Limits of Censorship on Internet Forums

[disregardthat]

What I'd like to discuss here is essentially: what are the limits of cencoring on internet forums?

On one forum I have visited I encountered something strange, the forums admins have decided to block all threads about a particular individual well known to the forum community and outside of it, and give each user mentioning this individual a warning for bringing him up in a post. I strikes me as an excessive decision and possibly a too large restriction on the users in that particular forum.

So my question is basically: what do you see as the limits of cencoring on internet forums? Are admins on any forum free to block any type of information they do not see fit? Are they juridically free to do so without limitation, and if so do you consider it fine to use their rights as owners of a forum in this way?

It caught my attention because it was directed against a single individual who apparently have caused a lot of distress to the forum itself and its members. This science forum will block all discussion regarding crackpot scientific theories and religious discussion, which I consider fine. One thing is to suspend a member and his alternate accounts, but to go as far as block all information regarding him as a private and public person seems to me too excessive considering that he is of general interest for the subject of the forum. Note that this individual have not engaged in any criminal activity which could possibly justify it as a decision.

A comparable thing on this forum would perhaps to be to block all discussion of any kind regarding a particular relatively known scientist on this forum because of his behavior as a member even if it in other circumstances would have been considered fine.

 

[phyzguy]

If the forum is privately owned and you join of your own free will, then it seems to me that the owners can do whatever they please. If you don't like it, go join another forum.

 

[micromass]

I think that legally forum owners can do everything they want to (as long as they don't violate things like copyright). A forum is privately owned, so freedom of speech does not come into the play.

However, I would never want to be a member of a forum that censors people in such a way as you mention in your OP.

 

[disregardthat]

A forum is privately owned, so freedom of speech does not come into the play.

I realize that freedom of speech as a right does not apply to forums in the same way it does to the press. But personally I find it absurd to decide such a thing knowing that the forum is a public arena for discussion.

 

[Evo]

Sounds like a weird decision, but private forums can make any decisions on what can be discussed that they wish. If the person is a crackpot, I can see them being placed on a banned topics list.

 

[micromass]

I realize that freedom of speech as a right does not apply to forums in the same way it does to the press. But personally I find it absurd to decide such a thing knowing that the forum is a public arena for discussion.

Yes, personally I find it absurd as well. But I don't think they're doing anything wrong legally. Then again, I'm no lawyer.

 

[Evo]

I realize that freedom of speech as a right does not apply to forums in the same way it does to the press. But personally I find it absurd to decide such a thing knowing that the forum is a public arena for discussion.

Actually it is a private arena subject to the rules of the forum owner. The fact that it can be publicly viewed does not mean that rules don't apply for posting.

 

[rootX]

What I'd like to discuss here is essentially: what are the limits of censoring on internet forums?

I don't think there are any limits.

I often see actions against forums that home marginalized groups (child porn etc) but I have never seen any action against censoring.

 

[disregardthat]

Actually it is a private arena subject to the rules of the forum owner. The fact that it can be publicly viewed does not mean that rules don't apply for posting.

I agree, I should probably have rephrased that. What I mean is that it is practically the main arena for discussion regarding the subject of the forum. And by limiting their members in this way will essentially block most information regarding the individual as a public person.

To me controlling information in this fashion is a dangerous thing.

 

[D H]

This science forum will block all discussion regarding crackpot scientific theories and religious discussion, which I consider fine.

Others don't consider that to be fine. You should see some of the private messages I receive.


The issue you raise is a fine line. Our official policy at this site is that something published in a peer-reviewed listed at Reuters-Thomson is OK. However, just as patent offices occasionally slip up and allow patents of perpetual motion machines, peer reviewed journals occasionally slip up and publish absolute nonsense. And later issue a retraction.

Our unofficial policy is that our official policy is sometimes wrong. We do occasionally allow discussions of topics that have not yet made their way into peer-reviewed journals (e.g., the OPERA imbroglio), and we occasionally do reject nonsense that has been published in peer reviewed journals.


We don't take departures from our official policy lightly. Were we to do so, we would give the appearance of being capricious or vindictive. Our users and our lurkers would abandon the site, revenues to the owner of the site would go down, dogs and cats would start living together. Mass hysteria!

 

[Pythagorean]

There's complete freedom of speech on every Internet forum. Freedom of speech means you don't get killed or jailed for what you say. I don't know of any forums that execute/jail members for expressing their thoughts.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would argue that freedom of the press is closer to the situation in internet forums - it's written, not spoken, and it persists across time. The courts have held time and again that freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns the press. In our case, that's Greg.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There's complete freedom of speech on every Internet forum. Freedom of speech means you don't get killed or jailed for what you say. I don't know of any forums that execute/jail members for expressing their thoughts.

No. Rounding up and destroying all copies of a book or periodical would constitute a violation of freedom of speech regardless of whether the publisher were jailed or executed.

 

[D H]

Freedom of speech is a stricture against governments, not individuals. A privately owned website that wants to only allow discussions that are in favor of ≪name the topic≫: No problem. There's nothing wrong with a private website devoted to the proposition that the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise banning users who raise the possibility of orbiting satellites or sailing around the world.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Freedom of speech is a stricture against governments, not individuals. A privately owned website that wants to only allow discussions that are in favor of ≪name the topic≫: No problem. There's nothing wrong with a private website devoted to the proposition that the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise banning users who raise the possibility of orbiting satellites or sailing around the world.

Indeed, I once got banned from a paranormal website for trolling, though I was actually just trying to be funny. Those people are SO serious.

 

[cmb]

I would suspect that the situation, particularly across international boundaries as the internet is so suited to do, is a legal tangle that will not be tested for many years to come.

However, I also suspect that one day it will be tested in Court, and if the owners of a forum make it a 'public place' that anyone may have sight of, then their actions would almost certainly fall under public order offences, particularly in regards any 'disadvantaged' persons that, for example, may have recognised 'challenging' communication styles or psychological issues associated with their disability that the forum owner has failed to ask about, understand and take account of.

In UK law, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour' or to display 'any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting' within the hearing or sight of a person 'likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby'.

Therefore, if a person in the UK were to argue that the owners of a forum behaved in a manner that might be argued to, or actually did, amount to 'distress' then they would appear to have a case. They would probably also have a case against another member similarly, and then possibly against the forum owners too if they knowingly allowed one member to cause distress to another. I suspect there are equivalent harassment laws in most other civilised countries.

Ultimately I think it would come down to whether a forum is regarded as a public place. Irrespective of who 'owns' a space, the nature of it being 'public' is a matter of who the owners allow into that space. That is to say; public order offences are not lessened simply because they occur on private property, but rather whether the public is permitted access. I reckon a Court would, these days, recognise the internet as being a 'public place'.

There are then a series of harassment laws that apply to private communications, and it is irrespective of who 'owns' those communications but rather the nature of them. For example, the owners of a forum would be in contempt of Court if a complaint of harassment had been made and private messages were then, following that complaint, deleted because the forum owners felt they 'owned' the messages, then I think they would end up in a legal pickle.

All this works both ways, of course, and a forum owner would, equally, be able to lodge criminal complaints against a 'member' who caused distress to them or to other members.

Providing none of the above applies, freedom of speech is off the agenda, because it is not a publically-owned space. As such, if the forum owners wish to limit the topic under discussion, they have an absolute right. Even if they were to apply limits on what may be discussed for some, but have different limits for others, then I still do not see that there is a clear breach of criminal codes, though this might amount to discriminatory harassment in very particular circumstances, especially if the owners could be shown to be doing it knowing it was likely to cause distress.

 

[Evo]

This forum requires registration and agreement to comply with the rules in order to be allowed to post. Not anyone can post.

 

[cmb]

This forum requires registration and agreement to comply with the rules in order to be allowed to post. Not anyone can post.

Not anyone can drive a car, and it requires registration and a legal requirement to comply with rules. However, driving a car on a road is still an activity subject to public order regulations.

The public have access to this site. Therefore if anyone were to 'exercise their free speech' by, for example, saying something about anyone else, their conduct, opinion, character, &c., including a (non-member) 3rd party - e.g 'such-and-such's theory is the work of a buffoon'), that caused alarm or distress, I am confident the grounds of an offence would have been satisfied. Naturally, 'degree', 'intent' and 'public interest' would also fall into whether an offence would actually be prosecuted, but I would say any ad hominem comment that could cause distress is actually an offence, in UK law at least. (In this case, the intent for the term to be 'abusive' would be so shallow as to likely fail to reach any threshold of public interest to prosecute. However, if this person had been previously publically goaded with the term 'buffoon' repeatedly and the intent was abusive, then that would be a different case.)

(The whole of public order offences is written in such a general and broad way that one might come to the cynical conclusion that it is there to catch anyone the authorities don't like!)

If the expressed opinion was intended to be misleading, or wrong, then that could be libel.

If what was said (related to a 3rd party, their conduct or opinion) was done by sending the expressed opinion by private message that was not generally accessible by everyone, then it would be a private opinion and not subject to public order requirements. (If the other party then publically released that opinion to expose the other, then that would be hearsay and inadmissible, unless the other party re-iterated the opinion in public then it would fall back under public order.)

If a private message was sent in which the expressed opinion was likely to cause distress or alarm, to the other party of that message, then that might be harassment.

To better ensure the site is not regarded as being subject to public order regulations would be to make any access to it subject to a sign-in process. Possibly, registration is not required but a tick-box legal statement that provides some form of legal caveat. However, this would likely cause problem for search engines, then.

 

[arabianights]

i'm relatively new here

but from my experience here, my post had been deleted once, locked once, i can say that certain individual here is rather biased and close-minded

 

[micromass]

i'm relatively new here

but from my experience here, my post had been deleted once, locked once, i can say that certain individual here is rather biased and close-minded

Read this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

 

[Evo]

i'm relatively new here

but from my experience here, my post had been deleted once, locked once, i can say that certain individual here is rather biased and close-minded

Those were two different mentors and your locked thread was misplaced homework, without using the template, no attempt at a solution, etc...

Like micromass has suggested above, if you read the rules before you post, you'll find that you won't get posts deleted or locked for breaking the rules that other members adhere to.

 

[ThomasT]

If the forum is privately owned and you join of your own free will, then it seems to me that the owners can do whatever they please. If you don't like it, go join another forum.

I agree, that's the choice. I've been temporarily banned at PF and have gotten some naughty points for a few of my posts. Whether these actions were right or wrong according to some criterion is more or less moot. Technically, wrt the stated rules of PF, I suppose, they were correct. I value freedom of expression -- to a certain extent. I also value order, and the rule of law. Bottom line, I can't really complain, even though I think that some topics which are not open to discussion should be open to discussion. But I do understand why they're not open to discussion ... at PF.

 

[Borek]

Our unofficial policy is that our official policy is sometimes wrong.

I love it.

 

[cmb]

I agree, that's the choice.

I tend to agree with this sentiment, but 'choices' are not germane to the OP's question.

The question was, essentially, whether a forum has the right to determine the laws that govern it, or whether there are judicial aspects that limit a forum owner's behaviour towards its users.

The answer (in the UK and US at least that operate 'Roman'/precedent law) is that no-one can answer that question to any degree of authoritativeness, until some test cases have gone through Court. Maybe they have already, but I've heard of none myself and such 'inter-jurisdictional' cases, where there are several interests to the proceedings spread across the world, are still very few and far between, and are generally only pursued where there is a strong public interest to do so. I expect that will begin to change in the years and decades to come given the ever-increasing 'web' of interactions that modern technology provides.

I'd also tend to expect that the first cases to be seen would be civil cases, where a user (or forum owner) claims that there is a 'contract' between users and forum owners. The transactional contract agreement is simple to see; the user (who has actively ticked an agreement protocol, and the forum owner has accepted them as a user) is provided a communications medium, while the forum owner receives services from the user who provides information for their website. This looks like an extant contract to me, which would imply liabilities between the parties would exist. But this would likely only be on a case-by-case basis and unlikely to create precedent.

In the case of a forum where users may make financial contributions, the nature of the contract becomes yet more self-evident.

In any case, however, if a contract between users and forum owners is recognised by a Court then matters of due care, negligence and tort might then be considered. That would work either way; both users and forum owners need to be able to show they acted reasonably if they are to ensure no claims can be made against them.

 

[PatrickPowers]

Having pawed through mountains of stinking trash in unmoderated news groups, I'm a big fan of censorship. It all comes down to subjective judgment. Fine. I'm glad someone else is willing and able to do the work.

 

[ThomasT]

I tend to agree with this sentiment, but 'choices' are not germane to the OP's question.

Yes, I see. I responded to a reply to the OP, not to the OP. So, following some consideration and nitpicking of your specific points, I suppose I should reply directly to the OP.

The question was, essentially, whether a forum has the right to determine the laws that govern it, or whether there are judicial aspects that limit a forum owner's behaviour towards its users.

As you've seen, my first inclination is toward respecting a forum originator/owner's stated rules, even if they're quite restrictive of the sort of freedom of speech that our common law advocates -- insofar as the rules of a privately run forum are an expression of the biases of the forum originator/owner.

And therein lies the choice ... to agree to the rules and become a member/contributor, or to disagree with the rules and opt out.

But we're talking about forums that are accessible to the public. So, does common law and associated tort redress apply? My guess would be yes, it does, but only within the boundaries defined by the owner/user agreement.

There is a choice, and if one opts in, then one is, necessarily, constrained by the boundaries of the agreement.

Eg., if one doesn't like it that conspiracy theories in general, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the merits of monotheism, or nonscientific metaphysical speculation are taboo at PF, then one is free to choose to not become a member/contributor at PF.

The answer (in the UK and US at least that operate 'Roman'/precedent law) is that no-one can answer that question to any degree of authoritativeness, until some test cases have gone through Court.

Why not? Even if a forum is open to public perusal, if membership is contingent on adhering to certain rules that are stated and must be agreed upon up front, then the criteria for acceptable discourse have been set by the owner and agreed upon by the members/contributors.

The rules of a particular privately run forum (though open to public perusal) might not conform/extend to the the freedom of speech that's enjoyed by the public at large. The question is whether or not they're required, in any legal or moral sense, to be. And wrt to that question I would say no, they aren't.

And, again, we come back to a choice made by members/contributors to abide by the rules of a particular discussion forum.

In any case, however, if a contract between users and forum owners is recognised by a Court then matters of due care, negligence and tort might then be considered. That would work either way; both users and forum owners need to be able to show they acted reasonably if they are to ensure no claims can be made against them.

I see no reason why a contract/agreement between users and forum owners wouldn't be recognised by a Court. And within whatever constraints might be defined by such an agreement, then matters of due care, negligence and tort might be considered.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

There's complete freedom of speech on every Internet forum. Freedom of speech means you don't get killed or jailed for what you say. I don't know of any forums that execute/jail members for expressing their thoughts.

If you insult the King of Thailand in any way that could become public, you could be prosecuted if you ever go to Thailand. Beware!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/27/501364/main20066854.shtml

 

[phyzguy]

Here's an analogy that might make it clearer. You invite someone to a dinner party at your house. While conversing before dinner, he starts making comments that you disagree with and find offensive. You therefore ask him to leave your house. Is your asking him to leave (which prevents him from taking part in further discussions with the other guests) infringing on his freedom of speech? I think not. Since it's your house, you have the right to ask him to leave. I think this is the same situation we have in internet discussion groups.

 

[ThomasT]

If you insult the King of Thailand in any way that could become public, you could be prosecuted if you ever go to Thailand. Beware!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/27/501364/main20066854.shtml

Wow, talk about a lack of humility. King Bhumibol Adulyadej looks like the illegitimate spawn of Pee Wee Herman and Minnie Mouse all dressed up to go trick or treating. Come and get me your Thainess.

 

[cmb]

Is your asking him to leave (which prevents him from taking part in further discussions with the other guests) infringing on his freedom of speech? I think not. Since it's your house, you have the right to ask him to leave. I think this is the same situation we have in internet discussion groups.

Two sides to this point;

1)
I refer to my earlier point; the difference is that a forum may be regarded as a public space, whereas your dinner party is a private one. Consider a situation where you are dining out on a table next to a group discussing things you find unpleasant to overhear. If you could show they knew, or might have expected, it might cause other people distress to overhear it then you have rights to pursue.

But equally imagine the group next to you were complaining about your conversation. Would it be fair if the restaurant management came and turfed you out of the restaurant, half-way through your meal, simply because you were talking about, say, a political subject that the restaurant management also disagreed with, therefore picked the side of the other party?

2)
In your dinner party scenario, which is a private space (let's say this is equivalent to private messages), just because it is your house and party it would not give you the right to treat the person you objected to in an unreasonable manner. You'd have to approach the matter appropriately by telling the person to stop talking about the topic and/or leave, or there would be consequences. It would be quite inappropriate to simply punch him to the floor as soon as you object to him. However, punching him to the floor is not intrinsically wrong - it might become appropriate if the other person escalates an argument and gets physical, so that you defend yourself. It is therefore not an issue of what is done, per se, but what the sequence of events are that leads to the outcome that determines if it was a response that might be considered 'reasonable' in law.

 

[cmb]

Wow, talk about a lack of humility. King Bhumibol Adulyadej looks like the illegitimate spawn of Pee Wee Herman and Minnie Mouse all dressed up to go trick or treating. Come and get me your Thainess.

Whereas us Westerner tend to expect the permissive 'Roman' approach to law, there is also 'Inca' law. For the Incas, any 'criminal' act was an act against the orders of the Head Inca, which was therefore insulting the Head Inca. Obviously this was punishable by death!

So you could steal a single bean and the penalty could be death because it was a disrespect to the Head Inca. This is zero-tolerance on steroids!

Western jurisdictions don't operate to Inca Law [that much!]. In theory, a Court could issue a Court order that no-one is to drop litter in a town. If anyone then did so, they would be guilty not only of littering, but disregarding a Court order, which would therefore have the effect of making littering an arrestable, custodial, offence. Western jurisdictions don't do this.

...The question is... does PF have a Head Inca, or a Senate? (I worry over some of those Avatar pictures - I seem to recall the Incas coloured their shoulder-length hair blue! )

 

[Evo]

In theory, a Court could issue a Court order that no-one is to drop litter in a town. If anyone then did so, they would be guilty no only of littering, but disregarding a Court order, which would therefore have the effect of making littering an arrestable, custodial, offence. Western jurisdictions don't do this.

Littering is a crime. You didn't know this?

It varies by state and municipality.

PA Crimes Code, Title 18, Chapter 65 - scattering rubbish; illegally deposited trash that lands on public or private property. Can include someone illegally dumping their own trash or someone who is paid to dispose of waste

Penalties: considered a summary offense, imposes a fine of not less than $50, nor more than $300, or imprisonment for not more than 90 days or both.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/internet/bureaus/pdhwybeau.nsf/infoenforce?openform

Going forward no more idle speculation of what you think things might be like. Do some research and post some real information.

Thanks!

You might want to take a look at rules of other private forums.

http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/misc.php?do=sknetwork&page=rules

 

[cmb]

If anyone then did so, they would be guilty no[t]* only of littering, but disregarding a Court order, which would therefore have the effect of making littering an arrestable, custodial, offence.

I was trying to explain that by issuing a Court order to enforce an extant summary offence, that it may elevate it to an indictable offence.

(I was just trying to use plainer language than using the terms 'summary' and 'indictable'.)

*(erratum - I missed the 't')

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Wow, talk about a lack of humility. King Bhumibol Adulyadej looks like the illegitimate spawn of Pee Wee Herman and Minnie Mouse all dressed up to go trick or treating. Come and get me your Thainess.

Now, now, he is a Thief of State...oops I mean Chief of State. OMG! I'm so sorry O Great King! Really really! Please don't put me in jail if I visit Phi-Phi! My English not so good.

 

[Pythagorean]

No. Rounding up and destroying all copies of a book or periodical would constitute a violation of freedom of speech regardless of whether the publisher were jailed or executed.

Sure, but that's an extreme case. Book banning is fairly rampant in the U.S. Pornography can't be strewn about, we can't have cigarette commercials. It's not like we really have the ideal of freedom of speech that most of us imagine. There's several conflicting factors (especially when it comes to the youth).