A deal like this - for an unspecified amount, and to a foreign media company whose investor is rumored to be Putin-friendly in a country already known for its censorship - recalls to mind that free speech rights are not international. Nor are they guaranteed when an American private company controls the content delivery method.
In America, free speech is most protected in public places. The courts have said over the years that the maximum protection to the right to free speech is given in these public forums, such as sidewalks, parks, and streets. However, absolute free speech protection is not a right on private property - some storefronts, for example. Each state differs in its definition of which malls are public places and which are private.
The internet isn't really a place. And it can certainly be argued that LiveJournal is a private business; one that puts substantial resources into providing the service, the storage space, the servers, etc. that allow users to express their opinions.
But it can also be argued that the free blog site is absolutely a public forum for expression, where assembly and discussion take place daily. Perhaps it is a sort of virtual "central park," with sidewalks freely available to all, and an irreplaceable service to the people who use it every day.
LJ has a long Terms of Service document that says "LiveJournal will generally not place a limit on the type or appropriateness of user content within journals," then goes on to list many limits on that content. Under the ToS, an account can be suspended or deactivated for posting anything that is copyrighted, harmful, indecent, pornographic, unlawful, vulgar, hateful, threatening, advertising, invading of someone's privacy, and more.
LJ also has what it calls an "Abuse team," which investigates blogs that are reported as being inappropriate. It has chosen to take an active role in monitoring and removing content that violates its ToS.
In May this year, LJ stirred a controversy by suspending about 500 accounts that were mostly fan fiction that may have included words like "incest" or "rape." Later, LJ apologized for shutting down the accounts and reinstated about half of them. In August LJ clarified that harmful content was:
Content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.Freedom of speech gives the unpopular speech an equal right to exist in public space. But if a large blogging company is deemed private space, what on the internet is actually deemed public? So many of the ways content is shared are owned by private companies - YouTube, MySpace, Blogger, Facebook... There are internet service providers who provide Web site hosting services. Could those sites be also considered private space? Can any site be considered public?
The problem may lie in the fact that it takes resources to run a Web site, and understandably, those should be protected. But it costs money to keep a street or park maintained and functioning as a public place. Taxes collectively pay for those. It could be that, to provide a public space free of private speech restrictions, America will need to allocate resources to that end.
However it's done, commercial interests should not be allowed to trample completely on free speech rights that are so intrinsically important to the Internet, and to the country. Suspension of 500 accounts by LJ (or by any other blogging Web site) is a small number, but is still a number of people whose free speech rights might be getting trampled. It's for those few that the First Amendment exists at all.
