Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Score one for idiots who copy blogs; minus one for free speech.
Though it again goes to the right of those who own the servers to decide what can and can't go on them. Webservers are privately owned, not public domain. My hosting service states that illegal files aren't allowed, and were I to upload some to my space and they be found, then they'd have the right to terminate my service and not even have to give warning or refund.
It really has nothing to do with free speech. If they were to purchase and manage their own server and THAT got shut down - then it would. But so long as you use other people's servers for that....it's their decision, not yours.
Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind the people/companies that own the web servers have every right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their business. They don't want something like this, which would cause a large amount of negative press and negative reactions by the general public to be located on their private servers and related to their company. It's not like the government is shutting the websites down or anything.
That's not as clear cut as it seems- if they unreasonably ask for material to be removed they are in breach of contract from their side. It's not totally discretionary when they are taking your money. If a hosting company decided to remove a lesbian website, for example, it would get caned pretty hard.
I think we might find this will become a big grey area as time goes on.
It has nothing to do with free speech. It's not the government deciding, it's a privately owned company deciding what they want to be connected with.
Also, it's more then idiots that may be effected, as I said, many young, impressionable girls who think poorly of themselves may find this and think that the "bloggist" (is that even a word?) may have a good idea and copy it.
Originally posted by Lana
Though it again goes to the right of those who own the servers to decide what can and can't go on them. Webservers are privately owned, not public domain. My hosting service states that illegal files aren't allowed, and were I to upload some to my space and they be found, then they'd have the right to terminate my service and not even have to give warning or refund.
See Ush's reply regarding the legal aspect. You cannot unreasonably terminate a site- but in any case, I'm not really talking about whether or not someone is able to close a site; it's whether or not they should.
Originally posted by Lana
It really has nothing to do with free speech. If they were to purchase and manage their own server and THAT got shut down - then it would. But so long as you use other people's servers for that....it's their decision, not yours.
I don't really follow the logic- it's always someone else's decision to circumvent free speech.
Originally posted by Lana
Though it again goes to the right of those who own the servers to decide what can and can't go on them. Webservers are privately owned, not public domain. My hosting service states that illegal files aren't allowed, and were I to upload some to my space and they be found, then they'd have the right to terminate my service and not even have to give warning or refund.It really has nothing to do with free speech. If they were to purchase and manage their own server and THAT got shut down - then it would. But so long as you use other people's servers for that....it's their decision, not yours.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's not as clear cut as it seems- if they unreasonably ask for material to be removed they are in breach of contract from their side. It's not totally discretionary when they are taking your money. If a hosting company decided to remove a lesbian website, for example, it would get caned pretty hard.I think we might find this will become a big grey area as time goes on.
It would basically depend on the websites "terms and conditions". They probably say that they hold the right to delete anything they don't deem as appropriate blah blah blah. In which case, it's entirely within their jurisdiction to remove something that promotes a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle to an audience that may consist of many young girls who are looking to become more attractive.
If the website doesn't make it clear that they hold that right, then they may be in trouble if they try to delete something like this.
Originally posted by BackFire
It has nothing to do with free speech. It's not the government deciding, it's a privately owned company deciding what they want to be connected with.
That's irrelevant though. If the net is entirely owned by private companies, and they all ban certain things, then there is a factual circumvention of the subjects which are able to be discussed.
Of course they may have the right to do so; that's neither here nor there.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, a legal challenge to 'what they deem inappropriate' would be easy in a lot of circumstances. You pay for a service, no matter what you sign you have rights. They can't terminate it just because they don't like what you write.
It would be simple in most circumstances; very simple in these ones.
Unless there is something illegal going on, censorship isn't a good route to travel when a contract is at stake.
(in reference to VVD)
Oh, I dunno- I reckon the web hosters can currently make an argument that these sites are inciting others to do harm, and that would come under their terms and conditions.
I was just saying it's not a universal get out.
On a personal note though... I don't think censorship is a good way to handle this issue. I think the people pulling the sites are just panicking.
No-one is gaining personally from these sites. They are not flogging drugs or encouraging crime. They are skewed, certainly, but they are a genuine expression of a very complicated psychological area. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending it is not there... I think it will cause more harm than good.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I heard of these websites, along with the ones which help and encourage people to commit suicide. They give them means and ways, plan the suicide notes and the like...
If you sift in this forum, you will find a thread i had opened. Last I saw it had the odd 1 reply.
Originally posted by BackFire
Well the reasoning for deleting such sites would surely be more then "we just don't like it". It's promoting a dangerous lifestyle that is alluring for many naive young girls.
As do alcohol and tobacco companies.
Anyway to return to what I actually said, someone writing their own blog about their own anorexia, without actually describing it as a bad thing. Is that [morally] fair game for censorship?
Well, it all depends on what their TOS exactly says. For example, mine says this (it's just a part, but it's the relevant bit):
Content
Surpass Hosting.com, LLC believes in freedom of speech; however, any content (written, visual, or implied) in the following areas will not be tolerated and is grounds for immediate suspension of service (in most cases customer will be allowed a zip file of their account): racism or prejudice due to color, creed, or belief; any violent/malicious/obscene content written, visual or implied. We will not tolerate any type of hate site including terrorist related websites on our network. If we receive notice that there is such a hate site hosted within our network, the customer hosting the material will be notified immediately. They are required to remove the content within a certain timeframe or will face account suspension and/or termination.We prefer that you self-govern your content and remain responsible and all-knowing of your website publically provides. Even if other users have access to your account, you are responsible for their actions. The resources and time needed to govern our servers by checking each website individualy, which have growing and evolving content, is impossible. However, if Surpass Hosting.com, LLC is made aware of any questionable content on a Surpass Hosting-hosted site, we will address the concerns immediately and directly with you to seek an amiable resolution. If any person contacts us about content they have found on a Surpass server that copyrights their own material or that they wish to be removed, we require legal documentation to take any further action.
Anything they deem to be racist, obscene, violent, or malicious they can request removed, and remove themselves if the request isn't complied with.
And honestly, I would think that losing that one contract wouldn't be so much a concern as the fact that people who find such a site offensive and use the same hosting service may not want to be associated with it and might cancel their contracts. And yes, that does happen.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
As do alcohol and tobacco companies.Anyway to return to what I actually said, someone writing their own blog about their own anorexia, without actually describing it as a bad thing. Is that [morally] fair game for censorship?
That, no, I wouldn't think.
Though really, the average blog is read by only a handful of people....
Originally posted by Ushgarak
(in reference to VVD)Oh, I dunno- I reckon the web hosters can currently make an argument that these sites are inciting others to do harm, and that would come under their terms and conditions.
Sure, they could. I was simply referring to the presence of a case in terms of breach. However in the case I posited, it wasn't a matter of incitement; more a case of not condemning anorexia.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
On a personal note though... I don't think censorship is a good way to handle this issue. I think the people pulling the sites are just panicking.No-one is gaining personally from these sites. They are not flogging drugs or encouraging crime. They are skewed, certainly, but they are a genuine expression of a very complicated psychological area. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending it is not there... I think it will cause more harm than good.
Certainly.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
As do alcohol and tobacco companies.Anyway to return to what I actually said, someone writing their own blog about their own anorexia, without actually describing it as a bad thing. Is that [morally] fair game for censorship?
Probably not. It depends on how they're portraying the act. If they're saying "I got AIDS today, it's not as bad as people say really, oh well, I'm fine". That isn't grounds for reasonably censoring something, because they're not actually promoting something dangerous as a positive. It's not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not showing it falsely as a good thing.
Though if that person said "I got AIDS today and it's awesome! I love it. You should all do the same thing because..." then I could see a company reasonably deleting that because it is promoting something extremely dangerous and unhealthy as a positive that others should attempt to achieve.
Originally posted by BackFire
That isn't grounds for reasonably censoring something, because they're not actually promoting something dangerous as a positive. It's not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not showing it falsely as a good thing.it is promoting something extremely dangerous and unhealthy as a positive that others should attempt to achieve.
What about fat people saying how much they love to eat?