The end of the pubic space on the internet?

The point is made that the initial hopes for the Internet was that it would become a "grand "public forum"" in which free speech, at least in the US, would be given the very highest protection; however during the development of the Internet, the US government was influenced to hand over the regulation of the Internet to private organisations. Effectively these grand public spaces have become owned commercial spaces under the control of their various owners. As a result, the government is no longer able to protect the rights of free speech in these privately owned commercial spaces. The promise of the Internet, that it would become a grand publci space has all but been lost. At least in real space we have the opportunity of both private and public speech, but in a commercially owned space, much of this balance is lost.

The authors claim that "[o]n the Intemet, however, essentially no places exist to serve as "pub-
lic forums" because the places within which expression occurs are over-whelmingly privately owned." However they appear to ignore, or make light of, the existence of private blogs, particularly those using freely available, publicly developed software such as WordPress. Whilst there argument may be that the files making up the blog are hosted by a privately owned ISP, and therefore subject to the private censorship of the ISP, the experience of the private blogger is that, utilising such software, they are quite free to say whatever they chose.

If their argument is that there are essentially no public spaces on the Internet in or on which individuals can avail themselves of the opportunity for uncensored free speech, then the nature of private blogs must be questioned. If they are not public spaces, then at what point do they become commercially owned spaces. It is understandable to say that private blogs on MySpace or Blogger - controlled and censored as they are by their corporate owners - are the subject of corporate censorship of free speech. Just how a private blog, hosted on an individual's own domain, and regulated only very minimally by the regulations of the ISP - which could be a very liberal overseas ISP - is regulated by commercial interests is not made clear.

It is this unusual nature of a private blog, one of the few remaining platforms for free speech, that is so interesting for this research. If employees attempt to use a corporate blog to create organisational change they must inevitably come up against the power of the corporate censors. On a private blog, they are free to say whatever they chose. Inevitably corporations will attempt to broaden their domain and sphere of influence into the world of the private blog if it is thought that their interests are not being served by the employee. Their attempts to do so will be by way of employment contracts that consider a variety of censorship options aimed at the regulation of the otherwise free speech of employees, including that of private blogging, and employees will continue to test these censorship limits.

As a footnote to this short review, it is worth noting that the article is very US focussed with a very detailed legal examination of the First Amendment rights of free speech in the United States. There are many countries in which no such amendment exists (Australia is one such example); and it is worthwhile examining the nature of private blogs and the use to which they are put by employees.

THE DEATH OF THE PUBLIC FORUM IN
CYBERSPACE
By Dawn C. Nunziato
downloaded from http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=27&hid=8&sid=0a5b81f3-76eb-4ab1-95b8-57abec0b1014%40sessionmgr2
on 4th March 2008

Soldier's blogs censored by the US military

Tatum Lytle has produced an excellent article (subscription required for this link, but can also be found here) about the manner in which the US (and one would assume other administrations to have done the same) military has censored and stopped a number of US military personnel from blogging about their experiences in Iraq and other theatres of war. Such a move is hardly surprising. After all there are a number of unique reasons why giving too much information away. Placing too much information in the hands of the enemy can endanger lives and create unnecessary risks. However the military appear to have gone further than simply shutting down blogs that contain too much operational information. The article suggests that there are a number of instances where the rights of the individual of free speech has been violated; and this has often been with the support of the US judicial system.

What Lytle does well is build her case based on a very detailed understanding of the ways soldiers are using blogs and of the way the military and the courts are prosecuting adherence to rules and regulations. What would be of interest is to find out where she comes from in terms of philosophical underpinning. Lytle appears to accept that the US courts are the final umpire and the precedents they set therefore become the final arbiter of the issue. I think Lytle could have helped the issue further by addressing more fundamental issues of humanity and the rights to personal sovereignty. Does the US military, or a any corporation or organisation for that matter, have the right to control the free speech of a human. How does this control come about? These are matters probably not within the scope of Lytle's article but would make for interesting research nonetheless.

A soldier's blog: balancing service members' personal rights vs. national security interests

Lytle, Tatum H. Federal Communications Law Journal • June, 2007

Students get the sack for blogging

It isn't just workers who get fired for blog posts. Students are also coming under fire for their contributions to MySpace reports Associated Press. The battle for control over blogs as public spaces is not simply limited to arrangements that have a commercial nature. The article suggests that schools are seeking the power to control students' activities to ensure continued control over the school environment.

Such extensions of control will be useful to examine in the context of my research thesis. Beyond school yards government instrumentalities may want control over what people have to say in order to reduce the spread of terrorism. Whilst these may be interesting extensions to the central point of my thesis I think I'll probably leave them out in the interests of clarity and available space.

Free speech on a blog not a First Amendment issue

In this article readers are advised that the First Amendment of the US doesn't protect the free speech of bloggers.

Columbine shooters and teacher in trouble

FREE SPEECH AT CORE OF TEACHER'S ARREST ; HIS ONLINE BLOG COMMENT RILES SOME READERS, BUT HIS RIGHT TO EXPRESS IT IS DEFENDED BY OTHERS.

Case of a school teacher who caused a few problems for himself praising the Columbine shooters.

Social networking sites pose danger to law firms

By Kevin Lo

Damned if you do and damned if you don't by the sounds of what Kevin Lo has to say. Here he recommends that companies be vigilant about what information finds its way onto SN sites, such as FB. He recommends either banning mention of the company at all, or at the least setting up a policy on what can and can't be said about a company on a SN site. He suggests that FB is great, but building a company controlled SN site is better.

But Lo here, appears to take the side of the company. He fails to address the question of who has sovereignty - the corporation or the individual. One suspects he believes that, if the company pays the coin, they own the person. That somewhat flies in the face of basic human rights but it appears that commerce continues to seep into every pore of the free speech membrane.

A test case for free speech: Australian academic dismissed for opposing falling university standards

A test case for free speech: Australian academic dismissed for opposing falling university standards

This article raises questions about the censorship of free speech as a result of the dismissal of a tenured university lecturer as a result of him speaking to the media about falling academic standards.

Whilst this may not relate directly to blogs, it has exactly the same affect - to control free speech in an attempt to exert control.

The case is being appealed and may take 12 months to resolve.

Does Google compromise human rights through self-censorship?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.