.random[oid]archive

ViralDeath writes:

To everyone:

We have recieved a lot of comments on these posts but there is something we need to explain. Free Speech is that you or me can talk about what we want on our arenas. When i am in your (anyone who read this) home, your shop or your website i have to respect your rules. When you are at our webpage we reserve the right to not let some posts through.

However, we dont stop anyone from making their own websites. That is free speech, free speech is not that anyone have a right to trample into our site or your home and scream and say what they want.

On this website, the viraldeath crew limit some posts because we have to first of abide to laws of Netherlands,. And as owners of this site we reserve the right to moderate any comment as we please as this is OUR property.

That is free speech, if the glove dont fit, create your own website. Hope we cleared that up.

In other words, you are allowed to practice “free speech” on ViralDeath, as long as you follow their rules. They also elegantly hides behind, without reference of course, Dutch law. I would suggest that they start doing some research regarding international law as they can and will affect them aswell.

I consulted a few lawyers regarding publishing an article online that might be legal in one country, but illegal to post in another.
My blog is hosted in USA, my domain is controlled by a server in Norway and I am blogging from Australia; and I am a citizen of Norway.
If I really infuriated some entity in The Netherlands they can get a court order to at least ask to have my blog shutdown, depending what I published of course, and they can have me put on trial, depending on the severity of what I wrote, even if I am not in The Netherlands.

What people forget is that publishing something online so everyone can access it is kind of like going from country to country and handing out your article in person. You have made your article accessible to everyone, so it is also your responsibility that it respects the laws in the countries it is accessed and published in.

So even if ViralDeath is probably just covering their own arse, only in The Netherlands mind you, they can not call what they are doing free speech. It is ridiculous to tell people that they [ViralDeath] will moderate censor comments and if you want that comment published you should make your own website, and later claim that this is the definition of free speech.
Either the people at ViralDeath need to read some more about what free speech is and how it is defined or they seriously need to improve their English.
It is truly a cowards way out in any situation; refusing to publish an opinion, then telling you that if you want it published you should create your own website.

To be honest, I think it would be better for their [ViralDeath] image to not have published that statement.
It would be interesting if a website like Wikileaks told one of their possible sources that they [the source] should create their own website instead and stop bothering them [Wikileaks] with incriminating documents; and then saying that is how free speech works. I can only assume that no one would ever trust Wikileaks again; or assume Wikileaks have gone completely bonkers.

.update

A few days ago, before I published this article, I wrote a very short comment regarding that you can be affected by international laws if you publish something online that someone takes offence to in another country.
I wrote it in a very neutral, yet, friendly tone; to show that it was just friendly advice and not an attack on ViralDeath’s website.

I went back today to see if they dared to publish that comment and if they had responded to it; it was also a test to see how they treat freedom of speech. Not so surprisingly I could not find my comment, so I sent an email to Johanna Xn, asking why they have still not published my comment and how they can defend freedom of speech when they censor non-hostile comments.

Johanna says that:

Free speech is that you or me can set up whatever webpage, newspaper, tv-statition and report what we want and how we want it.

So far she assumingly understands that freedom of speech is about being able to freely set up a way to communicate your message and not being denied to do so.

Then so goes on to say:

Free speech is not that you or me should have access to other peoples webpages, newspapers or tv-stations to say whatever we want, force outsiders to let our tirades through of whatever we want to talk about. Free speech is a matter of the public, the state.

According to Johanna, freedom of speech is also limited; or in other words, it is not guaranteed. It is so limited that it is okay for someone to censor, limit and deny you the right to express yourself; it is completely fine to cherry pick who says what in an assumed open forum.

Johanna obviously is mistaking freedom of speech with property rights, and it also seems she is seeing everything they [ViralDeath] disagree with as hate-speech.
She also goes on about claiming that in my home she will not have free speech; already assuming that I will actually limit her speech by default.
Yes, if she verbally  attacks me, I will not only limit her speech, I will also tell her to leave; but I will not limit her speech or stay just based on the fact we might have different opinions.

The real kicker is when she tells me what real free speech is:

And yes we have to abide by dutch laws that means we have to limit free speech at some points. And we limit it when its just personal attacks against any posters or antisemitic comments like jewish conspiracy theories and so on. We also have a police not to let through comments that deal with grief inside the gore-scene because that is not our thing. People have to behave on our blog, or they can just go create their own. It is very easy. That is real free speech.

Again she admits that they are biased in regards to allowing certain comments and that if they do not publish your view on their website, you can just go create your own instead.

Now that is an extremely interesting view on freedom of speech. I think it is the most interesting, yet misunderstood, view on freedom of speech I have ever seen. What they are actually talking about here is closer to how it works within a dictatorship.
You will be allowed to say what you want, as long as we approve of it; if we do not like what you say we will deny you to speak and suggest that you go somewhere else.

I did reply too the whole email, trying to explain that I were not hostile in my comment and trying to explain how you can be affected by laws internationally when publishing content online.

.update2

Lost in translation, that is all I can say about this experience.
I have talked some more with Johanna and we seem ‘to be on the same page’, but obviously in a different language. We both seem to have a similar view regarding not limiting speak; difference is that I seem to take it a step farther by wanting no limitations at all on speech.
As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I agree that if someone comes into your home and makes a ruckus you should have the authority to silence and even remove that person. Using it as a way keep people controlled can have a very negative effect.
It is kind of like me telling someone to ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

As I mentioned, something might be ‘lost in translation’, but I just have to be inquisitive when someone talks about free speech and it is okay to limit speech in the same paragraph.

I think it is important that we understand that freedom of speech is completely different from freedom regarding property.
As freedom of speech is different from culture to culture we will always debate what freedom of speech really is; another important thing is that we must avoid complicating it even more.

The main reason I wrote this article is because I have seen far too many blog owners censoring comments just because someone disagrees with them; and I had to find out if ViralDeath was one of them.
I re-submitted my comment and it has now been approved.

How do you interpret freedom of speech?
How far should you be allowed to go in regards to freedom of speech?
Who should be allowed to decide what freedom of speech; and who should be allowed to limit speech?

Note: All quotations are in verbatim and unedited.
Sorry for if the article is a bit messy; what I learned after doing some investigation was too interesting to not mention.