Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech

Posted by kdawson on Sat Feb 10, 2007 08:32 PM
from the hang-up-or-takedown dept.
Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments against Christian beliefs; but when he turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech. Reader theodp sends along a story in TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no favors by going up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 686 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Religion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoshJ (1009085) on Saturday February 10 2007, @08:34PM (#17967754)
    Doesn't surprise me that someone who criticizes religion gets censored. After all, religious ideas are completely sacred and can't possibly be questioned by anyone. That would be progress, and progress is WRONG.
  • Now wait a little (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JanneM (7445) on Saturday February 10 2007, @08:36PM (#17967766)
    (http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com/)
    So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.
    • Re:Now wait a little by macadamia_harold (Score:1) Saturday February 10 2007, @08:52PM
      • Re:Now wait a little (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Descalzo (898339) on Saturday February 10 2007, @09:29PM (#17968128)
        (Last Journal: Wednesday February 14 2007, @01:57PM)
        The way I understand it (which may be flawed), when Wal-Mart caves in, it caves in to market pressures. When they 'censor,' they are censoring what they are willing to sell, not what the artist can produce. Wal-Mart's refusal to push somebody else's idea of art does not constitute censorship, despite what your article says.

        Your link makes it sound as though there's some Church Lady in the back of every Wal-Mart Distribution Center who is bleeping out the F-Bombs on each individual CD that comes her way. And her neighbor with an airbrush, blurring out all the nasty cover art. No, they come to Wal-Mart pre-censored, and not by Wal-Mart executives. If you want to blam someone, blame the artists who are willing to violate their artistic integrity for the sales boost they get from having their albums sold at Wal-Mart.

        Don't kid yourself. Amazon doing what they think is best for themselves, as is Wal-Mart.

        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Now wait a little by Smidge204 (Score:2) Saturday February 10 2007, @09:10PM
      • Re:Now wait a little (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JanneM (7445) on Saturday February 10 2007, @09:48PM (#17968262)
        (http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com/)
        As for Amazon hanging up on them, well, you have the right to voice an objection but that doesn't mean they have to listen. If Amazon was deleting comments or otherwise preventing people from making their opinions known, that might be a case for freedom of speech...

        Well, no. Amazon can within very broad limits decide what gets said and not on their site. "Free speech" is not a right you have on private property. They could pull most any kind of comments at impunity and your rights would pretty much extend to taking your comment business elsewehere.

        Of course, the Human Society is claiming the material is illegal, and if that's true it adds a whole other aspect to the situation - but I don't know enough about whatever laws may apply so I can't comment on that.

        More to the point, the Humane Society is not the arbiter of what is legal and not. And Amazon is not the publisher of the material. If the Humane Society has issues with the legality, they should get in contact with the police or a prosecutor, and address the magazine publishers, not Amazon.

        They're just using harassment as a way to stop ideas they don't like - which, in the long run, probably harms their cause more than it helps. I'm very much against blood sport, but right now I feel like laying down a bet on a dogfight just to spite these hateful morons.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Now wait a little by mcostas (Score:1) Saturday February 10 2007, @09:26PM
    • Re:Now wait a little by General Wesc (Score:1) Saturday February 10 2007, @10:32PM
    • Re:Now wait a little by SeaFox (Score:2) Saturday February 10 2007, @10:41PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Google being evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jay2003 (668095) on Saturday February 10 2007, @08:40PM (#17967788)
    Maybe now some of the Google is wonderful nonsense will stop. Censoring people on religious grounds qualifies as being evil in my book. Of course, after Google sold to out to please the Chinese government, it was clear Google had decided that greed was a better motive than not being evil.
  • by jdp816 (895616) on Saturday February 10 2007, @08:40PM (#17967796)
    Private parties can do as they please. You have *NO* constitutional right to say what you want on their services. It may not be "nice" to do, but no one can stop them from doing this. Your right may vary by state, though.
  • Yeah, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WebHostingGuy (825421) * on Saturday February 10 2007, @08:40PM (#17967800)
    (http://www.e3servers.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 26 2006, @12:17PM)
    You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation. The US Constitution guarantees that "government" shall not infringe the right to a citizen's free speech. Any time you have a non-governmental agency "it doesn't apply".

    Amazon can cut off anyone they wish, so can Google. Google is not obligated to do a damn thing concerning free speech. They can censor anyone they want because they are a corporation, not the government. The law/Constitution isn't going to protect someone from posting in a forum/newsgroup ran by Google. Too bad, that's what you accept when you post in Google's forum/newsgroup; a place owned by essentially a private party.

    The only repercussions from something like this (private censorship) is the free market system. Boycott, attention getting, etc. But you can't force them to make them accept your free speech.
    • Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday February 10 2007, @08:56PM (#17967936)

      You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation.

      That's because everyone perpetually equates "free speech" with "censorship". Censorship CAN be a violation of your right to free speech, b