104 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
104 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
PRODIGY STUMBLES AS A FORUM ... AGAIN
|
|
By Mike Godwin
|
|
|
|
|
|
On some days, Prodigy representatives tell us they're running "the Disney
|
|
Channel of online services." On other days the service is touted as a
|
|
forum for "the free expression of ideas." But management has missed the
|
|
conflict between these two missions. And it is just this unperceived
|
|
conflict that has led the B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League to launch
|
|
a protest against the online service..
|
|
|
|
|
|
On one level, the controversy stems from Prodigy's decision to censor
|
|
messages responding to claims that, among other things, the Holocaust
|
|
never took place. These messages--which included such statements as
|
|
"Hitler had some valid points" and that "wherever Jews exercise influence
|
|
and power, misery, warfare and economic exploitation ... follow"--were the
|
|
sort likely to stir up indignant responses among Jews and non-Jews alike.
|
|
But some Prodigy members have complained to the ADL that when they tried
|
|
to respond to both the overt content of these messages and their implicit
|
|
anti-Semitism, their responses were rejected by Prodigy's staff of
|
|
censors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rationale for the censorship? Prodigy has a policy of barring messages
|
|
directed at other members, but allows messages that condemn a group. The
|
|
result of this policy, mechanically applied, is that one member can post a
|
|
message saying that "pogroms, 'persecutions,' and the mythical holocaust"
|
|
are things that Jews "so very richly deserve" (this was an actual
|
|
message). But another member might be barred from posting some like
|
|
"Member A's comments are viciously anti-Semitic." It is no wonder that the
|
|
Anti-Defamation League is upset at what looks very much like unequal
|
|
treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the problem exposed by this controversy is broader than simply a badly
|
|
crafted policy. The problem is that Prodigy, while insisting on its Disney
|
|
Channel metaphor, also gives lip service to the notion of a public forum.
|
|
Henry Heilbrunn, a senior vice president of Prodigy, refers in the Wall
|
|
Street Journal to the service's "policy of free expression," while Bruce
|
|
Thurlby, Prodigy's manager of editorial business and operations, invokes
|
|
in a letter to ADL "the right of individuals to express opinions that are
|
|
contrary to personal standards or individual beliefs."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet it is impossible for any free-expression policy to explain both the
|
|
allowing of those anti-Semitic postings and the barring of responses to
|
|
those postings from outraged and offended members. Historically, this
|
|
country has embraced the principle that best cure for offensive or
|
|
disturbing speech is more speech. No regime of censorship--even of the
|
|
most neutral and well-meaning kind--can avoid the kind of result that
|
|
appears in this case: some people get to speak while others get no chance
|
|
to reply. So long as a board of censors is in place, Prodigy is no public
|
|
forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, the service is left in a double bind. If Prodigy really means to be
|
|
taken as a computer-network version of "the Disney Channel"--with all the
|
|
content control that this metaphor implies--then it's taking
|
|
responsibility for (and, to some members, even seeming to endorse) the
|
|
anti-Semitic messages that were posted. On the other hand, if Prodigy
|
|
really regards itself as a forum for free expression, it has no business
|
|
refusing to allow members to respond to what they saw as lies,
|
|
distortions, and hate. A true free-speech forum would allow not only the
|
|
original messages but also the responses to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, what's the fix for Prodigy? The answer may lie in replacing the
|
|
service's censors with a system of "conference hosts" of the sort one sees
|
|
on CompuServe or on the WELL. As WELL manager Cliff Figallo conceives of
|
|
his service, the management is like an apartment manager who normally
|
|
allows tenants to do what they want, but who steps in if they do something
|
|
outrageously disruptive. Hosts on the WELL normally steer discussions
|
|
rather than censoring them, and merely offensive speech is almost never
|
|
censored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
But even if Prodigy doesn't adopt a "conference host" system, it
|
|
ultimately will satisfy its members better if it does allow a true forum
|
|
for free expression. And the service may be moving in that direction
|
|
already: Heilbrunn is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that
|
|
Prodigy has been loosening its content restrictions over the past month.
|
|
Good news, but not good enough--merely easing some content restrictions is
|
|
likely to be no more successful at solving Prodigy's problems than
|
|
Gorbachev's easing market restrictions was at solving the Soviet Union's
|
|
problems. The best solution is to allow what Oliver Wendell Holmes called
|
|
"the marketplace of ideas" to flourish--to get out of the censorship
|
|
business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org
|
|
Electronic Frontier Foundation | EFF administrivia to: office@eff.org
|
|
155 Second Street | Flames to:
|
|
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
|