To me, it's a question of power and of scale. willhelm and n2sooners, if you're trying to make a comparison between AT&T blocking the transmission of a highly public and potentially highly controversial political statement to millions of people, on the one hand, and a single clipper on Clipmarks preventing one other clipper on Clipmarks from leaving a comment on his clip ... well, there are similarities, but frankly I'm not convinced.

Does AT&T have the legal right to do what it did? Probably. Am I happy about it? Not particularly. Keep in mind: AT&T has enormous influence and power over the flow of information in this country. As a corporation, it gives tremendous campaign contrib...

To me, it's a question of power and of scale. willhelm and n2sooners, if you're trying to make a comparison between AT&T blocking the transmission of a highly public and potentially highly controversial political statement to millions of people, on the one hand, and a single clipper on Clipmarks preventing one other clipper on Clipmarks from leaving a comment on his clip ... well, there are similarities, but frankly I'm not convinced.

Does AT&T have the legal right to do what it did? Probably. Am I happy about it? Not particularly. Keep in mind: AT&T has enormous influence and power over the flow of information in this country. As a corporation, it gives tremendous campaign contributions and thus can affect public policy dramatically. Decisions made by AT&T have extensive effects on the everyday lives of ordinary Americans who probably have no idea of what's going on and never consciously opted-in to the system. You can't say any of the same things about Clipmarks.

As I said in my comment on the other clip, I'm not convinced the solution Eric has implemented for Clipmarks is inherently morally superior to all other solutions, but I also don't see any reason to think it's worse. Some way of managing potential conflicts had to be put in place, and this one, to me, seems like a reasonably good compromise all around between minimizing abuse and protecting openness. That's not the case for AT&T. In this case, a major company has prevented the transmission of politically controversial speech to large sectors of the public, without that audience knowing that the material has been edited. That's not exactly the same thing as two individuals who are in the middle of a nasty online spat refusing to listen to one another (basically what the Clipmarks solution does).

Okay, I'm going to stop after this ... but one more thing: users of Clipmarks should understand, when they read a clip and the associated comments, that Clipmarks site policy gives the clip-creator some editorial control over what gets posted in the comments, like it or not. That's not an ideological slant. It's just a moderation policy. If you are bothered by that and don't want to take the trouble to start your own clip to post your views, then I suppose you'll have to go elsewhere. If you think that's inherently leftist, then you're objecting not to the moderation policy itself but rather to the fact that you think there are more left-leaning users than right-leaning users on the site. If...

Okay, I'm going to stop after this ... but one more thing: users of Clipmarks should understand, when they read a clip and the associated comments, that Clipmarks site policy gives the clip-creator some editorial control over what gets posted in the comments, like it or not. That's not an ideological slant. It's just a moderation policy. If you are bothered by that and don't want to take the trouble to start your own clip to post your views, then I suppose you'll have to go elsewhere. If you think that's inherently leftist, then you're objecting not to the moderation policy itself but rather to the fact that you think there are more left-leaning users than right-leaning users on the site. If the reverse were true, then presumably the same policy would suggest an imbalance in favor of the right.

Anyhow. The difference here is that I doubt any of AT&T's customers were ever made aware that all content transmitted via AT&T's technology would be edited for political and ideological innocuousness by AT&T staff; they probably were led to believe they were getting the actual performance.

Again, I don't think it's a free speech issue. I don't think AT&T is committing "censorship." Let's leave accusations of "censorship" for places like China where dissidents are actually being jailed. But considering the corporation's size and influence and the relationship between AT&T and its audience / customers, I think the decision to expunge criticism of Bush from Pearl Jam's concert probably was unnecessary and probably could have been handled a lot better.

is a bloggers right to control (via screening, deleting, closing) comments a form of censorship?

Of course it is! Do you need a dictionary?

And @Wilhelm I would argue that in your argument that if AT&T owns
the content and are free to do what they wish, then Clippers/Bloggers
and the like "own" their content(clips/posts etc.) to the extent that
it resides on "their" page(s) and they can control their page/profile
and therefore would not be practicing censorship.

Well, If you had read the thread I linked you might discover that I thought Enbar's case was convincing and I am not in complete disagreement with that assessment. However, it does not change the de...

is a bloggers right to control (via screening, deleting, closing) comments a form of censorship?

Of course it is! Do you need a dictionary?

And @Wilhelm I would argue that in your argument that if AT&T owns
the content and are free to do what they wish, then Clippers/Bloggers
and the like "own" their content(clips/posts etc.) to the extent that
it resides on "their" page(s) and they can control their page/profile
and therefore would not be practicing censorship.

Well, If you had read the thread I linked you might discover that I thought Enbar's case was convincing and I am not in complete disagreement with that assessment. However, it does not change the definition of the word censorship.
Also, the point of distinction is OWNERSHIP. Once a clip is public, shouldn't everyone be allowed to express and comment within the guidelines that exclude vulgarity.

For example: Pearl Jam was free to speak. We are free to discuss Pearl Jam's comments here. Our speech is not infringed upon. AT&T just packaged a broadcast they had paid for and it was their right.

On the other hand, suppressing a political point of view for the sake of politics is another issue entirely. That is what the CM team is attempting to do.
They (the CM team) may not encourage censorship, but they create an environment where it is condoned, accepted and used to intellectually bully opposing views and expressions.

My point inititially is the Left only cares about their free speech, not anyone else's. In fact, they are indifferent when opposing views are suppressed. EG's initial comment is a case in point. He expresses an implied moral outrage about a concept he allows in his own world (CM).

@Enbar has the right path I was trying to go down...someone who owns content like a blogger who is publicly displaying his own views is given more leeway to control what is said on his site (as well as clippers) and is less censorship than "managing" the type of content he wishes to have on his site. AT&T as a entity given the rights (and trust of the public) to publish content from a public source was "expected" to give their audience the same content that was provided at the live show and not cut unless explicitly stated. I guess I keep coming back to the same thing Enbar is saying that impact and public expectations weigh much more in how censorship is practiced and accepted. I would a...

@Enbar has the right path I was trying to go down...someone who owns content like a blogger who is publicly displaying his own views is given more leeway to control what is said on his site (as well as clippers) and is less censorship than "managing" the type of content he wishes to have on his site. AT&T as a entity given the rights (and trust of the public) to publish content from a public source was "expected" to give their audience the same content that was provided at the live show and not cut unless explicitly stated. I guess I keep coming back to the same thing Enbar is saying that impact and public expectations weigh much more in how censorship is practiced and accepted. I would argue that there is a level of censorship expected when interacting with others on any social site as opposed to broadcasts of public events.

If that all makes sense??

willhelm, willhelm, willhelm... not exactly a subtle thinker, are you. I never suggested legal ownership was the issue here. I put the word "ownership" in quotes because that was the best metaphor I could come up with for the relationship that the Clipmarks site administrators seemed to be establishing between a clipper (i.e., someone who posts and/or creates content on the site) and the clips they create, in terms of moral rights. Of course the clipper has no legal claims of owning the content they clip, and you'd have to read pretty simple-mindedly to think that was the point here.

Let me put it in real simple terms. One: why would anyone in the world give a good goddamn whether you, wil...

willhelm, willhelm, willhelm... not exactly a subtle thinker, are you. I never suggested legal ownership was the issue here. I put the word "ownership" in quotes because that was the best metaphor I could come up with for the relationship that the Clipmarks site administrators seemed to be establishing between a clipper (i.e., someone who posts and/or creates content on the site) and the clips they create, in terms of moral rights. Of course the clipper has no legal claims of owning the content they clip, and you'd have to read pretty simple-mindedly to think that was the point here.

Let me put it in real simple terms. One: why would anyone in the world give a good goddamn whether you, willhelm, can post a comment on Cat Whisperer's clips? Two: why would anyone in the world give a good goddamn whether AT&T gets to decide which of Pearl Jam's lyrics gets broadcast? If you think the answers to both of those questions are the same, then good for you. Personally, I think they're different. If you can't or won't see past your legalistic obsession with a black-and-white dictionary definition for "censorship" to the question of who benefits and who suffers from particular policies, then, well, bully for you, I suppose.

This issue is not new, it has happened many times before on National televison. There censors in place there, supposedly for a good reason. When Janet Jackson had her 'costume mishap' at the superbowl it was quickly censored. When actors or musicians yell out quick political messages at the MTV music awards or the oscars it is generally frowned upon, and or censored.
Actors and musicians *think* they are politicans, but in reality are not (unless we have some senators or congressmen/ women in a band, they are not).

Do actors and musicians have vast influence over the general public? Sadly, yes. Are they duly elected representatives of the U.S. government? Only one that I know of an...

This issue is not new, it has happened many times before on National televison. There censors in place there, supposedly for a good reason. When Janet Jackson had her 'costume mishap' at the superbowl it was quickly censored. When actors or musicians yell out quick political messages at the MTV music awards or the oscars it is generally frowned upon, and or censored.
Actors and musicians *think* they are politicans, but in reality are not (unless we have some senators or congressmen/ women in a band, they are not).

Do actors and musicians have vast influence over the general public? Sadly, yes. Are they duly elected representatives of the U.S. government? Only one that I know of and he advises the D.O.D. on missile defense issues. So whether it is AT&T or the televison networks, it is their ballgame and they can censor whatever they deem appropriate. They can also catch the flack for censoring certain items in the first place.

Enbar, you are all over the place. You have qualifications for this and that, You talk about moral ownership " for lack of a better word". You put qualifications on various situations, you ignore the definition of censorship and refuse to call it what it is in the case of clippers blocking comments, you differentiate between the micro and the macro in way that I see is disingenous, it appears your subjective sympathies for the comment have come in to play, you've made distinctions in "regard to power and scale" and now "consequences" of the potential censorship are a factor.

It appears to me Napster, has remained consistent and answered all objections without equivocation, qualification, or...

Enbar, you are all over the place. You have qualifications for this and that, You talk about moral ownership " for lack of a better word". You put qualifications on various situations, you ignore the definition of censorship and refuse to call it what it is in the case of clippers blocking comments, you differentiate between the micro and the macro in way that I see is disingenous, it appears your subjective sympathies for the comment have come in to play, you've made distinctions in "regard to power and scale" and now "consequences" of the potential censorship are a factor.

It appears to me Napster, has remained consistent and answered all objections without equivocation, qualification, or conditional inanities. Like I've told you, Enbar, I love clarity.

Oh for crying out loud, willhelm, I give up. Uncle. If your definition of clarity and consistency means saying "X is right and Y is wrong, X is censorship or it is not" and nothing else, then, you're right, no, I suppose i haven't been clear and consistent. Once more, quickly, from the top.

• Let's drop the accusations of "censorship." No one's getting muzzled or jailed here. I'd argue that there's no censorship involved in either case.
  
• If we seek to evaluate particular decisions and policies as good or bad, then I think we ought to consider first and foremost the consequences (i.e., social benefits and harms) that those decisions and policies bring about.

There. That's ...

Oh for crying out loud, willhelm, I give up. Uncle. If your definition of clarity and consistency means saying "X is right and Y is wrong, X is censorship or it is not" and nothing else, then, you're right, no, I suppose i haven't been clear and consistent. Once more, quickly, from the top.

• Let's drop the accusations of "censorship." No one's getting muzzled or jailed here. I'd argue that there's no censorship involved in either case.
  
• If we seek to evaluate particular decisions and policies as good or bad, then I think we ought to consider first and foremost the consequences (i.e., social benefits and harms) that those decisions and policies bring about.

There. That's my clear and consistent answer. Everything else I've said was intended to show ways that we might apply or extend those principles. I realize that you believe policies ought to be determined primarily on the basis of a legalistic, dictionary-based, black-and-white conception of right and wrong, rather than on consideration of how those policies are likely to affect people in the real world. That's not now I think. However, I don't think that means my reasoning is inconsistent, unclear, or flawed.