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

Ah Raymondo. The naivete that supposes it's a programme that mods this site.

But what do you owe those of us who don't drink, Ben? I guess I'll take baby stuff

That's the second time I've seen someone credit Mark for "It's only a website." I said it to him 4 or 5 times before he made the public statement containing it that brought him so much acclaim. Shows where I fit into the social strata...

I've been avoiding all the conversations regarding the war anyway, because I have no opinion. I think the only reasonable opinion at this stage is none at all. The warmongers have some good circumstantial evidence, but it is only circumstantial. The peaceniks have a good argument against the circumstantial nature of the evidence, but they'll end up feeling very embarassed with themselves if the soldiers start unearthing caches of VX cannisters.

Thanks for correcting the attribution, Blatherskite. On the other hand, when Moxie said it, it had a punchy irony that it does not have when you or I say it.

B

And then he proved its wisdom by running off to Africa, where the genocidal programs of political reform provided a relaxing respite from this place.

Thank you, Ben, for a very cogent summary of the official position. As I am young, you have probably already anticipated the arguments I have made against the policy in other, more pertinent, discussions. I understand how elders can see the bleakness the world around them with a certain resignation.

It would be tragic, would it not, for the young to see it your way too soon? There is always change but not always for the better and sometimes we need to question it no matter who sponsors things.

You talk of Americans and freedom of speech. Let me tell you something. Americans don't understand freedom of speech anymore than you do. It's something they borrowed without attribution or comprehension and applied as they saw fit. Consequently, when I hear people talking about it in the context of the American Constitution, I sort of giggle a little bit.

The thought that you can have it both ways is sort of crazy I think.

Talk of lawsuits and brands not withstanding, you either express yourselves freely or you don't. If a website is just a website then equally talk is just talk, so why is there a problem?

That still isn't answered is it?

The result is pretty clear however. If you don't discuss things then later on when the things are done, people ask, why? So inevitably you discuss it now or you discuss later. You say why you want to do it now or you try to explain why you did it later, but sooner or later the discussion happens, somewheres. Out of respect or regret it happens.

The Great Debate site is a joke.

What is done there could be done here. There isn't any reason for it to be one place or the other. Why there are two in the first place is sort of crazy, since the themes are essentially and not a little arrogantly the same. Life, the universe and everything.

But as I've said before, this is evidently a lie. It is about what some people choose to call life, the universe and everything, as long as it doesn't threaten brand or legal issues or the presumed virtues of UK society.

That was someone's first mistake and unfortunately it won't be their last by aggravating the lie with qualifications, provisos or quid pro quos.

Once the sites are opened to the public, the owners no longer own everything, no matter what they say. They have custody of something that goes way beyond their ownership, and they have assumed, whether intentionally or not, a public trust, which they have recently failed to uphold in my view.

So, I will continue to denounce them for this betrayal again and again in the cold, dark, black and white world of youth, because that's what they have done. Whether you consider it right, wrong, indifferent or expedient, that's what they have done.

Nice one, Blatherskite.

Analiese, it is unthinking certainty I dislike, and I apologise to you and to everyone else that I focused on the unthinking certainties that some people express in their youth, and which in others continue throughout their lives. You think; and I respect thought when I find it.

I am going to comment on your post because, in turn, it is making me think, and I thank you for that.

>I understand how elders can see the bleakness the world around them with a certain resignation.

It is my impotence and the disenfranchisement that I feel which makes me see the world as bleak. I do not know if I am resigned to the fact or not. These feelings are unusual for me, and I am not sure what to do with them, to be honest. I am at my most effective with individuals and small groups, and on that level I continue to play my part.

> It would be tragic, would it not, for the young to see it your way too soon?

Yes, it would. And I am glad when people see the world differently from the way in which I see it. None of us see more than a distorted view anyway, and my view is no more valid than anyone else's anyway. I am not an evangelist, though I am a witness.

> There is always change but not always for the better and sometimes we need to question it no matter who sponsors things.

We should always question everything. As one of the most irritating Americans I am aware of says, 'questions are the answer'. In fact one of the things which unsettles me is my compliance here. I am used to being more subversive, it is disconcerting when I am not.

> The thought that you can have it both ways is sort of crazy I think.

It is a craziness I like. There is knowingly thinking you can have it both ways, understanding the paradoxes and the contradictions and the ambiguities, and there is blindly assuming that one can. You are talking about those who espouse freedom of speech without thinking about it, but you have also held a mirror up to me, and I am looking into it. Of course, most of the time one can't have it both ways, but expect I will continue to try. I try not to be a hypocrite, but even that is another of my hypocricies.

> If a website is just a website then equally talk is just talk, so why is there a problem?

Hmmm. I am not entirely sure of your point here. Talk, I hope, is always more than talk.

> Sooner or later the discussion happens, somewheres. Out of respect or regret it happens.

It would be easy to contradict you on one level, and talk about hidden and undiscussed atrocities, but I am not going to do that, because I agree with the point you are making. As I understand it you are saying that the discussion happens, regardless of the restrictions in particular places and spaces. It is a point that I accept.

> The Great Debate site is a joke. What is done there could be done here. There isn't any reason for it to be one place or the other.

I suspect the reasons are more to do with internal politics and corporate expediency than any other thing.

> It is about what some people choose to call life, the universe and everything, as long as it doesn't threaten brand or legal issues or the presumed virtues of UK society.

Oh yes, it is a lie, or maybe a brand, which is a special kind of lie.

> Once the sites are opened to the public, the owners no longer own everything, no matter what they say.

This is very interesting - and yes, it has been apparent for a long time that the BBC did not really understand what it had got when it got h2g2. One of the things which fascinates me in all places, and particularly here, is what happens when hosts have to live up to their commitment to freedom for their guests. It is similar to watching parents live up to a commitment letting their children make their own mistakes. Some people do live up to those commitments to devolve their power, and others do not. And as you imply, some guests and some children wrest power from their elders. Goneril, Regan, Lear.

> They have custody of something that goes way beyond their ownership, and they have assumed, whether intentionally or not, a public trust, which they have recently failed to uphold in my view.

The nub of this question is 'what is that public trust'? Until that is defined it is impossible to be certain whether or not they have failed to uphold it. We all have different expectations of that public trust, and therefore our reactions are different in each of us. I am disappointed, but I am not surprised, and I have worked too long in the corporate world to be certain that I would not have taken the exact same decisions.

> So, I will continue to denounce them for this betrayal again and again in the cold, dark, black and white world of youth, because that's what they have done.

Good. I fear a world in which no-one says 'this is black' and 'this is white' as much as I fear a world in which everyone says that. So long as people also hear the birdsong...

> Whether you consider it right, wrong, indifferent or expedient, that's what they have done.

What *do* I consider it? Right legally, wrong morally, indifferent in the grand scheme of things and expedient from a corporate point of view. Slippery things, words, aren't they?

Once again, I am heartened by what you have posted, Analiese.

Ben

One thing that is for sure, no one can take your opinions and beliefs from you. They are as personal and intimate as your own fantasies are.
Unless the BBC has started hiring "Thought Police"
"Big Brother" is watching you. But, when hasn't he?
The only thing certain is you have your own thoughts, beliefs, desires, fantasies, and ideas.
Remember that with relish, and cherish and value your own mind. You are the proud owner of a great thing
Does this make any sense, or am I just rambling?

Ben: "As one of the most irritating Americans I am aware of says, 'questions are the answer'." - Which irritating American is this?

I read "the question is the answer" repeated many times over the course of a fantasy novel/series... unfortunately, I cannot recall which. It comes to mind every once in a while, when I discover a clearly self-answering question. Now it's annoying me because I cannot recall the source.

"Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of publication"

This is quite true, but the issue here really is one of free speech and not one of freedom of publication. On the internet, the distinction between speech and publication is muddied, because everything is in (semi) permanent written form (excluding IRC and IM). What distinguishes "publication" from "speech" in the context of the internet is that some things are selected and given a special position. In H2G2 this is codified by the distinction between the edited and unedited guide.

The whole point of the distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of publication is that freedom of speech is a weaker right than freedom of publication, because if you are published your words are spread much wider and taken more seriously. Given the enormous number of conversations on H2G2, any thread on Iraq must be considered as exactly that, a conversation, not a publication.

You could say that the distinction between free speech and freedom of publication is that freedom of publication implies that someone else publish you. However, this denies the possibility of any "speech" on the internet because anything on the internet relies on others (even if you have set up your own server).

So, to say that this is not a free speech issue is to say that there is no such thing as speech on the internet, only publication. This would be to radically redefine the word speech (in the context of the internet).

My point is this: the BBC is not under any obligation to set up a service on the internet where we can come and talk, but given that they have the issue really is free speech. As I said in my letter (A1001791), setting up an alternative service is irrelevant because the people reading "The Great Debate" page are not the H2G2 community. It's perverse to consider it an equivalent service, in exactly the same way it would be perverse to consider a service run by another institution as equivalent. It is not equivalent just because it is run by the same institution. Would it be equivalent if the BBC had two services, one called "Animal Rights Club" and one called "Aristocrats' Hunting Ground", and the animal rights people were told they couldn't talk about the politics of the fox-hunting ban on their board because for technical reasons they could only moderate one board and it was a politically sensitive subject?

I believe that what seperates "speech" from "publication" on the internet is permanence. Anything said in an IM chat would constitute speech, because once it scrolls off the top of your window, it's gone. Everything you write on h2g2, on the other hand, is published, because it remains, barring moderation, liquidation, or those incessant proxy errors, permanent.

Is it not as I mentioned in post 20 more a consideration of quotes taken out of BBC webspace being interpreted by a third party as being BBC sanctioned?

That's what I have been believing.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Obviously, you can define that as your distinction between the two, but if you do so you have to argue why that particular distinction is important in this case. In the post above, I tried to distinguish between the two on the basis of the reason for making the distinction, and by the practical effects of the distinction. I think your distinction is based on a side effect rather than a significant feature.

cl zoomer, yes that's probably the overriding consideration, but somewhat hard to sustain given that at the bottom of this page it says "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC." It would be a bit like blaming radio manufacturers for things said on pirate radio, or telephone companies for something said to you on the phone.

No, I quite understand why the BBC wants to do this, but I don't think it's reasonable. Legally they're fine, no doubt, although I'd like to draw your attention to article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the same as article 11 part 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The distinction between temporary and permanent availability is certainly a clearer distinction between edited and unedited status within the Guide. After all, if the BBC has no legal responsibility for what happens in the conversation forums, then why are they moderating at all?

The difference between the Edited Guide and the conversations is not significant when viewed by an outsider. To them, it's all permanent content bearing the BBC label.

I believe the statement on opinion is similar to the writing on the back of a ticket that supposedly absolves the event holder from liability. It has no real legal basis and is meant only to discourage legal action.

Blatherskite, I might agree that unedited entries are "published" (although I think that's stretching the term almost to breaking point), but certainly conversations are not. Their nature is too plainly obvious for there to be any doubt.

As I said, I understand why they're doing it but refuse to consider it reasonable. Expedient maybe, but not reasonable.

You all seem to ignore that we are dealing with a bureaucrasy here, and rule number one in one is *Cover Your @ss*!

Blimey - busy here.

Dragonlady - you are absolutely right that the only thing certain is you have your own thoughts, beliefs, desires, fantasies, and ideas. If you get the chance to read 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor Frankl please do so.

Blatherskite - 'Questions are the Answer' is a saying of Tony Robbins. Is 'the question is the answer' a mantra from 'Wizard's First Rule'?

Dogster, Blatherskite, cl zoomer - The problem is that the law was framed for speech which is ephemeral and print which is permanent; it does not really cope very well television and radio, let alone the internet. In the UK the law destinguishes between 'libel' which is written and 'slander' which is spoken.

In my view everything and anything which is written across the internet is permanent. I use Trillian most of the time, which logs all IM conversations, and I say nothing in an IM conversation which I am not prepared to assume is permanent.

The BBC IS responsible for what it broadcasts on the radio and TV no matter who says the words - If I were to phone a BBC radio station and start to broadcast obscenities I would expect to be silenced. I for one regard all content on the site here as published, and not just the Edited entries.

There are three separate issues here - the legal position as the BBC believes it to be - the legal position as defined by judges in a court case - and the moral position as each of us assumes it to be.

It becomes clearer if we look at the reasons why we use h2g2. I use it because of the convenience of use and presentation, and the nature of the audience I reach. I can reach a demographic via h2g2 that I have not been able to reach in any other way. These factors look suspiciously like publication to me.

Ben

Well now it's annoying me too. Quite significantly. Kindly post the answer as soon as it occurs to you, Blatherskite.



Which was written by...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"