h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wizard's First Rule was written by Terry Goodkind... but I'm pretty sure it wasn't there that I read the quote. I do steal a quote from that book pretty frequently... the wizard's first rule itself: "People will believe any lie, either because they're afraid it might be true, or because they want to believe it's true."

A quick Google shows Orson Scott Card using the phrase in an interview. The only works of his I've read are the Ender Wiggin books. I wonder if it was somewhere in there.

I think we might be missing the really relevant point here.

Whether we're talking about publication or speech or simply expression, the BBC has elected to exercise prior restraint on the theory that because a few might commit violations of defamation law, all will be contrained to what I regard is essentially a perverse service, as Dogster already noted.

We can pontificate endlessly about what is or is not a violation of defamation law, but until the matter is actually ruled on by a court of law having original jurisdiction, such pontifications are little more than educated guesses. Since there is so much that is unclear in this regard about defamation law when it's applied to the internet, you would think that someone would welcome such clarification now in order to have a more valid basis for deciding things in the future.

I could for example, sue the BBC for exercising prior restraint on me in an arbitrary and capricious manner and in direct violation of the UN and EU accords cited by Dogster.

One of the first things that would have to be determined is which court would have original jurisdiction in the case since I'm technically an American citizen and the BBC is technically a UK government supported limited liability company operating in an international venue. So does it go to a UK court or a US court or the international court?

Assuming that we could resolve the issue of jurisdiction, the next issue would be whether or not the BBC did exercise prior restraint and did so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I think, on that point, I could prevail, and moreover show that the BBC action was taken in direct violation of the cited accords.

Not that it would matter much from a practical standpoint, except that it might make BBC policy a little less discretionary while making its rights and obligations considered within the context of the internet a little more clear and not based on some hypothetical extrapolation of current defamation law relating to speech or print publication.

Whatever, several things should be clear.

The internet is not network television. It is not composed of passive potential victims of defamation or obscenity or whatever. It is interactive and composed of an immense number of choices of venue, or was until the media corporations got their hands into it. By so doing, they have reduced the choices such that now it might resemble network television a little more than it should.

Since the choices have been reduced from a practical standpoint, it seems like it should be incumbant on the media corporations to ensure that suppression of expression doesn't become widespread. Otherwise, their investment will essentially become a clone of and competitor to what they've already got with their television stations or other more traditional media.

The airwaves are usually considered to be a public trust, however, this has also come to include cable television, for example, because corporations don't want to have to invest in redundant infrastructure. So they seek and are granted limited monopolies to operate cable networks within local communites. Therefore, the public trust extends to cable and fiber and whatever.

A similar argument could be advanced to assert that the internet is a public trust under similar theory. The BBC is granted a license in fact if not in law to operate outside the UK. In recent rulings, American internet companies have not chosen to challenge the jurisdiction of German states over content. We could just as easily assert that the BBC shouldn't challenge American jurisdiction over the expression of American citizens as it might over UK citizens.

All of which illustrates what a legal morass this can become if people want to needlessly complicate things. Maybe it's just better not to try to exercise prior restraint at all? If it's public, then it's public, in simple terms, and that means access by the public shouldn't be denied or restrained prior to fact of violation of law, if such violation is in fact applicable, especially when its really unclear what such violation might really mean.

That's the crucial point here I think.

No, I think the crucial point has already been mention. As the Great Mark Moxon said...

"It's only a website."

I find some of the arguments you put forward to be interesting, Analiese. The assumption that the BBC is a entity anything like US Networks is troubling. It is not and does not follow similar policies. It is like the CBC here ultimately a govenment body with a huge amount of autonomy.

Most troubling is your statement *The airwaves are usually considered to be a public trust*. As a person who works closely with the media I find statements like that to be offensive. The only obligations the media have are to the itself and what it considers to be the truth. In that it is a quotable arm of the BBC I have no problem with Hootoo's caution.

Are you asserting that the media own the airwaves, Zoomer?

They own their own signal, their equipment, and their representation.

And are licenced for specific periods of time to provide specific kinds of programming to specific geographical audiences with whom they have an explicit or implicit legal contract.

Ben

*explicit or implicit legal contract*

That is a little ambiguous. I hope you don't mean that contractually the BBC has to provide unfettered input rights. I would assume you mean they must provide a signal and balanced coverage. In the CBC they have something called the *Mandate* which to provide Canadian production and things of Canadian interest as a percentage of their output and some specific programming which is *legacy*. Otherwise they are self-regulated.

Yes, Zoomer, except they don't own the frequencies. Buh!!!

As what the BBC may be vis a vis American network television, I don't think that's especially pertinent to the discussion. My point was to contrast the internet with a purely passive medium, whether content of that medium is educational, entertaining or some combination doesn't really matter. What does matter is the internet isn't passive, or shouldn't be, but apparently, in some respects, it is and we're seeing some of that passivity, not to mention patronization exercised already at this website, which I know is just website.

We've been through that already I thought, and talk is just talk, although for some people it might be an evil spell you cast on people making them do things they wouldn't do otherwise if they were just being passive. Oh dear!!!

So again, I'd really like to get back to discussing life, the universe and everything without being moderated in an extreme fashion.

How unreasonable can I get with this? Well, that's it. Sorry it's such a damn imposition on the house enjoying so much autonomy it probably just bursts with wonderous innovations as we've already seen.

Sorry - I was being very generic.

The satelite broadcasters have explicit contracts with their subscribers, as do the cable broadcasters.

In the UK terrestial broadcasts are free, but we pay a licence fee for equipment which is capable of receiving them. There are three national commercial channels and two national public service channels. I am not sure how many digital channels there are, how they are financed, or what contractual arrangements they have with their viewers.

My comment about implicit legal contracts with their viewers is bulls**t really. But all the terrestial channels have to provide specific kinds of programming under the terms of their licences with the government. For example ITV provides general programming including drama, entertainment, news, current affairs and documentaries. Channel 4 provides all of the above in smaller amounts, and also provides special interest programming and arts. Channel 5 seems to exist to re-run bad American movies.

My point is that the TV channels are not free to publish what they like without supervision or restraint. To take an extreme example, if any one of these channels were to decide to publish nothing but childrens' programmes they would be in breach of the terms of their licence.

They *are* free to publish what they like within legal limits, (there are limits for example on pornographic material, commercial material, libelous material (though that may be a civil rather than a criminal limitation), and treasonous material, (though some of the stuff Channel 4 puts out may have the royals wishing that the definition of treason was broader than in fact it is).

Most of the broadcasters are experimenting with public dialogue and public access, but most of that experimentation is limited to web-sites (which are a special case of broadcasting) and radio phone-ins, (which are a cop-out). A large number of live and near-live broadcasts are now including emails and text messages. A lot of them ballot their audience on particular things - Pop Idol is a case in point.

So - there *are* explicit contractual arrangements between broadcaster and viewer in the case of sattelite and cable. The contractual arrangements in the case of terrestial tv are with the government who is kindly acting on our behalf.

Sorry for being both cryptic and inaccurate.

Ben

Analiese - you posted while I was typing.

"talk is just talk, although for some people it might be an evil spell you cast on people"

But of course it is a spell! Words are the most wonderful tools in the world and, oxymoronically, I value my ability to use them more than I can say.

You are absolutely right that the legal and indeed cultural understanding of the nature of the Internet has not yet come to grips with the concepts involved, or the implications either. We are applying metaphors which constrain and mislead instead of coming to grips with new paradigms.

B

Analiese, one of the great things about this medium is that we can discuss it's faults. That is one of the key points I want to explore, as well. I can go to another site and demonise this one, slander it and make outrageous comments. I can rail on the subject and on the one that has been moderated here. I am still on the internet and as an entity it is totally free. But not all of it. I can't go to the Whitehouse site and do the same with impunity. I probably can't at the Vatican or Parliamentary or Bob down the streets sites as well. It is the inter-net and each of it parts have their own rules. The point is that as a whole you can find places that have rules or lack or rules that suit you. Or me.

The fact that we could do something and can't do it now doesn't mean we won't be able to tomorrow or the next day. Damn inconvenient and sad, as well as a severe bruise to the unspoken covenant we thought we had. But not earth-shaking to me.

And please don't think this is any kind of criticism of you or your thoughts and beliefs. I thoroughly admire your mind and your posts and regularly seek the later out.

Please stop your wittering and your waffling and write about something useful for a change.

Let your wittering go

Forgiveness

Look, Zoomer, I see your point, honest.

And like my roommate, Rita, manages a site called RCO, where I have my own thing called Prairie Lodge Companero. This site allegedly has no rules either. Whatever moderation there is is supposed to come along with the people who post there, who, oddly enough, aren't that many because I guess they figure if it ain't moderated somebody must be hiding in bushes ready to pounce on them and steal their wallets.

But if you rag on indians there too much Rita will tell you in no uncertain terms that it's Indian Country and if you don't like it you can leave anytime you want as long as it's now.

Okay fine, right?

Now when I joined this hootoo thing back when I wanted to check out paulie's entry about my people, I didn't see nothing in the terms of service or house rules that said we're going to shove your sweet indigenous ass into some hoydytoydy bulletin board if America decides to crap on Ir*q with British assistance.

I'm perfectly willing to abide by rules that say you won't threaten to tear the heart out of some poster who desperately deserves it but nevertheless has the same right of free expression as you do and shouldn't have to lose her/his warm, beating heart because I don't happen to agree with her/him or whatever, whatever my body temperature might be at the time.

So if I break the rules then it shouldn't require a rocket scientist to figure out how to block me or eject me or whatever, end of story.

But no, that's not what they do. They decide to treat me like I'm posting pornography if I mention the I word. That is just plain absurd. They decide to punish me before I've even written anything they can use to justify it. That's just plain unfair. And in my youthful immaturity, I'm going to denounce them for it. What's so hard to understand about that?

And please don't think I'm raining on you personally, okay? I'm just trying to get something across that I really think should have been obvious to anybody who claims to have grown up in a free country, whether they have a Congress or Parliament or Great Council Fire.

I suppose I should have been more specific:

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/htmen/mandate.htm

Although the mandate has grown to something more in the public eye, which is part of our problem here with the BBC I believe.

Understood, and if something like that was what had been printed on the shingle in front of hootoo, I'd be totally contrite right now, but guess what?

Don't be contrite, I couldn't stand your spirit being diminished.

What?

What? Something like that wasn't printed on the shingle. I know it's probably in the fine print, yada yada, somewheres, but that's not quite same thing is it?

Consequently, I sort of expected to moderated, not exiled.

If you don't mind, Ben, I'd like to take (mischevious) exception to your current nickname. Freedom of speech has everything to do with freedom of publication, (to publish I mean), although nothing whatsoever with you freedom to be published. I'd be surprised if anyonee got upset with the Times for failing to print an article, or even a letter, with which the editors/owners disagreed, or simply couldn't be bothered to publish. I'd be horrified if 'They' decided to close down all the newspapers who didn't support 'Their' position wholeheartedly.

Other than that.

And you know, even if we do look at internet conversations
as speech, we are here, esseentially, as guests at the BBC's little house. They provide the rooms, wee provide the sparkling wit sort of thing. If they want to veto a topic, it's their prerogative, I think. It's not like we don't know how touchy the BBC can get about maintaining its remit, particularly in the face of periodic attacks from onee siide or the other (in Britain) about whether they are. The question is not whther they can or have the right to, in my opinion, but whether they should feel they have to. And that's not so much a question for the BBC organisation as it exists, but for the wording of their contractial obligations; whether online communities of the public should be treateed the same as the material produced soley by BBC employees.

I must say, I'm not sure I understand the careless talk costs lives bit, though. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Hey Ben.
(Think I chose the right couple of days to be away, yeah? Anyhow...)
Parts of the backthread, and in particular your words at the beginning, are real wisdom.
It all goes so much wider than this one silly censorship issue.
It's about seeing both sides, all the sides even.
Or even trying to.
There is tyranny in the system, but there is tyranny in the crowd too. Nobody ever breaks free of the lowest-common-denominator mindset until they think for themselves, express themselves, become an individual.
So long as there are people like you Ben, then it's worth being here.
Come and learn, you all. Learn to listen. Learn to think.
Let's follow this example and teach each other to grow.
Pin *humbled*