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

[glowingwhispers]

In terms of censorship on the Internet, the EFF seem to be leading the crusade. Perhaps you or someone you know who has been personally affected can contact them at eff.org.

[venado]

Actually, a user over at greatestjournal has sent a letter to EFF about the livejournal situation.

[zombienought]

Does your opinion in the LJ matter
extend equally to paid and unpaid
users? What about those, like me,
who have permanent accounts, and
my have bought said accounts with
the understanding that LJ's policies
would remain static?

(Of course, I don't believe any-
thing is permanent, and figured
LJ wouldn't last more than a year
or two. I'm just curious what you
think about the rights of paying
customers versus people who use
the service for free.)

[lilacsmack]

Ah, this reminds me of the days of yore when you´d write long thoughtful posts about public/private, societal/personal. Why´d you go and become a doctor and not a lawyer?

[sweet_byrd]

Playing into all of this is that, in the realm of "legal" rights (as opposed to moral or ethical rights), there are rights vis-à-vis the government (aka civil rights), and rights that come about due to contracts (contractual rights). Livejournal, as a private entity, simply cannot censor its users in the sense of a violation of civil rights (since it isn't a government actor). If you look at the first amendment, it is pretty clear that it regulates the behavior of government, not of private actors.

However, it can (potentially) violate its users' contractual rights, depending on the contract executed between LJ and the users (usually the TOS when it comes to web communities), and those users could be entitled to some kind of recompense. But a breach of contract and a violation of civil rights are two very different kinds of things.

[jamie_miller]

"And it's morally appropriate to experience and express outrage at a capricious, unjustified change in that environmnent."

I completely agree. My post was about the strict legal definitions of terms like "rights" and "censorship."

As I explained in this reply elsewhere, I am coming from the perspective of someone who ran a private institution that hosted a lot of creative expression. We put specific restrictions on said expressions and banned patrons who flouted our restrictions. We were accused of "violating free speech" and "censorship" all the time, but from my perspective, no one has a right to do or say whatever they want in my space -- a space for which I worked very, very hard.

[aparecida]

*nods* I hope it didn't read like I was criticizing your post or trying to put a finer point on it. I was just using it as a jumping-off point for my thought process, since I agreed completely with you. :)