A philosophical question on the internet and censorship

[Robson]

When "you" post a message on a website or a blog and it is censored does it bother you? Does it piss you off?

This is a general ideological question that has nothing specific to do with DU, as it could apply to many websites on both ends of the political spectrum, such as Free Republic.

We all know that web sites are owned and operated by interests, but some of us still believe that the internet is open source and should be a free communications medium. But the reality is that website blogs, message forums and news sites that offer comments all have the right to remove and censor users, and they all have a self-serving agenda. You may agree or disagree with the agenda.

QUESTION: Do you agree that comments that are posted that are not spam, not pornographic in the blatant sense (or illegal), and not libelous in nature should be removed? Please Note....I purposely omitted so-called “PC-ness” as a parameter.

Should Congress pass a law that the internet in the USA is the last vestige and expression of free speech, and under no circumstances should there be any ability to squelch free speech unless it is illegal or self serving spam.

My own view is that such an open environment is the ultimate form of the “fairness doctrine” as access is limited by only competence and interest of the host and the public.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. You Can Start Your Own Website And Write (Almost) Anything You Want

But if you post at somebody else's website you need to respect their rules even if you find them stupid...

[L. Coyote]

24. Roger that.

[billyoc]

2. You're using someone else's computer equipment, period.

You have absolutely no right to free speech in this environment.

[bemildred]

3. Private sites have no obligation to allow you to speak.

On the other hand, all censorship is based in the idea that ideas are dangerous, and that some or most people are incapable of sorting things out for themselves. I favor complete anarchy myself, but I'm not running a web site.

[Robson]

10. You believe in the right of private enterprise to control over the Fairness Doctrine to balance?

Think about this.....I'm not sure, but you may have just shot the "fairness doctrine" all to hell in saying that Clear Channel has the right to broadcast what they want since they paid for the broadcasting equipment.

I consider the internet as public territory as we taxpayers (Ds,Rs,Is) have all paid the DOD to design the protocols that have resulted in the communications medium known as the internet - ARPANET.

Sorry...I must disagree that just because money is invested, should not give the website owner the total and complete right to manipulate and influence the public.

[bemildred]

16. I favor the "fairness doctrine", because WE own the airways.

An internet site is a completely different proposition. Anyone is free to set up any sort of site they choose, so there is no issue of anyone being prevented from saying what they like. The issue is whether someone that pays the costs and does the work for a site has a right to control what is on it. It has nothing to do with anyone being censored. DU is a COMMERCIAL site, a personal expression of the people that run it. It is true that if they piss off their customers they will be out of business, but that is their business.

[Ms. Toad]

17. The government also built the roads to my house.

that connect my house to yours. Does that mean that I should have no right to control the behavior of the guests in my home (who used those roads to get there) once they leave the public roadway?

[Madspirit]

4. Odd and Offputting

No, a board is owned by someone. They put their money, their time and their efforts into having the board be what they want it to be. Owners get to make rules. Do you feel constrained because you cannot come into my living room and kick my furniture around? ...BUT you can buy or rent your own home and do whatever you want.

Anything goes that isn't porno? I have a great love and interest in Joss Whedon and his tv shows, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly. So I should just be able to go into Democratic Underground and post in GD: Politics...all about Buffy? People should be allowed to post their favorite biscuit recipes in GD? This has nothing to do with any principle. I can send you links to all sorts of forum places...Informe.com, for instance, where you can AND FOR FREE, start your own forum and then YOU can decide what is allowed and you can have it as free-for-all as you like.

I joined this place to talk about politics of the liberal variety and to be with and speak to, like-minded folks.

This is not a freedom of anything issue. No one is stopping you from saying anything you like...on your own bandwidth.

Lee

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Wonder If All The People Voting For Option One Would Want Bushbots To Be Allowed To Post Here

eom

[bemildred]

6. As long as they follow the rules, they are allowed to post here.

Just saying ...

[Madspirit]

8. Yes but...

They cannot argue right wing points and they cannot post anti-Democratic Party stuff. So yeah, as long as they keep their big fat ugly mouths shut, they can be here.

Lee

[bemildred]

11. Actually, it's amazing what you can get away with here, if you are civil. nt

[Robson]

19. Good point.....and I'll obviously continue to support DU

I'm a true liberal where I enjoy open debate on all views.

I'd like to find a political forum where users can post exactly what they think (with any and all legitimate views) and don't feel a need to dance around the points so they don't offend the hosts. If you know of such an open environment please PM me.

I am a very strong believer in free speech and open and free dialogue regardless of political or religious beliefs. I'm willing to discuss and debate rationally without ever getting personal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Mmmkay

"If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[bemildred]

14. But they are allowed to post if they choose. It's completely open in that sense. nt

[BlooInBloo]

7. The idiocy of people is the only thing that I find annoying.

[Robson]

12. What I find really annoying is simple apathy

Like the majority of the USA that are lemming-like and more concerned with American Idol than their country. I far more respect views, even if different than mine, than the simple minded apathy that most Americans display.

[Madspirit]

18. Odd

I would prefer all the right wingers and fascists and asshats and people who want to trample on my head and on my rights and not let me marry the woman I've been with for 15 years and those who do not let me have health care and insurance and who send these kids off to die and to murder Iraqis and all the racists, bigots, sexists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc...I would prefer it if they all went and had a good old fashion lobotomy and became very apathetic, so much so, they cannot vote. Of course, this ISN'T just principles to me. It's a matter of life and death. You're being an Armchair philosopher.... It doesn't matter on any personal level to you. You just want to Preach about Pseudo High and Mighty Principles while people are being walked on, shit on, stepped on and killed...
Lee

[aikoaiko]

13. I find this a pretty easy question.

Gov't can only censure when laws are broken. Owners or their agents can censure anything they wish on their sites.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Guests on my internet site, just like guests in my home

get to play by my rules.

Although less tangible (and the websites I have created are certainly less sophisticated than DU), my websites are bought and paid for with my money and time. I may choose to invite folks in, or not. I may choose to limit how guests act in my home, or not. It's entirely up to me. The law you propose could just as easily be applied to whether or not I am permitted to control behavior in my physical home.

If folks who have spent their time and money to setup and maintain a web space choose to invite me in to play, its up to them to decide when my presence is no longer fun and to send me home (or to set some parameters limiting what I can talk about).

If you want a wild free-for all discussion board - feel free to set one up. My guess is that once you have invested the time and energy it takes to set up a classy site, you will be less inclined to allow it to turn into a place you may not enjoy hanging around in. Maybe not - have at it. No one says you have to censor speech on your space . . . set one up. Maybe we'll all drop in to your house to play.

[Igel]

20. The Internet is generally uncensored.

Private enterprises on the net are generally censored.

I have no problem with the DU management making the rules for DU. It's not a democracy, in that we cannot simply vote to upgrade the equipment, we don't all cooperate on writing the code, we don't all pitch in equally to fund the place or commit the same amount of time to maintaining it, and we didn't all get together one night to discuss setting it up. At best, we're donors and civil contributors, on average we're contributors or donors, and at worse we're annoying parasites. I just try to stay out of the last category.

Now, I suspect I'd be upset if I posted something that was deleted and I earnestly believed that it shouldn't have been. But I've found the opposite to be true--I post something and a couple of hours regret having posted it, but damn, I can't go back and delete it (and I don't feel like drawing attention to it by e-mailing a mod, or asking one to do a trivial task to clean up my mistake).

[REP]

21. When I want 'uncensored,' I use Usenet

The internet isn't censored, but some private websites are moderated. This is an example of one, and I agreed to go along with their rules when I signed up. Oh the humanity!

[Robson]

22. Once again, this question is focused on all websites

What I find disturbing are that more and more websites are becoming increasingly more mainstream, more influential, and more manipulative, and they are funded by big money such as politico.com, and they censor and delete posts that don't meet their agenda.

It has nothing to do with DU although frankly the issue still does apply.

I'd far prefer that zero censorship was allowed to take place on so-called public internet forums or comment lines unless it was spam, porno, or libelous.

[REP]

23. Unmoderated boards quickly go out of control and/or become unreadable

I understand what you're saying, but I've also seen what happens when topic boards - not just political ones - try the free- for- all format. Even Usenet, with no controls, depends members to use killfiles to screen out trolls and other unwanted content.