Strictly speaking, censorship is government control of what can be said without government repercussion. The concept of freedom of speech doesn't strictly apply to private websites; your "right" to say anything doesn't extend to individual websites.
If a website administrator decides to limit what can or cannot be said on their website, this is entirely within their right and in no way is considered a limit on freedom of speech per se.
So, a newspaper can't "censor" a reporter? A network can't "censor" a TV show? Which word would you use? (According to the dictionaries I could find, the verb "censor" does not apply only to governments. It did originally, but the meaning has changed.)
I get what you're saying about the more general meaning of "censorship." I was mostly discussing it in the context of the concept of "freedom of speech," which is how it is usually applied in these discussions. Saying whatever you want on a website is by no means a protected "freedom." It's not censorship in the sense of limiting one's freedom of speech.
It's a classic dilemma: which is more important, your freedom of speech or the site owner's freedom to control their website? As a site owner, of course legally I can censor anything I want. Personally, I would have an ethical issue with censoring any content unless it was clearly illegal or spam.
I don't think this is a matter of conflicting freedoms. The law is clearly on the side of the owner doing whatever they damn please. What they can do—and what reddit did for many years—is state that as part of your service offering you will grant users the freedom to say what they want without repercussion.
But this is not a "freedom"... This is an owner, with full rights to what is said or not on their website, deciding they will be more tolerant of dissenting opinions. If they take this away (as reddit is now doing) this is within their full rights. They're breaking a consumer promise, not taking away a "freedom."
So really, there's no real ethics involved... Just a definition of your product, and whether you remain true to the promise you make your consumers.
I understand what you're saying. I'm saying there's no fundamental "right" to speaking freely in a corporate space. This space exists at the sole discretion of the business entity. The business entity can definitely do so out of a sense of morality, but it's not a fundamental right.
Being able to speak freely is one of the most fundamental of rights. Do you automatically lose all rights when you're in a corporate setting? Or just speech?
You definitely surrender your right to free speech in a corporate setting, yes. There's no legal penalty for Facebook, reddit, or Snapzu to delete what they consider offensive language. They have no legal requirement to justify it to any form of authority. You also lose a slew of other rights when you're in a corporate setting... For instance, when you're in a store you're on private property, and they can evict you (i.e. restrict your freedom of movement) however they damn please. Ditto with the right to bear arms in the U.S.
As much as I respect corporations that wish to grant their users or consumers complete freedom to speak their mind, I don't think it's an ethical imperative for them to do so.
For instance, Facebook clearly believes that creating a "safe environment" for its users is more important in an absolute sense than freedom of speech. That's their decision and I don't see it as unethical per se. If you allow total freedom to speak one's mind, you run into, say, hate speech, which carries its own ethical repercussions.
That being said, saying "freedom of speech is something I believe in and i wish for my business to carry this value" is perfectly fine, even admirable. It's just not an ethical imperative.
Strictly speaking, censorship is government control of what can be said without government repercussion. The concept of freedom of speech doesn't strictly apply to private websites; your "right" to say anything doesn't extend to individual websites.
If a website administrator decides to limit what can or cannot be said on their website, this is entirely within their right and in no way is considered a limit on freedom of speech per se.
So, a newspaper can't "censor" a reporter? A network can't "censor" a TV show? Which word would you use? (According to the dictionaries I could find, the verb "censor" does not apply only to governments. It did originally, but the meaning has changed.)
I get what you're saying about the more general meaning of "censorship." I was mostly discussing it in the context of the concept of "freedom of speech," which is how it is usually applied in these discussions. Saying whatever you want on a website is by no means a protected "freedom." It's not censorship in the sense of limiting one's freedom of speech.
It's a classic dilemma: which is more important, your freedom of speech or the site owner's freedom to control their website? As a site owner, of course legally I can censor anything I want. Personally, I would have an ethical issue with censoring any content unless it was clearly illegal or spam.
I don't think this is a matter of conflicting freedoms. The law is clearly on the side of the owner doing whatever they damn please. What they can do—and what reddit did for many years—is state that as part of your service offering you will grant users the freedom to say what they want without repercussion.
But this is not a "freedom"... This is an owner, with full rights to what is said or not on their website, deciding they will be more tolerant of dissenting opinions. If they take this away (as reddit is now doing) this is within their full rights. They're breaking a consumer promise, not taking away a "freedom."
So really, there's no real ethics involved... Just a definition of your product, and whether you remain true to the promise you make your consumers.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. "Remaining true to a promise" is totally an ethics issue for me.
I understand what you're saying. I'm saying there's no fundamental "right" to speaking freely in a corporate space. This space exists at the sole discretion of the business entity. The business entity can definitely do so out of a sense of morality, but it's not a fundamental right.
Being able to speak freely is one of the most fundamental of rights. Do you automatically lose all rights when you're in a corporate setting? Or just speech?
You definitely surrender your right to free speech in a corporate setting, yes. There's no legal penalty for Facebook, reddit, or Snapzu to delete what they consider offensive language. They have no legal requirement to justify it to any form of authority. You also lose a slew of other rights when you're in a corporate setting... For instance, when you're in a store you're on private property, and they can evict you (i.e. restrict your freedom of movement) however they damn please. Ditto with the right to bear arms in the U.S.
I'm not talking about what's legal, I'm talking about what's ethical.
As much as I respect corporations that wish to grant their users or consumers complete freedom to speak their mind, I don't think it's an ethical imperative for them to do so.
For instance, Facebook clearly believes that creating a "safe environment" for its users is more important in an absolute sense than freedom of speech. That's their decision and I don't see it as unethical per se. If you allow total freedom to speak one's mind, you run into, say, hate speech, which carries its own ethical repercussions.
That being said, saying "freedom of speech is something I believe in and i wish for my business to carry this value" is perfectly fine, even admirable. It's just not an ethical imperative.