Tracking the tools that decentralize the media. tools process ideas resources eventsav

unmediated

 

January 05, 2005

Hate blogging the tsunami

Tim Karr [via] leads us to a blog*spot-hosted site where someone has chosen to express themselves in a hateful manner towards tsunami victims in southern Asia and India.

As a commenter on Karr's site states, I'm curious to see if Google looks at this site as hateful, and in violation of the blog*spot terms of service. I'm guessing that the following from the Blogger TOS:

Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature.

[...snip...]

TERMINATION Either Member or Pyra may terminate the Service with or without cause at any time and effective immediately. Pyra shall not be liable to Member or any third party for termination of Service.

(Continued at The Media Drop)

(What happens when a forum that gives everyone the ability to speak isn't a forum for free speech? Can an end user agreement preclude the Bill of Rights? Stories like this trigger interesting questions for us citizen media folks. -kc.)


Posted by yatta at 02:43 PM


Comments

Very true, kc - at first I was hesitant to even point out the agreement in the post, but figured it was there and it was very real - and could definitely become a factor if this ever became a story. It's interesting, because it brings up problems that some bloggers have had with webhosts - hosts who don't necessarily agree with the writing of the bloggers, and tell them they have to drop their site because of "hate speech" or something else that brings about conflict. It's almost like the ease of the Internet for publishing has its Achilles' Heel in the fact that most individuals really *don't* own the space they may be writing in, no matter what they're paying for it.

Posted by: Tom at January 5, 2005 03:14 PM

What interests me about this story is not how "offensive" the content is but the process that Ruth Rader goes through in her efforts to get the blog shut down.
hopefully, in a more semantic (web) world, Ruth wouldn't have to perform the heavy-handed action of having the blog removed from the web entirely -- an action that I find almost equally as offensive as the original content. Instead I would want Ruth to mark the blog in a way that lets anyone who wanders within her FOAF network know that she "rates" the content offensive and unworthy of attention.
Anyone who agrees with her could do the same, and if the campaign against the offensive content reaches critical mass, these users will have effectively ostracized the blogger (and his content) from certain relationships within the semantic web without wiping out it's existence altogether. Besides leaving it available for people who either agree with or wish to examine the content, preserving the blog allows us to continue to build off of existing content (it can always serve as a "bad" example) as opposed to purging the system whenever someone "moral" feels like performing the equivalent of photocopying a letter to the FCC.
All of this also makes me wonder how the semantic web could also affect issues like service provider liability.
(I've cross-posted this to the original Media Drop piece.)

Posted by: yatta at January 5, 2005 07:03 PM

Excerpt:
Post a comment









Remember personal info?