Censorship as protection?
In Norway, we’ve had a massive debate over the last couple of days about who’s responsible for the content published in the comments following stories in online media. I won’t bother you with links, since they’re mostly in Norwegian, but the short version is as follows: On the web site of Norwegian daily Agderposten’s discussion forum, rumors of highly sexual nature about soccer player and former Liverpool pro Stig Inge Bjornebye were circulating. The rumors were false, but were accessible for a long time. Today, Agderposten was found guilty by the PFU, the Norwegian press’ watchdog organization.
The case has raised some interesting questions: Are newspapers responsible for content published on their web sites? Should newspapers censor this content? Should everything published on the internet be censored? If so, who should do this? And is it possible?
First of all, it isn’t possible, as far as I’m concerned. If I want to publish something, I can. If not on the newspaper’s web sites, then on blogs or discussion sites in other countries.
Ironically, several newspaper editors have called for some kind of censorship of comments. Maybe it’s my background from an American university, but freedom of speech is an incredibly important value for me. In fact, just the word “censorship” scares me, and ignites nightmares of Soviet regimes from the past. Of course, a lot of countries censor web sites today, but I would not like to compare any of them to Norway, a liberal, western, educated country.
So who is responsible for content? How about making the content providers themselves responsible? I can’t remember the last time I wrote a comment anonymously, and I think that’s the trend. Anonymous sources have never been regarded as credible sources, and they won’t be in the future either. Besides, whatever I write is what I mean, so why wouldn’t I put my name on it?
If someone publishes something false, charge them with the applicable law. But censoring content is definitely uncalled for, as well as technically impossible without turning into a communication dictatorship.
Are we adult enough to have an open internet? Can we protect people from false rumors? Why can’t we all just be nice?
29.01.08 at 23:50
This is an excellent point:
“So who is responsible for content? How about making the content providers themselves responsible? I can’t remember the last time I wrote a comment anonymously, and I think that’s the trend. Anonymous sources have never been regarded as credible sources, and they won’t be in the future either. Besides, whatever I write is what I mean, so why wouldn’t I put my name on it?”
This is my sentiment exactly.
In my opinion registration would solve most of the problems we are facing on web forums today without too many drawbacks.
It is no doubt far superior to censorship, which I totally agree is uncalled for. Moderation, as in editing/filtering comments according to clearly stated criteria is too time consuming for any of the main stream media to be a practical solution for the web forums.
30.01.08 at 9:15
I had a situation that might shed some light on this. I had a girl post nude pictures of herself on my page in myspace. I wouldn’t of minded at all… but the pictures she posted of herself were picture of her nude self when she was five years old. If I had censored my own comments I could of been seen as trying to cover up the evidence or worse. What is more deleting her image would not of erased the comment off her server. I could of gone away for a week and she could of posted the image right back up under a friends account. I have 1400 friends. So my solution was to leave it up. Being that the nude pictures were of the poster herself… no children were actually taken advantage of. Further leaving the pictures as a comment protected me in that I had a record of it… if I had erased the myspace comment then there would of been no way to keep a record of the wrong that had been done (that is if you perceive posting childhood nude pictures of yourself as wrong). Should I of been held accountable based on the same logic I was hearing above? I’m not a legal scholar… but I don’t think I should be. It still remains up… it is barried under thousands of comments so the likelihood of anyone finding it but me for evidence purposes is slim.
30.01.08 at 21:24
Unfortunately I would have to disagree with you on a few points:
- “Anonymous sources have never been regarded as credible sources.”
My comment is : Have you ever read the Econmist? Is the Economist credible? – as they never publish the name of the author of any story?
Of course it’s credible.
- “Ironically, several newspaper editors have called for some kind of censorship of comments.”
Just to disappoint you – most newspapers have employed professional moderators for years, that’s why there are so many emoeration companies out there. Few credible newspaper would risk their reputation and brand. Look at some of the “tabloid” newspapers, they were the first to start moderations (as opposed to censoring btw.) to stop being sued (there are laws covering this for the printed version of the paper, the same rules go for online in most countries).
And yes – I do work for s newspaper group…
Regards
Tor
3.09.08 at 19:42
ft lesbian shit eat lesbian shit fingering eat
15.09.08 at 16:21
apparel fitness toronto fitness apparel women’s