Jeff started with them on. Then he turned them off. Then, after going to INFOSOC and listening to what some of his fellow bloggers had to say (1.23MB .zip file), he suddenly turned them back on again. Then after a few days, he's made an announcement that turning them completely on was probably not such a good idea: he'll be moderating them beginning from today.
In less than 2 months, the issue of comments on one of Malaysia's premier blogs has gone into every direction possible. Jeff must be frustrated by some of the ningcampoops he's attracted, yet intrigued by some of the real conversations he's been generating.
There really are two sides of this commenting coin:
* Limiting comments restricts freedom of speech; in fact, i may own the website but my users own the comments. Besides, websites such as Jeff's should not fear legal liability because they can be considered a common carrier. Wrote Dinesh Nair recently:
bq. "When you do not moderate or exert any editorial control over content posted in comments, you play the role of a common carrier and cannot be held responsible for any legal ramifications arising from the comment."
* Its my blog. I can do what i want with it. I can leave comments on if i want to, but i can choose not to. If you have something to say, email me, or open your own blog and say it there. I am responsible for the content on my site and no one else.
Of the two opinions, i tend to lean towards the second. Though i've very, very rarely had the need to delete comments from my blogs (thanks, you 'all for playing nice), it doesn't mean that i believe my blog should be a free-for-all. There is a danger of things getting out of hand, as they have on occasion in Jeff's blog - and when that happens, the question that rises to my mind is who is responsible?
I was intrigued by Dinesh's comment - can websites be considered common carriers? These are my findings (based on Google searches):
# The term "common carrier" has been used exclusively by the courts to describe phone companies and Internet Service Providers. I've yet to find a case where a court of law has accepted the definition of a common carrier to include a website (thus protecting the owners of the website from legal liability). The secondary point to this is that it is within the sole jurisdiction of the courts to decide what is a "common carrier" and what is not.
# Even in cases where phone companies/ISPs have been defined as common carriers, the courts have made it a point to impose some strict controls to protect against abuse (e.g. in cases involving pornography).
Also, please read this, "Common Carrier Law" for an understanding of how this law interacts with the Internet.
These two points is mitigated somewhat by the Malaysian Government's promise not to censor the Internet; if there is a "promise not to censor":http://www.malaysia.net/dap/lks2069.htm, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right? The "Malaysiakini example":http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2676297.stm disproves this theory - the Government is more than willing to move on websites (and web content) that it finds "subversive".
And, although it hasn't happened yet, i think its just a matter of time before individuals are sued for libel and slander for content that they post on the Internet. Before, it was more difficult to do so: the Internet hides identities very well. But with the emergence of blogs (and how most blogs do not hide the identity of their owners), this trend will slowly begin reversing. Thus opening the doors to civil and criminal litigation.
This is not meant to scare, or deter anyone from writing. I just reckon that its important that we're aware of our responsibilities as writers and members of the larger public. Blogs have been said to be a revolution in publishing - it allows nearly anyone to say something and anything in an easy and efficient manner. Let's not get carried away with this wave without being aware that there may be some very sharp rocks just beneath the surface of the water.
Leave a comment