it's good to know that someone else here has a better understanding of the law than the clown who wrote this article.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1well said. Freedom of speech is one of the most misunderstood concepts around.
- mike17032, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6The word "public" doesnt mean what the story seems to think it does.
- jamesLankford, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1if yahoo doesn't change their policy, maybe he should call the brute squad
- stealthc, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1It's a common misinterpretation, most frequently made by those who want to regulate what others do on their own property.
- nevetando, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The internet isn't a public space... just like McDonalds isn't a public space... or your house isn't a public space. The owner of all said places can tell you whatever the hell they want, and do whatever the hell they want.
Dumb article. and misleading.- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly, McDonald's isn't going to let me stand in their store with pro-life or pro-choice signs, and protest. So why would Yahoo! allow me to make controversial statements in their forums?
- captric, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the Establishment Clause) or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the Free Exercise Clause), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by the Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all legislative authority to the Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the limitations of the First Amendment. That means that the restrictions of the First Amendment also apply to the states, including the local governments within each of those states.
Its a stretch to think that you can SAY anything you want on a non government owned private web site! - orchidee2, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Why should the Internet grant more freedom than the other media? Any possibility op publication will sooner or later be faced with means of control. This might be regrettable or even frightening for some, but do we really want a totally unlimited freedom of speech, even for preachers of hatred, nazis or people who are paedophil?
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2This article is terrible. It doesn't debate whether or not corporations have any obligation to the public to not engage in censorship (it assumes that all corporations should not censor). The long and short of it is legally they don't have any obligations to not censor (that should be obvious I hope), and morally, while it would be nice, I'd have to say they do not have a moral obligation either. If you want open, uncensored, discourse then find a site or forum that allows for that.
- Mustard911, on 07/07/2008, -7/+1Free Speech is inalienable. No Zionist is going to take it away for their own means to control our Nations.
- 1of42, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Wow look, another Digg-generated insane misinterpretation of the Constitution. Quick rehash, because it's needed: the Constitution of America protects American citizens from being persecuted for their free speech (within limits based on the rights of others) by the American government.
Being censored on a website which is run by a private company has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. - Rabdsquirlz, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Free Speech is a right for US citizens in public spaces. However, the internet is not exactly public and far from belonging to the US. These forums and hosting sites are used at the discretion of the hosts. Just like you can get bounced from a club for disturbing the wrong folks, you can be kicked from a forum or chat. Likewise, these photo hosting sites are allowing you to use their services, and if they don't like something they have every right to take it down.
- icndvl, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1You aren't guaranteed anything on someone elses' server unless you form an agreement with them saying otherwise. This isn't about free speech, but about websites being able to moderate content on their servers. As long as people have freedom to express ideas online, they will always be able to find a spot to do so (as you can sign up for a hosting service anywhere in the world).
- AYork, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4I was unaware that flickr.com was a public place. I thought it was the property of Yahoo, Inc.
You have every right to say whatever you want. You do not, however, have the right to the use of my microphone to say it. - jeremydouglass, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0american law only states that congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech.
that doesn't apply to corporations or websites. that's the beauty of having the freedom to go where you want.
don't like it? go to another forum. take your business elsewhere. vote with your wallet. etc... - Midtowner, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Buried for the poster not knowing the difference between public and private forums.
- njcu, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1If you want to say something online, get your own web server and put up what you want to say... Even then, your service provider may deny you access.. lmao. No such thing as free speech on the web but it's as free as it can get I suppose.
- Kvasaari, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Flaming, ranting and trolling should be censored, no matter what media you're using.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is