Source: Scott James
Every so often someone (usually American) will complain about their right to free speech being violated by a website or blog. This usually occurs when people are debating, arguing, or flaming each other over some contentious issue, of which there are many in China (and why this is appearing on CNR). Someone will make a post or a comment that is is ultimately deleted by the website operator for whatever reason, whether it is because the comment is excessively offensive, inappropriate, or the website operator just didn’t like it. Upon noticing their comment being censored, the commenter will curse, scream, and moralize about how unfair, biased, or even illegal/immoral/unethical it was.
Those people are idiots. Don’t pay them any attention.
Don’t be one.
A website or blog is effectively private property and anyone’s access to that property is conditionally granted by the website’s operator. That “conditionally” pretty much means the website operator can control, limit, or deny you access whenever they please for whatever reason and with any legal means they have at their disposal. Some people have the mistaken notion of entitlement that they can spout whatever they want on other people’s websites without consequence or censure. They need to understand that visiting and participating on any website is done “at will” with very few legal or implied “rights or freedoms” for the visitor/participant.
Now, some websites, like Facebook, may proactively offer written policies (terms of service) that dictate the relationship and obligations between them as a service provider and you as a user of that service. They do not have to do this. They are, in essence, voluntarily defining certain rules they agree to abide by provided you agree to abide by the same rules. These agreements also effectively grant users certain rights or, at least, recourse. Regardless of whether any money is involved, an agreement is made and the user can legitimately complain if the website operator violates the terms of that agreement.
This is not the case with a website or blog that has no written agreement or terms of service with its users. It is assumed that the user is allowed to view or interact with that website so long as the website operator intends it and has not made any reasonable efforts to the contrary. You’re free to say whatever you want…until the owner decides otherwise. When they decide otherwise, their decision is the only one that matters. You have no rights nor guaranteed freedoms except the protections granted you by the laws of the country in which the website is hosted. That generally means the website or its operator can’t do anything malicious or illegal to your computer. It does not include guaranteeing your access or your freedom to mouth off whatever you please whenever you please while you’re there.
Therefore, websites and their owners or operators do not have to accept or tolerate what others post on their website. It is not illegal or malicious for them to control how their private property is used. Just because they allow you to write on their private property does not mean they cannot erase or change what you said, or simply take their pen away from you.
The website owner must abide by the rules of the web hosting company. If they do not, the web hosting company can deny them service.
You must abide by the rules and whims of the website owner. If you do not, the website owner can deny you service.
Your ability to view, comment, or otherwise interact with a website or blog is indeed a service. It is a privilege offered and made available to you. However, you are not entitled to it and it is not your right. It does not matter if you are in China or Europe or America, your freedom of speech is not guaranteed on the internet, whether it is a Chinese website or a non-Chinese website. It never was, currently isn’t, and likely will never be. If you have some consitutionally protected freedom of speech or expression, please understand that it does not apply and has no jurisdiction. If you have something to say that the website won’t tolerate, you can either go try your luck on another website (probably one that agrees with what you want to say), go outside to some physical place where your constitution has jurisdiction, or start your own website to promote your own opinions, attitudes, or speech.
What other arguments are there for guaranteeing or limiting a website visitor’s freedom of speech?
Ah, nostalgia... (Source: Steve W Lee on Flickr)
-
Wheee! We’re back! …in rainy, dreary Hong Kong. Let’s get to it. SESSION 6: Society, Continuity & Change Moderator/Discussant: Jack Qiu, Assistant...
-
Chai Ling, a famous (or infamous) student leader from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing, China, is now suing others for saying bad things about her.
-
It’s probably a bit odd for me to be writing about my own speech, as I somehow tend to see this as shameless self-promotion. Nevertheless, I’m doing...
Chinese Internet Research Conference – Day 2 
Chai Ling: Speech-Squelching Narcissistic Megalomaniac B*tch! 
International Chinese: my speech at CNBloggerCon 2008 
I always enjoy that delusion. It’s something fun to think about while I’m editing people’s comments. OH YES I CAN DO THAT.
But seriously, if you want freedom of speech, make your own blog.
Strange enough, but many people really seem to consider it offensive when their comments are removed by a blogmaster.
It might be censorship if a blog was a public-law institution – or if the medium in question left no room for competitors.
Another blog can be set up within minutes. If complaints and rants about another blog (and its “censorship” practices) are what net surfers care to read is another question.
I’m not sure that the point hasn’t slightly been missed here. There’s nothing new about the Internet, and there are many existing models of managed debate in the real world long pre-dating it.
When you write to a newspaper you have to right to demand that your comments appear unedited, or indeed at all.
Moderation is common in all debating chambers, necessary to stop people from drowning each other out, to make sure discussion stays on-topic, and to prevent the hi-jacking of public space by private interests (commercial, political, etc.) Parliamentary debate, meetings and committees of all kinds, and television debates are commonplace examples.
Clubs and societies of all kinds have rules of behaviour. Preventing you from practicing your electric guitar at the chess club isn’t curbing your freedoms.
And finally, in all walks of life society in general (in most countries) deplores and prevents or punishes certain kinds of anti-social behaviour: repeatedly accosting others, behaving in a loud and aggressive or threatening manner towards others, using inappropriate language, and so on, up to libel. The anonymity of the Internet does tend to bring out the worst of this kind of behaviour, but it’s noticeable that forums that make it very clear that all postings are moderated before transmission see almost none of this, whereas those that moderate after posting see a great deal, and those with no moderation drown in it.
I moderate a mailing list (The Oriental-List) which began simply by cancelling the membership of those who abused the service, but after a foul-mouthed torrent or two was forced to switch to moderating all postings before transmission. There hasn’t been a single foul-mouthed posting in the last ten years, only a few that wander off-topic, and a handful amounting to spam. This seems to me to indicate that in general people understand very well what is appropriate both in posting to public places and in the editing or moderation of such postings, but given a chance to anonymously abuse, they’ll take it. For those sites that invite debate or attempt to make money from public contributions, the quality of the moderation is the heart of the quality of the site.
But in general the Internet makes no difference to existing understanding of appropriate public pronouncement or the management or moderation or refereeing or chairing of public debate.
The real stupidity indeed lies in thinking it does.
I’m actually sure that anyone who demands a right to comment anywhere, anyway he wants to is missing the point. Bigtime, not only slightly. :)
But it seems to be a wide-spread (and weird) idea that moderation on the internet is somehow indecent or unfair.
UC Berkeley (the circle)! 我的母校！
There are some Anti-China bloggers out there who complains China’s censorship while these bloggers yet they censor any pro-China comments. What irony.
Pugster, you miss the entire point of this excellent post. A government denying freedom of speech is not equivalent to a blogger censoring comments. I can be all for government’s insurance of freedom of speech while allowing no comments on my blog. That is actually an extension of my belief in freedom of speech – the right to run our private, self-paid-for blogs exactly the way we choose, with either open comments, moderated comments or no comments at all. So there is no hypocrisy or contradiction, as long as society offers those moderated commenters the freedom to set up their own blog or state their case elsewhere. Owning a blog does not mean you have to offer it to everyone as their own platform to do with as they choose. And in case you are referring to my own site as the one that censors your comments (something you have stated on other blog comments), this is false – I have you on the list of comments to screen in advance, but do not censor your comments or delete them.
Richard, I agree that when it is your site, you can do whatever you want. I am just saying that if you let people with different opinions than you to post stuff, then maybe things will be a little interesting.
http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/03/china-and-the-global-internet-my-talk-at-harvard.html
There was a recent discussion from Rebecca Mackinnon where she tried to post some sensitive subjects in many Chinese forums and blogs and some of the post got blocked, but some of them didn’t. I don’t agree that what some of these people who run the blogs and forums are doing, but some complain it is the governments doing when it is not.
One of the things Rebecca’s research illuminated for many was that censorship on China’s internet is not uniform precisely because a lot of it is delegated to the web hosts and forum operators who must subjectively interpret what the government is sensitive about or risk incurring the government’s wrath. It is still government-mandated self-censorship.
True enough. I do think that censorship by the Chinese government is decremental for the development of China as many Chinese citizens are leery of what the government doesn’t say. However, many bloggers and posters take advantage of that situation by filling in false information and unfortunately some truthful information that create mass hysteria. I think that this is the kind of information that China is trying to clamp down in order to ‘harmonize’ China. Is it the best way, nope.
You put it as if the issue would be solely a legal problem. Of course it is not. Those who complain about FOS appeal to a moral, legitimate dimension of tolerating views that a site owner does not support. Sure, every blogger has the legal right to delete whatever he likes. The problem is that this might make some of his moral claims less legitimate, credible (now we have totally left the sphere of formal legality), particularly when he has a strong claim to FOS in his writing.
I guess in jurisprudence your view would be called legal positivism (but you should know this better since I read you hold a law degree). In any case I find it misses the point.
Christoph, I think you’re missing the point of: What’s the morality of imposing your will upon other people’s private property? Supporting freedom of speech and controlling your private property are mutually exclusive. A website owner is not controlling what you wear, he is controlling what you write on the clothes he owns and wears.
I am not saying this and that is morally right or not. What I say is that when people complain about FOS on websites, they do so in moralizing terms. Hence, your reminder that it is your formal legal right to delete, does not touch the point of why they complain.
And certainly, any website lives from contact with the public. It is not like people peeing in your backyard. You ask people to write on it and to read it. So they demand the right to say what they want to say and not what you want them to (not) say. The conflict is not about formal legal rights.
Oh, I am not saying that I wouldn’t delete, would I run a website. hehe
Just as well as the FOS struggle in China and elsewhere is not about formal legality either. That is what the Chinese government would like it to be about, but I doesn’t work.
I understand and I know what you’re trying to say, but my point is that a website owner’s choice to delete or censor is not only their legal right but also their moral right. This is the morality of respect for private property.
It actually IS like people peeing in your backyard. You may invite someone over to your home, perhaps for a BBQ or whatever, and if that guest suddenly unzips and starts pissing on your prize-winning daisies? You’re probably not going to be very happy, and you are not just within your rights to ask the person to leave (with a kick on the ass if need be), you would also not be in any morally questionable territory for doing so. The morally questionable thing is to DISRESPECT another person’s property. It is their property and their rules. Period.
As Richard pointed out above, free speech within the context of government versus free speech within the context of a private website are two different things.
Well, I must admit the BBQ and peeing thing makes me smirk. The property issue is your position and the FOS issue is “theirs.” It will always be so and I guess this struggle will never end. ;)
For those in the audience that want to see the opposing view to this article – check out http://www.clambake.org, and the trials and tribulations that site has had when dealing with the Church of Scientology.
I usually find this exercise a bit funny, in a morbid sense, given how some dictators in the past went after newspaper publishers. Heck, with this line of thinking, it can be easier to shut a paper down if it is denied paper, ink, and possibly electricity to publish – than the messy business of merely shooting a few employees or the owner of the paper.
Deleted for indefensible idiocy and sock puppetry. Welcome to private property. Have a nice day. – Kai
!!!!!! Hardly a balanced debate then, is it, or indeed, your so-called “Free Speech”. You’re closer to facism than free speech. Now you have a nice day. You’ll need them.
Yes, welcome to the Fascist state of CNR! Private property since 2009!
Hey, it is clear you DID NOT read the actual post before proceeding to ASTROTURF. We’ll take you more seriously (even though you’re just a smelly ol’ sock-puppet) when you have the common sense to do so AND the decency to reply on topic. Otherwise, please visit http://www.wordpress.com and start your own blog where you can proselytize to your heart’s content. Given that you have such a beef with the English China blogosphere, you can also take the opportunity to show us a role model for what it should be like, no doubt fashioned in your image or to your personal benefit.
This analysis comes across as a bit of a legalistic fallacy, where the mere legality (or in this case legal framework) of something used to justify ethically dubious conduct. The fact that censorship is technically a government issue does not mean that many common restrictions on free speech in private forums are ethical or desirable. This issue is compounded by the fact that no true public space even exists on the Internet because of the layers of private entities who control it and can arbitrarily enforce rules of conduct at their whim.
A significant portion of Internet comment section, message boards, etc. are effectively inviting the general public to participate (since they want to increase clicks/readership in order to generate more ad revenue in particular). This arguably creates a de facto public forum and thus people are led to expect a quasi-public level of free speech (limited mainly by obscene or violent remarks).
The problem with private moderation is that it can too easily lead to suppression of ideas that are ‘offensive’ only because they challenge conventional thinking or political motives. It can also allow trivial matters like profanity to out-weigh more important issues like the logic and evidence of an argument.
Elisabeth,
What ethically dubious conduct are you referring to?
Censorship, here, is not technically a government issue. Rather, it’s being argued as a private property issue.
Who determines what is ethical or desirable in a “private” forum?
Good point about there being no true public space on the Internet. So…?
Does inviting the general public to participate create a de facto public forum? Arguable, I agree. Does this lead people to expect a quasi-public level of free speech? I’m not so sure. What defines people’s expectations? Why would you automatically assume people’s expectations of “quasi-public level of free speech” is “limited mainly by obscene or violent remarks”? Why does your interpretation of free speech limit obscene or violent remarks?
I think it is a stretch for you to say the problem of private moderation is that it easily leads to suppression of ideas that challenge conventional thinking or political motives. Let’s keep it simple. Private moderation often entails the owner moderating ideas that the owner doesn’t like on the owner’s private property. Yes, it can also allow trivial matters to out-weigh more important matters, but that’s only because they’re deemed more important to the person being moderated, not the owner.
Kai – hate to say it, but it seems that “Elizabeth” has picked up on an article about the Obama Administration pondering going the route of the CCP and GOP in employing “50CP” to talk about positive things about government/surpress negatives via their “independent” websites – or at least that is my take when she said, “I think it is a stretch for you to say the problem of private moderation is that it easily leads to suppression of ideas that challenge conventional thinking or political motives.”.
Article in Question: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html
Hey Matthew,
Wow, dude, that’s hella disturbing. I’ve bookmarked it. Might have to bring it out to scare some Americans with it sometime.
But first, why “hate to say it”?
Next, you quoted something I said.
Third, my position would probably protect the conspiracy theorist groups and forums mentioned in Greenwald’s piece, since I’d be protecting their right to moderate their websites however they please, which might protect them from government-sponsored “independent” operatives seeking to debunk their conspiracies, right?
Anyway, thanks for the link. Not sure it’s what Elisabeth was on about though.
Oops on that quote, thought I had copied her bit about: “The problem with private moderation is that it can too easily lead to suppression of ideas that are ‘offensive’ only because they challenge conventional thinking or political motives.”. Given the age of this article (April 2009), the release of Greenwald’s piece (and the following flame session in the New York Times) – I felt that Elizabeth was trying to reference something Greenwald and/or Krugman talked about – especially in light of the issue that you had with JZ.
As for the ‘Hate to say it” bit… we like to think that we are always dealing with people with good hearts and clear minds – but, reality is a harsh and cruel mistress. As I have referenced at other sites that I gadfly at, there is something to be said for a multi-party system with a free press and rule of law, it forces crooks to keep each other honest through competition, and allows a ref to blow a whistle when they get too dirty competing.
Let’s not kid overselves – every political party in the world, much like every religion in the world, would like to be the only party for people to come to. The DNC is no different that the GOP or the CCP in that matter. Cripes, people tend to forget that Obama was a Daley Machine Candidate – and it was Daley Sr. that had no qualms about letting the Chicago PD beat the hell out of the hippies back in the day.
In the end – it will always be the “fringe elements” – along with people in the middle of the poltical/religious spectrum that will not hestiate to call B.S. for what it is – that will help in keeping balance to a nation.
Matthew S wrote:
Let’s not kid overselves – every political party in the world, much like every religion in the world, would like to be the only party for people to come to. The DNC is no different that the GOP or the CCP in that matter. Cripes, people tend to forget that Obama was a Daley Machine Candidate – and it was Daley Sr. that had no qualms about letting the Chicago PD beat the hell out of the hippies back in the day.
_____________________
You are engaging in some stank dookie here. Daley Sr. hasn’t been mayor for quite a long time. He hasn’t been alive for quite a long time. And though it is well documented that the names of the dead have shown up on voting rolls in the past, I’d like you to point on when the dead have won office. Especially as mayor of the nation’s largest city.
I assume that you are referring to the events surrounding the ‘68 Democratic National Convention, held in Chicago?Perhaps you would like to hold Daley’s son – the current mayor – accountable for something that happened more than decades before he was elected mayor? I am hardly a Daley fan, but you are either really ignorant of the history you claim to cite or playing on people’s ignorance to scare them. Moreover, your assertion that he gave the direct command to beat the hell out of some “hippies” grossly over-simplifies the events of that night. Get yourself a good book documenting that events that led up to that fateful night and you will find that yes, Daley was indeed thuggish at times, but it’s not quite as simple as you make it. Kinda like when people simplify Tiannamen square into devils vs. angels to make some arcing point.
Even worse was this:
“Obama Administration pondering going the route of the CCP and GOP in employing “50CP” to talk about positive things about government/surpress negatives via their “independent” websites”"
Did you bother reading the entire post on Greenwald’s blog? There is nothing in his post, nor from anyone in the Obama administration, that suggests that this is a policy that is being considered. It’s from a paper written by Sunstein before he was appointed by Obama, while he was still in the employ of Harvard (he is currently “on leave”). Certainly I agree with Greenwald that anyone who espouses such ideas should not be a civil servant, but how do you make the leap from ideas in a paper to it being “considered” by Obama’s administration? I mean, did you just space the part where Greenwald said that such would at the least involve a REPEAL of the first amendment? How likely is it something like that would even be considered by a President who was himself a lecturer on the Constitution?
Consider me one of those people in the middle, as you call them/us, who don’t hesitate to call B.S. Whatever point you have to make, using outright fabrications and playing fast and loose with history is not a good way to support your argument, whatever merits it might have.
Sorry, the last line of the first paragraph should read “nation’s third largest city”.
In response to the Native Chicagoan – since he double clutched on responses – I figure to do this instead of replying to either one and keep a cadience on the response line. For those in the audience wondering why I said: “Obama is a Daley Machine Candidate” – it is good to know that Mayor Daley ‘Jr.’ is the current boss of Chicago Political Machine. As for comments about Mayor Daley ‘Sr.’ and the methods employed by the Chicago Police Department, I would suggest reading articles from the Chicago Reader – a deeper look into the troubling incidents:
TIF issues, Daley Jr. – http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-chicago-reader-tif-archive/Content?oid=1180567
Police issues, Daley Sr. – http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-police-torture-scandals-a-whos-who/Content?oid=922414
Early Interviews with Obama (including when he was just a local pol in 1995) – http://www1.chicagoreader.com/obama/
@Kai Pan – if you thought that first article from Mr. Greenwald was scary – take a look at this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
Suffice to say – never a good thing when you got the GOP/DNC acting like the CCP – makes a person wonder if one or both of two parties are willing to just drop the niceties and just try a good old fashioned coup.