4 ms·
This is a fairly typical position - i.e. private corporations are under no obligation to protect free speech, therefore censorship in a private context is okay.
by potatolicious 14y ago
This is a fairly typical position - i.e. private corporations are under no obligation to protect free speech, therefore censorship in a private context is okay.
Which is an argument that flies legally, but not morally depending on what you believe.
If you believe in free speech, then using the fact that your website is private to censor others is not a violation of the law, but it certainly seems like a violation of your own declared ideology. Which is to say, you would support free speech until it got inconvenient.
Reddit as a community seems to place a high value on free speech, so while they're under no legal obligation to keep things open, it would be a violation of its own declared ideology if they started censoring.
Note that I don't miss the creepy subreddits at all, but if you're one of the people on /r/politics, /r/atheism, or whatever who are quoting Voltaire all the time, it seems hypocritical to call for censorship.
- girlvinyl 14y agoThe speech of these users is still free, but there are consequences to what they say. For example, the consequence here is that their creepshots results in others naming them and exercising their own right to speech as well. I'm also not at all calling for censorship. As I said, the creeps want their free speech and are getting it, as well as others exercising their rights too. I do think it is quite unfair that the tumblr with names was deleted, but again, Tumblr has a right to police their site as they see fit. Ultimately, I think it is exploitative of the reddit corporation and their masters to allow completely disgusting and clearly immoral content. This is 2012. The internet isn't the wild west anymore.
- Tipzntrix 14y agoIt's Reddit mods (volunteers) who started the banning only on their SubReddits. The admin and real staff haven't done anything (except ban /r/jailbait I suppose).
- omgsean 14y ago>If you believe in free speech, then using the fact that your website is private to censor others is not a violation of the law, but it certainly seems like a violation of your own declared ideology. I support free speech but I certainly wouldn't allow the KKK to march through my backyard.
- shrikant 14y ago> Which is an argument that flies legally, but not morally depending on what you believe. Exactly like all the pro-/r/CreepShots/ arguments.
- potatolicious 14y agoActually, I don't think the contents of /r/creepshots are actually legal - or at least, not a large portion of it. Upskirts, panty shots, and the such are not legally protected, even if they are done in public. As a street photographer myself I'm quite familiar with the difference. Which is to say, much of the content on /r/creepshots wouldn't pass legal muster, let alone the morality test.
- eli 14y agoOne of the great things about the internet is that you can pretty easily and cheaply start your own website if you don't like how the one you're using is being run.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]