| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Ya-ta, that article would seem to be referring to private companies acting as censors over webspace that they own.
| Quote: |
| Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors. |
I don't think that's comparable to a government censoring speech on the internet. It would be a little like if the owner of a shopping mall doesn't want people handing out "Boycott this mall" pamphlets in the food court. He has the right, as owner, to bar such activity. But the government doesn't have the right to decide that those pamphlets can't be handed out.
RTeacher:
I don't know if the rules you posted would apply to the newspaper boycott. There is no contractual relationship between the newspaper and its readers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ya-ta, that article would seem to be referring to private companies acting as censors over webspace that they own.
|
Quite right. I stuck it up because it's related to the whole internet free speech issue. Didn't mean it as an attempt to hijack the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Ya-ta, that article would seem to be referring to private companies acting as censors over webspace that they own.
|
Quite right. I stuck it up because it's related to the whole internet free speech issue. Didn't mean it as an attempt to hijack the thread. |
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you were. Hope that clears things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Ya-ta, that article would seem to be referring to private companies acting as censors over webspace that they own.
| Quote: |
| Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors. |
I don't think that's comparable to a government censoring speech on the internet. It would be a little like if the owner of a shopping mall doesn't want people handing out "Boycott this mall" pamphlets in the food court. He has the right, as owner, to bar such activity. But the government doesn't have the right to decide that those pamphlets can't be handed out.
RTeacher:
I don't know if the rules you posted would apply to the newspaper boycott. There is no contractual relationship between the newspaper and its readers. |
1. If the people were handing out pamphlets spreading false information about the mall, I'm sure the owner could get a 'cease and desist' order against them.
2. Korea has numerous laws limiting freedom of speech - most of them in relation to the DPRK. I'm surprised people are so surprised by this still. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. If the people were handing out pamphlets spreading false information about the mall, I'm sure the owner could get a 'cease and desist' order against them.
|
Yes, but again, the activists calling for direct boycott of the newspapers were likely spreading the same false information as the guys attacking the advertisers. But the authorities ruled that the newspaper boycotts were okay.
| Quote: |
| 2. Korea has numerous laws limiting freedom of speech - most of them in relation to the DPRK. I'm surprised people are so surprised by this still. |
I don't support the anti-DPRK limitations either, and I'd be somewhat alarmed if those laws began to be more enforced than they are at the present time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
