Rights: LJ/WFI, public/private, legal/moral

[aparecida]

This LJ Abuse / Warriors For Innocence debacle has brought up an important conflict in the way we use terms like "rights." A number of users have written that LJ has violated their right to free speech. On the other hand, jamie_miller makes the point that words like censorship, free speech, and right to expression pertain to the relationship between a

Comments

[on_se_dit_tu]

And legally, LiveJournal can control the content it permits on its servers however it sees fit.

This is an extremely true point that many people seem to have overlooked. Disappointed users could, technically, take their business elsewhere.

My personal complaint against the content control in question was the violation upon survivors of rape and incest, etc. to form communities to discuss these topics for healing, and the moral "right" to list these difficult and painful topics as an LJ interest.

[venado]

I've been going through this back&forth on rights (legal rights) on a GJ community dedicated to the LJ incident. It's a headache when I'm talking about legal rights and people are instead reading about private rights.

[filmstar]

Well written -- thanks for taking the time to write it.

[iamnikchick]

Excellent, thoughtful post.

[martianmoons]

And the outrage appears to have had an impact, LJ is re-instituting a number of journals it had previously banned!

They are doing this out of self-interest in order not to lose customers that would impact their sales and profits, and that is a perfectly good reason to act. The marketplace, when it is operating properly, acts out of self-interest and morals do not really need to come into play on the part of the entity that decides to react.