Is it censorship for a web-based posting forum to restrict its content?

[Orrex]

My thought is that, if the site in question has a TOS under which such possible restrictions (or deletions, I guess) are covered and to which each user must agree, then it's not censorship but is instead enforcement of contract.

What are your thoughts? I'm in a discussion on another website, and I'm having difficulty articulating my views.


So maybe I can steal yours, instead! :P

[Cameron27]

1. My take is that it probably could

be labeled censorship, but without boundaries message boards would degenerate into flamebait wastelands.

[Madspirit]

2. My Home

A forum is a private organiztion. Using DU as an example. It is owned by David Allen, (Skinner) and a couple of other folks. They OWN it. It is theirs. You have to apply for membership. Your membership has to be accepted and there are rules you must abide by.

It's like you're asking if, since I don't support censorship, you can come in MY home and curse in my face. I would toss you out in a minute. This is not a Public Forum. It's not a town square. It is a private group with rules and an end zone.
Lee

[mitchtv]

3. without Government enforcement

there is no censorship

[SanFranciscoValues]

7. I agree

Censorship is a governmental issue. It has always annoyed me when people say something extremely rude or hateful, and when someone gets upset or outraged by their speech, claims "freedom of speech" as their defense. It is a ridiculous and juvenile line of thought. The Bill of Rights only deals with what the government can and can not do, it does not extend to what you can or cannot do privately, nor does it put a moral value on any of the rights enumerated. Censorship is when the government makes it illegal for you to say something. That is all it is. Censorship is not when your work has a policy against you using obscenities (although obscenities are, in fact, not protected speech anyway) because that does not involve the GOVERNMENT. Taking the Imus issue as an example, while yes, he did have the legal right to say what he did (although he could be sued for slander/libel, but that is another can of worms entirely)that, in no way, means that he (1) should have said what he said or (2) that his employers do not have the right to fire him for what he said. The First Amendment only protects Imus from being prosecuted criminally for his speech. Hope that helps clear things up a bit, although it is a complicated issue.

[Clintonista2]

14. I disagree

How do you explain, for instance, a school that refuses to print a pro-gay article in the school newspaper? You dont consider that to be censorship?

[Lerkfish]

4. my take

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Lerkfish/22

[sutz12]

5. Strictly speaking, yes....

However, it is a prvate community, operated by people with rules of conduct. Failure to abide by the rules of conduct will lead to 'censorship.'

That doesn't mean it violates anybody's 1st Amendment rights, though. Those are modified when you sign up and agree to the baord rules. Don't like the rules? Tough noogies. Open your own board and set your own rules.

[lojasmo]

6. Sure it is, but who cares?

Website owners are free to make their own rules.

[gratuitous]

8. And to go one step further

Just because someone is stopped from posting at one web site, they aren't stopped from speaking freely at another one.

Real censorship comes from governmental interference, and depriving people of their rights at crucial times. I can demonstrate in the streets against Republicans all I want, and the cops will mostly leave me alone (unless I'm making too much noise or blocking traffic or something). But when I want to demonstrate against Republicans in New York City during their national convention and I'm arrested on a bogus charge and incarcerated during the time when my demonstration would have had the maximum effect in terms of exposure and proximity, then we're onto censorship and its sinister little attendants, intimidation and oppression.

What's the proper remedy for that? I'm not sure exactly, but it should be severe enough to dissuade governmental entities from doing it again. A $5,000 fine levied 14 months later is not a deterrent.

[BubbaCitizen]

9. Censorship on a Web Based Forum

It seems that it would be censorship when the moderators don't exactly enforce the TOS evenly over the board, giving more leeway to one group. This is real evident when one group is closely watched for slight violations or presumed violations, yet another group isn't edited for the same postings. There is also an unwritten policy not in the TOS that no one can criticize the moderating.

The accusations of bias is denied, however just a few days of observing posts it is evident.

There is one board which doesn't differentiate between members of the supporting organization, and in fact will punish them instead of the openly professed non-members. Bias in moderation amounts to censorship.

[cactusrose]

10. Wouldn't the dues paying members of an organization

own the board or at least have some rights?

[Orangepeel]

11. Sure it is censorship. But owners of websites have the right to censor their own sites.

Your options are mutually exclusive. If the terms of service allow censorship, then enforcement of the contract is censorship. But so what? If people agree to be censored, then they probably should expect to be.

Now, if we were talking about the government censoring or a private website discriminating against posters on certain bases, then the censorship might be unconstitutional. Otherwise, :shrug:

[Angel 19]

15. Censorship on Internet

Even though the Internet is fairly new we need to be aware of how often we are Censored. We want Freedom of Speech in every area. If we don't stay on top of it. We won't have Freedom. Message boards are the first place we need to stand up for ourselves.

[Orangepeel]

17. welcome to DU, Angel!

:hi:

I don't want freedom of speech in every area. I don't want it in my living room, for instance. If you say things I find offensive in my house, I'm kicking you out. The same applies to a message board. You have plenty of freedom on the Internet to start your own board, just like you have the right to say what you want in your own house.

[Checkstub]

12. no, it's freedom of association by free citizens,

censorship is the government threatening to punish you. Apples and oranges.

[Clintonista2]

13. Censorship does not require government involvement.

It is still censorship if a school refuses to print, for example, pro-gay sentiments in a school paper.

[wyldwolf]

16. yes, but so?

A Stop sign is a form of censorship.

[cadmium]

18. Some censorship is necessary for open discussion---sounds like

double-speak but it keeps discussion from just turning into survival of the loudest which in itself is a form of censorship.