Whilst reading the Guardian’s RSS feed on my iPod Touch on the bus yesterday I came across an article entitled “The internet – a threat to free speech?“. The opening sentence was intriguing “It’s probably not the best time to be seen defending an MP, but here goes“. In the article Padraig Reidy described how “Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has been pilloried for likening the Daily Telegraph’s handling of the MPs’ expenses story to “torture” – drip-feeding information and keeping MPs waiting nervously by the phone each morning, awaiting the dreaded call“. And this complaint, it seems, was published on her blog, in which Nadine Dorries questioned the motives of the Telegraph and its owners, the Barclay brothers.
Now although I have little sympathy for Tory MPs, I am concerned with the news that “solicitors acting for the Telegraph and the Barclay brothers sent [a] complaint about not just to Dorries, but to her internet service provider, TDMWeb” which resulted in Dorries’ blog being taken down by the ISP. And although the blog was later restored, it seems that the material the Telegraph and the Barclays found so offensive has been removed.
The Blog of Nadine Dorries MP was launched in August 2006. It has a blog policy on the home page stating:
“It’s simple. Be nice. If you try and misinterpret the position I have laid out in a blog; if you swear, are rude, abusive, aggressive or threatening, I will not publish. If you want to be any of the above, there are lots of other sites you can go to.
This blog is civil, respectful and will try always to be caring (except when in verbally, armed, political combat) I will not tolerate the harsh political, aggressive tones accepted on other blogs. Anyone who breaks these rules will be sent to the naughty step until they learn to behave. I have a very keen nose for Trolls, so beware.“
Although I’ve not read any of the posts on the blog I’m pleased that an MP has been blogging for that length of time. And I’m very concerned that a newspaper can insist that a critical blog post can be removed and that the ISP will cave in. A clear example of the dangers of flaws in the legal system which can cause an ISP to cave into such threats. And we should be pleased we won’t experience such problems in our sector.
Of could we? I recently looked at the “IT ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY” at the University of Bath, order drugs online which covers us of blogs hosted at the University. This states that “You must not use University computing services to harass, defame, libel, slander, intimidate, impersonate or otherwise abuse another person“. It goes on to state that a breach of the AUP can include “Copyright infringement“. Hmm. A search reveals I’ve written several blogs posts containing the words ‘George Bush’ – and they were unlikely to have been complementary! And I’ve also embedded various images, YouTube videos, etc. which may infringe copyright. So if this blog was hosted on the University of Bath blog server there could be a risk that I could face pressure to moderate my posts. A very slight risks, I’ll admit, and I would be prepared to justify the content I’ve published. But if the IT Services department was as easily intimidated as the provider of Dorries’ blog, there might be a risk.
I’ve also recently come across consortia agreements which contained a clause that organisations would not publish content which critical of other signatories (this wasn’t the exact wording, please note). So if, for example, JISC has signed up to such an agreement and I was posting on a JISC Involve blog, I might not be able to post anything critical of other partner organisations. Now I don’t think such possibilities are likely. But, in light of the Nadine Dorries incident I think we need to be careful.
I could imagine some academics or academic disciplines in which one could envisage tensions between the individual and the institution. And the clause in the JISC Involve blog terms and conditions which states that JISC has the “right (though not the obligation) to, in JISC’s sole discretion (i) refuse or remove any content that, in JISC’s reasonable opinion, violates any JISC policy or is in any way harmful or objectionable” seems to set a particulurly worying precedent – content can be removed if someone in JISC deems it “in any way harmful or objectionable“. I wonder if this post, which expresses concerns over this clause, could be considered objectionable and subject to removal if my blog was hosted on the JISC Involve service?
In order to avoid such risks wouldn’t it be desirable to make use of an external blog provider will whom one has a disinterested relationship? And if the service provider in based overseas we might avoid the pressures which have occurred in the Dorries blog case. WordPress pr Blogger, anyone? And that includes MPs such as Nadine Dorries.
Brian, sympathies for Tory MP’s , in the illustrious words of Victor Meldrew ,”I cannot believe it” .
However you do raise interesting questions about blog usage and institutional policy, we have to think smarter we are applying “modern” principles of media control to a “postmodern” media world, there has to be a better way.
We talk in dulcet tones of “the wisdom of the crowd” (sic) but our policies do not seem to embrace this…
A threat to free speech I don’t think so… the media must learn to live in a postmodern world where their (media) authority is challenged.
These guidelines are always written on the assumption that the people enforcing them will have common sense.
As a sysop, my ideal use policy is “You may not use our computers or websites at all. (* enforcement at the discretion of the sysops)”
I can’t (pre-coffee) think of a good way to word a set of rules so that it allowed such a political accusation (or so close to an accusation as to be splitting hairs), while banning abuse, bullying and other behavior we don’t want.
A blanket usage policy like most places have is like the UK cameras. So long as the cameras are just being used to stop crime, and access to the data is tightly controlled, they do little real harm. But in 10 years time we may have a much scarier government who can flip the whole system to a more evil purpose with no warning. Unenforced, but potentially draconian rules about content is very similar to this.
As a community, the Internet needs to evolve some accurate usage guidelines which can be adopted by ISPs etc. The facebook incident showed that service providers will modify policy based on public pressure.
The question is, what should that policy be?
A very clear first step would be to distinguish between personal and private lives. ie. saying singer X is pretty but sounds rubbish is OK, commenting on aspects of her romantic life is not.
Another approach would be to make the poster of the material responsible for the publishing of that material. If it’s libelous or threatening then that’s a legal matter.
The current crap going on makes me *wish* it was really aimed at taking down the government in a genius coup, but sadly I suspect it’s just to sell newspapers. Luckily it appears to have cured swine flu (oh, no, wait… That appears to be still going on, just nobody cares after the next item hits the news)
Do you think that Bath would listen to your case? I work in a University that has blocked all technical staff from having any personal webpage what-so-ever.
I would go along the lines that if you hosted a blog on a University server that was completely legal and complimentary, yet doesn’t have an academic or educational aspect then that is just as likely to get it removed.
Brian,
just a technical query really – interested in your mention of reading your feeds on your ipod touch while on the bus: were you on- or off-line at the time? I bought a Touch last year hoping to use it for a similar purpose (well, that was my excuse) but, since I usually read my feeds via Google Reader, was looking to see Gears become available – our local buses don’t (yet) have wifi installed 😉 But it (Gears) doesn’t seem to have arrived yet.
Any pointers to your solution gratefully received…
and ‘Keep Up the Good Work’ as they say – the blog is an invaluable insight into HEI 2.0 and other issues besides.
Peter
@Pete Ashe
Thanks for your comments
I use the Netnewswire RSS reader. There’s a version available for free for offline use on the iPod Touch which synches with the server version. You can also favourite posts on the iPod Touch which can then be viewed online.
Ah, thanks Brian – v helpful pointer.
Yet another reason to switch to the Mac 😉
Though even if I did, I’d want to investigate the possibility of transferring over all my tags & tagged posts from G’Reader. The baggage suddenly seems substantial!
thanks again though – v helpful.
Peter
@Peter – Didn’t mean to suggest that the RSS readers were mac-only. I’ve updated the link in my previous comment so it points to the full list of RSS clients. Note I use the MS Windows client on my desktop.