"It's not censorship if..."

[symbioidlj]

(Also, see this wonderful entry on MeFi basically saying the same thing, but in a more succinct way)
In one of my (many) earlier posts I noted that I hate the "it's not censorship if done by private entity X".

I'm not saying that's necessarily false phraseology, nor even technically incorrect. It's a moral statement. It has to do with some lame-ass view of Private Property (and admittedly, I don't have a solution to resolve this issue).

Here's the thing. You say that only the government can engage in censorship. Wal-Mart, Livejournal, etc... don't. They have every right as private entities to prevent you from saying what you want on their turf. This effectively limits free speech to 1) Your Home (which if you're renting, isn't even technically yours, so if you're landlord has an anti-free speech clause, you're SOL, yes I'm speaking in jest, here) or 2) Government Property.

In this day and age, more and more public space is becoming privatized. Speech can be further stifled by pure prevention in the ever growing private regions (no pun intended... "you can't sell "Rape Me" by Nirvana, in Wal-Mart, for example), or by effectively limiting access to the speech by charging some sort of cost. (thus it isn't "free as in beer")

When every space becomes a commodity to purchase and close off (even if in a public area), the public good is endangered.

You say we have free speech online. But, using such arguments as this, we don't. We only have the goodwill of the providers. Oh, sure, you say "get your own server" if you want to post online. What if the very backbone itself (a privately controlled entity) decides it doesn't like certain things. Well, you lose that "privilege" to express yourself. You are back to square one. Your house and government land. And it's all OK with you.

I'm not saying I have answers. I know there should be some sort of fine line. I don't know where to draw it. But this whole phrase really gets to me, because it's always fucking repeated everytime some corporate interest prevents someone from saying something. "It's not censorship..."

If the Libertarians had their way, government would be privatized fully (as it is becoming more and more so) and there would be, effectively no public space to speak. I'm not saying this is any of your stance on the issue, and yes, I'm presenting an extreme version. But surely, you see the dangers in this line of thinking. Especially as the private encroaches ever further upon the public.

This means there is LESS free speech, not more. (and yeah, yeah, I'm not taking into account the internet and it's expansion of speech, here, ok) Please, just don't use that phrase around me, it's really stupid and trite, and doesn't provide any convincing argument one way or the other on the overall issue of free speech. And I was right when I posted that, even though I hadn't seen it used in this context initially, I've now seen it bandied about a few times.

So no, I don't disagree with you... You have valid point, but the larger issues remain, and too often, uncritically accepted. This is what I'm trying to deal with.

Comments

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying it's not censorship, of course it is.

[rayefrenzy.livejournal.com]

The thing is, when you sign up for this website, you agree to give up some of your freedom of speech. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's true.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

You do see my point, though, about ever encroaching corporate control of "public" space, right? It's a lazy, simplistic argument, built up on our current capitalist model of property rights, which have more rights than "free speech" even though property isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, whereas free speech is.

Yeah, it sucks, and there's no way around it, I'm just trying to look at the larger picture. I mostly posted this for vesicular because in a prior post he said that line (and it's always trotted out in corporate censorship cases).

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

People censor things every day though. I censor the guy trying to sell shit to me at my door by telling him to GTFO. He can complain about me infringing on his right to free speech, but I also have a right not to listen to it. The freedom of speech only protects you from gov interference. I don't expect to go into a church and talk up about great atheism is and not be asked to leave and be barred from their public space.

[jamie-miller.livejournal.com]

agreed 100%.

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

BTW, it looks like LJ admiited they fucked up, thank god. Though it makes me wonder about the competence of their staff.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

Yeah, first thing I did after getting ready this morning was to go to the news page (I had already seen Anil Dash posted a half-ass apology on MeFi last night, even posting his personal number so people can talk to him about the issue, which gives me a bit more respect, especially when dealing with as vicious a community as mefi is... in fact, I have to admit, I'm surprised at how little snark there was towards the fanfic community, and more animosity towards LJ)

Anyways, I have a bit more to discuss when I make a post either at lunch hour or later tonight.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

Also, see my rely to jamie_miller below this. I generally agree with your point, it's just that I'm trying to get to a point on a larger topic that so many people are ignoring.

What about the point about the backbone of the net being non-government owned? That ultimately, the internet isn't a "free speech zone" period. Even if you own your own server... That's one thing I'd like to see addressed. Someone on mefi made that same point, too, last night, which was nice to see that I'm not the only one who has such concerns.

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

I've thought about that, and you're right. It's hard to talk about the right to free speech in a medium that does not respect governmental boundaries. There seems to be some accordance with laws of where the server originates, thus how The Pirate Bay still exists, but it's a weird area.

But yeah, I can have my own server, say what I want on it, etc, but if my service provider cuts the pipe, it's game over. That said if it was government owned, it would probably fall under the FCC and would probably be way more regulated that it is now. The fact that it isn't most likely gives us more freedoms of speech and expression online than anywhere else.

[rayefrenzy.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more. However, I'm a little tired of yaoi/shota fangirls complaining. Heh.

[jvmatucha.livejournal.com]

Icon love!

Like I was saying in sabotabby's journal, (which is how I found this post,) virtually all of the censorship that goes on in the western world is a result of coroprate censorship. It's easy to argue so in the case of corporate controlled media outlets, but when it comes to Wal-Mart and Livejournal and such, people are oftentimes convinced that the "private property" argument is valid.

For instance, the censor-aholics over at YouTube have a fair amount of support for their censorship activities through the "it's-their-website" argument, (and their censorship activities include not just "leftist looony" and counter-culturalist material, but also a lot of neocon and far right material,) but when you reach a certain point of public awareness and access, (that is, become so popular and big that the use of your services has become a practically default form of communication,) then you have certain inherent responsibilities to let people employ that medium for a wide range of expressions, regardless of whether or not it's "yours". It's not written down anywhere, and no one made a pledge to this concept, but it's just simple commons sense, and exactly what a free society entails.

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

I recall once reading excerpts from a Justice's opinion regarding some case or another, and the most interesting part of the opinion was this:

Common sense revolts at this notion.

This is to say that, ultimately, even rule of law is reigned in by common prevailing sense of the day. So-called "corporate censorship" is going to be the free expression topic of the next decade or more.

[jamie-miller.livejournal.com]

I completely agree that the privatization of public space means less free speech. However, this means that we have to work to resolve that issue, and not declare that every attempt of owners/responsible parties to run their facilities as they see fit is equal to government suppression of free speech.

I come from the perspective of someone who ran a music venue for years. We refused to give a platform to misogynists, racists or homophobes, and for this we earned the "OMG U R CENSORS" label. We tried to explain: look, this is our venue, and we'll run it as we see fit, but people came back with the whole "I have the right to say whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want" argument, which is bunk.

Until I was in that position, I felt that private (i.e. corporate) refusal to endorse or support certain forms of speech was censorship. Now I think otherwise.

Hope that makes sense. I'm not attacking you, just offering an alternate take on the situation.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

It's not that I disagree with that sentiment. I honestly don't know what the solution is. It's a very thorny problem. And, being that I agree with your political stances, I personally don't want that kinda shit spewed in my personal space either.

I try to allow as much as reasonably possible in my LJ (not that I have many dissenters floating around, thank (insert your favorite deity here)) And I agee that it is about dealing with the larger issue, which is what I am ultimately trying to present. The encroachment of ever more private space into the public realm, so that it's no longer meaningful to talk about the distinction of public/private.

I don't feel attacked in the slightest. Thanks for the feedback (sabotabby referee, I take it?)

[jamie-miller.livejournal.com]

yeah, I forgot to mention that she referred to this post.

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

I've heard through various other LJs that the offenders were suspended rather than deleted and that they had access to some flavor of archived or archivable material.

As a result, I've become inclined to think of this in a different way. LJ/SA made the distinguishment between the material and their publishing of the material and made a best-faith effort to return the material to the author. If this is the case, then I don't have such strong feelings about it. The people have not been denied their right to write nor their right to ownership of their material.

I still feel what you're saying and I think it's a valid thing to discuss, but in this specific implementation of things, I am starting to feel that it didn't strongly violate my sense of ethics.