Саша Гезенцвей (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sguez) wrote,@ 2005-06-14 17:44:00 |
|
letter to self-censoring russians
Копия из ныне недоступного жж nikadubrovsky.
________________________________________
I can't agree with the people who have responded to the "kill NATO" LiveJournal suspension incident by editing their posts. Where are your principles, people?
The United States has a long history of protecting political speech. The "kill NATO" comments were clearly political speech, depending heavily on irony to make a point. If these sorts of comments had been printed in a US newspaper or on a television or radio program, it's inconceivable that the author would have been punished, or that the newspaper editor or publisher would have suffered any form of censorship.
Protests by readers/listeners/viewers are, of course, not at all uncommon, and are an inseparable component of the public discourse. Self-censorship is also a fact of life -- unfortunately, I would say -- when media with corporate sponsors bend to the will of their patrons. But the law protects all sorts of speech, even speech which is hateful, offensive, or even false. (The law also provides mechanisms for people who suffer as a result of damaging speech to seek redress.)
I think the issue here is clearly that web media just haven't been around long enough, and haven't been tested enough, to clearly establish the way that these same protections apply to blogs and other formats.
In no case, of course, can a newspaper or a radio station or a web site be obliged to publish viewpoints that it finds objectionable. Just as a newspaper editor might decide not to publish a letter from a local Ku Klux Klan member, a centrally-hosted service like LiveJournal might refuse to publish anything at all -- including not only speech that contains superficially (or truly) offensive speech, but even statements about art, say, which do not line up with the tastes of the company's management.
But newspapers, radio stations, and television stations build their reputations in part on their records of balance and inclusiveness -- or, alternately, bias and exclusiveness. It is often considered undesirable for a newspaper, say, to build up a reputation of excluding legitimate points of view, even those which may be held by a small minority and which may be extremely distasteful to the vast majority.
The same goal of not appearing to be politically biased is often held by network publishers as well. I remember pre-Web, pre-Internet (at least, pre-pervasive Internet) battles in the 1980s, when the online service Prodigy was roundly criticized for instituting draconian speech controls on the posts of its members. Its reputation suffered greatly for what was rightly perceived to be a gross, ill-considered policy of censorship.
Of course, since LiveJournal is heavily used by people for whom "political speech" is hardly a priority, if even a concept, it is entirely possible that its management may go on with this dum-dum policy of knee-jerk suspension indefinitely. The teenage romance crowd is not going to engage the LiveJournal management in any sort of articulate dialogue.
But you, the intellectual Russian diaspora, you have more than enough means to pursue the development of a more nuanced policy on the part of your platform providers. Why, then, would you retreat into unfounded, cynical commentary about "the real nature of free speech in the US", and simply roll over on the principle by censoring yourselves to placate the miniature tyrant who has invoked the oafish suspension policy against you?
Perhaps the answer to that question could be very interesting, especially in light of the continuing failure of democratic reform in Russia. Cynical abdication of individual responsibility, total denial of the existence or even possible existence of an enlightened society -- these seem to me to be the hallmarks of the mainstream contemporary Russian intelligentsia, especially the segment that has fled the motherland. Perhaps it's foolish to expect better than this, in response to this LiveJournal incident, because (as a group) you've been ready to "roll over" on much bigger issues, with much more immediate -- or at least apparent -- import than this one.
But you have to start somewhere. If you are even afraid to have your LiveJournal account taken from you, how can you imagine that you will be able to fight for anything whatsoever? If you are willing to let an unconsidered policy push you so easily into editing your own speech, what does this say about the value you assign to political speech? If you assign such a low value to political speech, then where, truly, do you hope to find yourselves in five years' time? In ten? In fifty? Is Russia, and is the world, simply abandoned by you to find its own way -- to "hopefully allow free speech" somewhere down the road, in battles to be fought by others?
Look, my practical suggestion as an outsider to this matter:
1.Compose a document, to be "signed" by as many people as are interested, that lays out the matter to the LiveJournal management.
2.Send the document to LJ management, or better, to SixApart. Send copies to journalists (Wired, New York Times, London Guardian, Russian publications, etc.)
3.Plan a massive, well-publicized boycott of LiveJournal if the policy is not intelligently reviewed and if your community is not engaged by LJ management in meaningful dialogue.
But please, do something! Don't just roll over and die!
Noel Bush
----------------------------------------
mashkovsky
2005-06-14 15:44 (link)
Вот правильно. У многих наших - психология рабов.
(Reply to this)
trurle
2005-06-14 15:51 (link)
There is no law forcing any particular policy on the media owners, so LJ administration can set any absurd TOS and enforce it arbitrarily.
If you run your own blog server, your content is limited only by law.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
from Noel
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:12 (link)
I believe I covered that point in my comments. It doesn't matter that they "can" do whatever they want in this regard. What matters, or might matter, is that they may develop a reputation for being ham-handed in their approach to issues of sensitive content, or may develop a reputation for being sensitive and sophisticated. How they develop is largely up to their user community. I'm urging you -- the intelligent, literate part of the user community -- to engage them in a substantive way and try to help them develop a more sensible policy.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
trurle
2005-06-14 16:18 (link)
It makes sense - but one can't ask for making the policy more reasonable and at the same time accuse of the First Amendement transgressions.
I think that the LJ Abuse Team behaviour is unreasonable, the TOS interpretation is too strict, and there are some chances to influence the LJ management - but proposed confrontational mood would be counterproductive.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:34 (link)
This isn't about accusing anyone of "First Amendment transgressions". As I noted, and others have emphasized, LiveJournal management has the right, just like any other publisher, to decide what they want to publish. It would be silly to criticize them for "violating First Amendment rights". Such criticisms should be reserved for Bush administration operatives who pose as Secret Service agents and remove non-supporters of the President from "open" public meetings, for example.
But I *do* believe it's necessary to be aggressive in confronting the LJ management -- to put them on the spot, and cause them to understand that how they deal with this issue will weigh heavily in determining their public image. If the LJ management are satisfied with being a cesspool of teenage angst, with a blunt and unenlightened content policy, better to establish that in black and white and move this, and other, intelligent communities to another place. Why? Because down the road, a situation may arise that has both more subtleties and more at stake. Deferring this issue for another day, or softening the approach for fear of offending your "masters", is irresponsible.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
trurle
2005-06-14 16:49 (link)
This isn't about accusing anyone of "First Amendment transgressions".
No, it is. Look what you've written:
The United States has a long history of protecting political speech.
Then you go directly into extremely political territory:
Self-censorship is also a fact of life -- unfortunately, I would say -- when media with corporate sponsors bend to the will of their patrons.
But I *do* believe it's necessary to be aggressive in confronting the LJ management -- to put them on the spot, and cause them to understand that how they deal with this issue will weigh heavily in determining their public image.
The whole point of the campaign is trying to convince SixPart owners and LJ subsidiary management that AT excesses are harmful for LJ/SixPart public image. I don't believe that confrontation would help to achive that goal.
I don't think that LJ/SixPart management understand the real scope of the problem - English language political blogs are rare among LJ accounts and to complicate the issues even further, they have to rely on Russian-speaking AT members.
So it appears to me that the campaign mood should be more concilatory.
(Reply to this)(Parent)
rippenbiest
2005-06-14 15:55 (link)
Предложение хорошее. Готов поучаствовать и подписать. Правда, в действенности бойкота я не уверен - почти не сомневаюсь, что в нем по разным причинам приняли бы участие не больше тридцати - сорока человек, а это капля в море.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:07 (link)
Согласна, что бойкот - это не разумно. Все равно, что в качестве протеста против действий ЖЭКа выселиться из собственной квартиры.
Интересно, что я была уверена, что администрацию ЖЖ можно таки судить за содержание наших дневников, а Ноэл уверяет, что
- вроде как нельзя
- судить крайне сложно. Нужно доказаться, что это была не "политическая речь", а именно инструкции по организации убийства конкретного Натовца. Приводит многочисленные примеры.
Вы не подскажите, как правильно перевести на русский термин "политическая речь"?
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
rippenbiest
2005-06-14 16:44 (link)
Я, когда Вас тогда спрашивал, отнюдь не был уверен - считается, что в Америке понятие свободы слова принимается гораздо более всерьез, чем, скажем, в Европе (там бы запросто могли бы засудить), но поверил Вам на слово.
Я думаю, "политическое высказывание".
(Reply to this)(Parent)
trurle
2005-06-14 16:50 (link)
Администрацию ЖЖ нельзя засудить за "убей натовца", но подобные суждения могут нанести изрядный ущерб репутации блог-сервера, который в слочае ЖЖ позиционируется как средство организации молодежных журналов.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 17:00 (link)
Насколько я понимаю, позиция Ноэла обратная.
Он считает, что правильно организована я медия-компания, нанесет урон репутации ЖЖ , связав их с политической цензурой.
Словосочетание "молодежные журналы" похоже на комсомольский сленг и я не уверена, что будет пользоваться популярно стью в Америке.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
trurle
2005-06-14 17:09 (link)
Он считает, что правильно организована я медия-компания, нанесет урон репутации ЖЖ , связав их с политической цензурой.
Оно, конечно, нанесет урон в некоторых кругах; на основную аудиенцию ЖЖ этот ущерб, скорее всего, не произведет никакого впечатления и может быть даже наоборот.
Позиция "Вы,сволочи, зажали нашу свободу слова" заведомо проигрышна в данном случае; а вот попытка объяснить владельцам и администрации LJ/SixPart, через голову AT, что именно происходит, может оказаться конструктивной. Обратиться к начальству LJ/SixPart можно посредством того же Wired или, как знать, даже упомянутой Ноэлем NYT.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 17:21 (link)
да, нужно было бы составить письмо и собрать подписи.
Ноэл отредактирует, чтобы был понятный английский, и завтра пошлем.
(Reply to this)(Parent)
goggy
2005-06-14 16:26 (link)
Кхм.
Хочу заметить, что "kill NATO" - не вполне адекватный перевод фразы "Убей НАТОвца". Смысл абсолютно другой.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:39 (link)
Почему это важно?
Никто же не призывал убивать конкретного Джона Смита.
Американский закон не говорит о том, что есть какие то специальные слова, которые нельзя употреблять.
есть понятие "политической речи", кстати, как бы это правильно сказать по русски?
в этом случае важен контекст.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
mratner
2005-06-14 16:45 (link)
Это чрезвычайно важно. Мне не известны детали, но это тоже бросилось в глаза. Огромная разница между "убей НАТО" и "убей НАТОвца". "Убей НАТО" -- действительно, как Ноэл пишет, нормальная политическая агитация, защищенная поправкой к Конституции.
"Убей НАТОвца" же -- призыв к конкретному насилию. Не уверен, что даже в США подобное бы напечатали.
А Ноэл осознает разницу?
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
from Noel
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 17:18 (link)
I understand the difference between "kill NATO" and the correct translation of the Russian phrase "Убей НАТОвца". But that isn't the point. All speech is judged within its context. This is always the case in a legal situation, and of course, context is at the heart of how language works in any case. As I understand this situation, the contextualized meaning of "Убей НАТОвца" was not equivalent to "I urge you to go out and murder NATO personnel!" -- certainly not on the part of the people who repeated the phrase in support of the originally suspended user, and possibly not on the part of the original poster either. But *even if it had been*, I would *still* look at this as protected political speech. Advocating violence in a single sentence is not the same as organizing violent activity. I don't support the de-ironized statement "Убей НАТОвца", but I also don't support the suppression of the voices of those who do support that statement. I would, very likely, support government prosecution against individuals who were seriously trying to organize or incite violence. But that's the job of a government, not a blog hosting company.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
mratner
2005-06-14 17:54 (link)
I would, very likely, support government prosecution against individuals who were seriously trying to organize or incite violence. But that's the job of a government, not a blog hosting company.
It is an absolutely legitimate activity on the part of a US corporation to protect itself against even a remote possibility of legal action. This is basically half of the job description of any corporate counsel.
As far as what you say about the context, what was it exactly? Can you point me to place where it is evident?
(Reply to this)(Parent)
(Anonymous)
2005-06-14 16:40 (link)
Not "Bush" - "Oakgrove" I'd say
(Reply to this)(Thread)
(Anonymous)
2005-06-14 16:44 (link)
Sorry, I did not get it - I was trying to translate your maiden name without realizing that "bush" is the real one
(Reply to this)(Parent)
sguez
2005-06-14 17:57 (link)
Comment Posted Successfully
I admire the clarity and the tenor.
It would be very painful but not really effective to just boycott LJ; but to vent out this incident, making it more than a family squabble, would help. I am ready to sign the petition and a letter to the outside press.
Another thought: Why you refer to LJ as a publisher? It is not a media institution. It is a provider, just as mail, cable etc. As such, it hardly has rights to censure content, not being and indisputably and narrow defined infraction. That's my not really informed opinion.
(Reply to this)
from Noel
nikadubrovsky
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:54:11 UT (link)
I think that the "provider" plea is a cop-out in almost every instance that it is used. And it's best not to stretch analogies in any case. I see very little functional resemblance between the postal mail system and email, for instance. Between either system and cable television, also nothing of consequence. And between any one of these and a service like LJ, zero.
LiveJournal is publishing your content. You may be the author, editor, and owner of the content, but they are the publisher. I am sure that they would be glad *not* to have an "abuse" team, and to allow anyone to post any content at all. But the US and other legal systems put certain obligations on them. Their terms of service document is their strategy for coercing you to help them to meet their legal obligations. The degree of sensitivity with which that policy is written and enforced is going to be determined by two things, aside from the legal requirements: (1) the existing attitude at the organization, developed or undeveloped as it may be; and (2) the pressure that you as a community of users place upon them.
I agree: "family squabble" is not the tone you want to achieve here. I think that the "abuse_lj_abuse" group unfortunately looks like that, to some extent. The point is not to "fight" with the LJ management, but to raise their consciousness. I am advocating an aggressive approach to that, however: dramatizing the issues at stake, even if this particular case does not involve life and death. I believe this is important, because I don't index the "value" of liberties based solely on their immediate, incidental closeness to -- or distance from -- tangible, physically altering forces.
In other words, it's worth taking this on now, in a very serious way, just as it would have been worth it for Russians worldwide to take on the Russian government's attacks on the briefly free Russian media *before* the fight became hopeless. You're dealing with a company here, not a government, but this company is behaving as a de facto government. They can either move more in the direction of "of the people, by the people, for the people", or in another direction. But it is unlikely that they won't move at all, with or without your influence.
Копия из ныне недоступного жж nikadubrovsky.
________________________________________
I can't agree with the people who have responded to the "kill NATO" LiveJournal suspension incident by editing their posts. Where are your principles, people?
The United States has a long history of protecting political speech. The "kill NATO" comments were clearly political speech, depending heavily on irony to make a point. If these sorts of comments had been printed in a US newspaper or on a television or radio program, it's inconceivable that the author would have been punished, or that the newspaper editor or publisher would have suffered any form of censorship.
Protests by readers/listeners/viewers are, of course, not at all uncommon, and are an inseparable component of the public discourse. Self-censorship is also a fact of life -- unfortunately, I would say -- when media with corporate sponsors bend to the will of their patrons. But the law protects all sorts of speech, even speech which is hateful, offensive, or even false. (The law also provides mechanisms for people who suffer as a result of damaging speech to seek redress.)
I think the issue here is clearly that web media just haven't been around long enough, and haven't been tested enough, to clearly establish the way that these same protections apply to blogs and other formats.
In no case, of course, can a newspaper or a radio station or a web site be obliged to publish viewpoints that it finds objectionable. Just as a newspaper editor might decide not to publish a letter from a local Ku Klux Klan member, a centrally-hosted service like LiveJournal might refuse to publish anything at all -- including not only speech that contains superficially (or truly) offensive speech, but even statements about art, say, which do not line up with the tastes of the company's management.
But newspapers, radio stations, and television stations build their reputations in part on their records of balance and inclusiveness -- or, alternately, bias and exclusiveness. It is often considered undesirable for a newspaper, say, to build up a reputation of excluding legitimate points of view, even those which may be held by a small minority and which may be extremely distasteful to the vast majority.
The same goal of not appearing to be politically biased is often held by network publishers as well. I remember pre-Web, pre-Internet (at least, pre-pervasive Internet) battles in the 1980s, when the online service Prodigy was roundly criticized for instituting draconian speech controls on the posts of its members. Its reputation suffered greatly for what was rightly perceived to be a gross, ill-considered policy of censorship.
Of course, since LiveJournal is heavily used by people for whom "political speech" is hardly a priority, if even a concept, it is entirely possible that its management may go on with this dum-dum policy of knee-jerk suspension indefinitely. The teenage romance crowd is not going to engage the LiveJournal management in any sort of articulate dialogue.
But you, the intellectual Russian diaspora, you have more than enough means to pursue the development of a more nuanced policy on the part of your platform providers. Why, then, would you retreat into unfounded, cynical commentary about "the real nature of free speech in the US", and simply roll over on the principle by censoring yourselves to placate the miniature tyrant who has invoked the oafish suspension policy against you?
Perhaps the answer to that question could be very interesting, especially in light of the continuing failure of democratic reform in Russia. Cynical abdication of individual responsibility, total denial of the existence or even possible existence of an enlightened society -- these seem to me to be the hallmarks of the mainstream contemporary Russian intelligentsia, especially the segment that has fled the motherland. Perhaps it's foolish to expect better than this, in response to this LiveJournal incident, because (as a group) you've been ready to "roll over" on much bigger issues, with much more immediate -- or at least apparent -- import than this one.
But you have to start somewhere. If you are even afraid to have your LiveJournal account taken from you, how can you imagine that you will be able to fight for anything whatsoever? If you are willing to let an unconsidered policy push you so easily into editing your own speech, what does this say about the value you assign to political speech? If you assign such a low value to political speech, then where, truly, do you hope to find yourselves in five years' time? In ten? In fifty? Is Russia, and is the world, simply abandoned by you to find its own way -- to "hopefully allow free speech" somewhere down the road, in battles to be fought by others?
Look, my practical suggestion as an outsider to this matter:
1.Compose a document, to be "signed" by as many people as are interested, that lays out the matter to the LiveJournal management.
2.Send the document to LJ management, or better, to SixApart. Send copies to journalists (Wired, New York Times, London Guardian, Russian publications, etc.)
3.Plan a massive, well-publicized boycott of LiveJournal if the policy is not intelligently reviewed and if your community is not engaged by LJ management in meaningful dialogue.
But please, do something! Don't just roll over and die!
Noel Bush
----------------------------------------
mashkovsky
2005-06-14 15:44 (link)
Вот правильно. У многих наших - психология рабов.
(Reply to this)
trurle
2005-06-14 15:51 (link)
There is no law forcing any particular policy on the media owners, so LJ administration can set any absurd TOS and enforce it arbitrarily.
If you run your own blog server, your content is limited only by law.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
from Noel
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:12 (link)
I believe I covered that point in my comments. It doesn't matter that they "can" do whatever they want in this regard. What matters, or might matter, is that they may develop a reputation for being ham-handed in their approach to issues of sensitive content, or may develop a reputation for being sensitive and sophisticated. How they develop is largely up to their user community. I'm urging you -- the intelligent, literate part of the user community -- to engage them in a substantive way and try to help them develop a more sensible policy.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
trurle
2005-06-14 16:18 (link)
It makes sense - but one can't ask for making the policy more reasonable and at the same time accuse of the First Amendement transgressions.
I think that the LJ Abuse Team behaviour is unreasonable, the TOS interpretation is too strict, and there are some chances to influence the LJ management - but proposed confrontational mood would be counterproductive.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:34 (link)
This isn't about accusing anyone of "First Amendment transgressions". As I noted, and others have emphasized, LiveJournal management has the right, just like any other publisher, to decide what they want to publish. It would be silly to criticize them for "violating First Amendment rights". Such criticisms should be reserved for Bush administration operatives who pose as Secret Service agents and remove non-supporters of the President from "open" public meetings, for example.
But I *do* believe it's necessary to be aggressive in confronting the LJ management -- to put them on the spot, and cause them to understand that how they deal with this issue will weigh heavily in determining their public image. If the LJ management are satisfied with being a cesspool of teenage angst, with a blunt and unenlightened content policy, better to establish that in black and white and move this, and other, intelligent communities to another place. Why? Because down the road, a situation may arise that has both more subtleties and more at stake. Deferring this issue for another day, or softening the approach for fear of offending your "masters", is irresponsible.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
trurle
2005-06-14 16:49 (link)
This isn't about accusing anyone of "First Amendment transgressions".
No, it is. Look what you've written:
The United States has a long history of protecting political speech.
Then you go directly into extremely political territory:
Self-censorship is also a fact of life -- unfortunately, I would say -- when media with corporate sponsors bend to the will of their patrons.
But I *do* believe it's necessary to be aggressive in confronting the LJ management -- to put them on the spot, and cause them to understand that how they deal with this issue will weigh heavily in determining their public image.
The whole point of the campaign is trying to convince SixPart owners and LJ subsidiary management that AT excesses are harmful for LJ/SixPart public image. I don't believe that confrontation would help to achive that goal.
I don't think that LJ/SixPart management understand the real scope of the problem - English language political blogs are rare among LJ accounts and to complicate the issues even further, they have to rely on Russian-speaking AT members.
So it appears to me that the campaign mood should be more concilatory.
(Reply to this)(Parent)
rippenbiest
2005-06-14 15:55 (link)
Предложение хорошее. Готов поучаствовать и подписать. Правда, в действенности бойкота я не уверен - почти не сомневаюсь, что в нем по разным причинам приняли бы участие не больше тридцати - сорока человек, а это капля в море.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:07 (link)
Согласна, что бойкот - это не разумно. Все равно, что в качестве протеста против действий ЖЭКа выселиться из собственной квартиры.
Интересно, что я была уверена, что администрацию ЖЖ можно таки судить за содержание наших дневников, а Ноэл уверяет, что
- вроде как нельзя
- судить крайне сложно. Нужно доказаться, что это была не "политическая речь", а именно инструкции по организации убийства конкретного Натовца. Приводит многочисленные примеры.
Вы не подскажите, как правильно перевести на русский термин "политическая речь"?
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
rippenbiest
2005-06-14 16:44 (link)
Я, когда Вас тогда спрашивал, отнюдь не был уверен - считается, что в Америке понятие свободы слова принимается гораздо более всерьез, чем, скажем, в Европе (там бы запросто могли бы засудить), но поверил Вам на слово.
Я думаю, "политическое высказывание".
(Reply to this)(Parent)
trurle
2005-06-14 16:50 (link)
Администрацию ЖЖ нельзя засудить за "убей натовца", но подобные суждения могут нанести изрядный ущерб репутации блог-сервера, который в слочае ЖЖ позиционируется как средство организации молодежных журналов.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 17:00 (link)
Насколько я понимаю, позиция Ноэла обратная.
Он считает, что правильно организована я медия-компания, нанесет урон репутации ЖЖ , связав их с политической цензурой.
Словосочетание "молодежные журналы" похоже на комсомольский сленг и я не уверена, что будет пользоваться популярно стью в Америке.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
trurle
2005-06-14 17:09 (link)
Он считает, что правильно организована я медия-компания, нанесет урон репутации ЖЖ , связав их с политической цензурой.
Оно, конечно, нанесет урон в некоторых кругах; на основную аудиенцию ЖЖ этот ущерб, скорее всего, не произведет никакого впечатления и может быть даже наоборот.
Позиция "Вы,сволочи, зажали нашу свободу слова" заведомо проигрышна в данном случае; а вот попытка объяснить владельцам и администрации LJ/SixPart, через голову AT, что именно происходит, может оказаться конструктивной. Обратиться к начальству LJ/SixPart можно посредством того же Wired или, как знать, даже упомянутой Ноэлем NYT.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 17:21 (link)
да, нужно было бы составить письмо и собрать подписи.
Ноэл отредактирует, чтобы был понятный английский, и завтра пошлем.
(Reply to this)(Parent)
goggy
2005-06-14 16:26 (link)
Кхм.
Хочу заметить, что "kill NATO" - не вполне адекватный перевод фразы "Убей НАТОвца". Смысл абсолютно другой.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 16:39 (link)
Почему это важно?
Никто же не призывал убивать конкретного Джона Смита.
Американский закон не говорит о том, что есть какие то специальные слова, которые нельзя употреблять.
есть понятие "политической речи", кстати, как бы это правильно сказать по русски?
в этом случае важен контекст.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
mratner
2005-06-14 16:45 (link)
Это чрезвычайно важно. Мне не известны детали, но это тоже бросилось в глаза. Огромная разница между "убей НАТО" и "убей НАТОвца". "Убей НАТО" -- действительно, как Ноэл пишет, нормальная политическая агитация, защищенная поправкой к Конституции.
"Убей НАТОвца" же -- призыв к конкретному насилию. Не уверен, что даже в США подобное бы напечатали.
А Ноэл осознает разницу?
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
from Noel
nikadubrovsky
2005-06-14 17:18 (link)
I understand the difference between "kill NATO" and the correct translation of the Russian phrase "Убей НАТОвца". But that isn't the point. All speech is judged within its context. This is always the case in a legal situation, and of course, context is at the heart of how language works in any case. As I understand this situation, the contextualized meaning of "Убей НАТОвца" was not equivalent to "I urge you to go out and murder NATO personnel!" -- certainly not on the part of the people who repeated the phrase in support of the originally suspended user, and possibly not on the part of the original poster either. But *even if it had been*, I would *still* look at this as protected political speech. Advocating violence in a single sentence is not the same as organizing violent activity. I don't support the de-ironized statement "Убей НАТОвца", but I also don't support the suppression of the voices of those who do support that statement. I would, very likely, support government prosecution against individuals who were seriously trying to organize or incite violence. But that's the job of a government, not a blog hosting company.
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
Re: from Noel
mratner
2005-06-14 17:54 (link)
I would, very likely, support government prosecution against individuals who were seriously trying to organize or incite violence. But that's the job of a government, not a blog hosting company.
It is an absolutely legitimate activity on the part of a US corporation to protect itself against even a remote possibility of legal action. This is basically half of the job description of any corporate counsel.
As far as what you say about the context, what was it exactly? Can you point me to place where it is evident?
(Reply to this)(Parent)
(Anonymous)
2005-06-14 16:40 (link)
Not "Bush" - "Oakgrove" I'd say
(Reply to this)(Thread)
(Anonymous)
2005-06-14 16:44 (link)
Sorry, I did not get it - I was trying to translate your maiden name without realizing that "bush" is the real one
(Reply to this)(Parent)
sguez
2005-06-14 17:57 (link)
Comment Posted Successfully
I admire the clarity and the tenor.
It would be very painful but not really effective to just boycott LJ; but to vent out this incident, making it more than a family squabble, would help. I am ready to sign the petition and a letter to the outside press.
Another thought: Why you refer to LJ as a publisher? It is not a media institution. It is a provider, just as mail, cable etc. As such, it hardly has rights to censure content, not being and indisputably and narrow defined infraction. That's my not really informed opinion.
(Reply to this)
from Noel
nikadubrovsky
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:54:11 UT (link)
I think that the "provider" plea is a cop-out in almost every instance that it is used. And it's best not to stretch analogies in any case. I see very little functional resemblance between the postal mail system and email, for instance. Between either system and cable television, also nothing of consequence. And between any one of these and a service like LJ, zero.
LiveJournal is publishing your content. You may be the author, editor, and owner of the content, but they are the publisher. I am sure that they would be glad *not* to have an "abuse" team, and to allow anyone to post any content at all. But the US and other legal systems put certain obligations on them. Their terms of service document is their strategy for coercing you to help them to meet their legal obligations. The degree of sensitivity with which that policy is written and enforced is going to be determined by two things, aside from the legal requirements: (1) the existing attitude at the organization, developed or undeveloped as it may be; and (2) the pressure that you as a community of users place upon them.
I agree: "family squabble" is not the tone you want to achieve here. I think that the "abuse_lj_abuse" group unfortunately looks like that, to some extent. The point is not to "fight" with the LJ management, but to raise their consciousness. I am advocating an aggressive approach to that, however: dramatizing the issues at stake, even if this particular case does not involve life and death. I believe this is important, because I don't index the "value" of liberties based solely on their immediate, incidental closeness to -- or distance from -- tangible, physically altering forces.
In other words, it's worth taking this on now, in a very serious way, just as it would have been worth it for Russians worldwide to take on the Russian government's attacks on the briefly free Russian media *before* the fight became hopeless. You're dealing with a company here, not a government, but this company is behaving as a de facto government. They can either move more in the direction of "of the people, by the people, for the people", or in another direction. But it is unlikely that they won't move at all, with or without your influence.
