Free Speech and YouTube

July 13, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Laurie Niles' blog about the rude comments on YouTube left me feeling a bit like a mugwump: sitting on a fence with my "mug" on one side, and my "wump" on the other. What she said about some of the nasty comments on YouTube is all too true. They are uncalled for, and like her, I doubt that those posting those comments would have the temerity to say them to the faces of their victims. But Yixi made a good point also: such anonymous comments shouldn't have any power over us.
(Full disclosure here: I posted a YouTube video of me playing Brother James' Air last year, and while it wasn't my best performance, all comments have been quite positive).
I think that whenever one plays publicly, one is at the mercy of whoever is listening. In other words, if beauty is in the eye (or the ear) of the beholder, one must accept that some will absolutely hate the presentation, for whatever reason. Now, I'm not saying that this excuses rude, ignorant, bilious comments. In a civilized society, people should keep discourse as civil as possible, and that includes criticism of artistic works and performances. Criticism should be based on the merits of the performance/presentation rather than on personal attacks against the artist. There are many ways to say that a performance was not good without being insulting, and ad hominem attacks say much more about the attacker than they do about the one being attacked. But any time an artist does something publicly, he or she must accept that some people will not like what has been done. And in our society, we do have the right to say we don't like something that someone else has done. That is the risk of being an artist of any kind. Critics abound in any field, and people know what they know and what they like (or dislike).
Now, I agree with Laurie, that some vile comments are so destructive, so mean spirited (especially on the internet), that they should just be deleted; internet trolls should not be suffered anywhere on the web, and most forums have moderators who will ban those whose main purpose is to make trouble. YouTube and other sites like it are not forums, and a person can post something there without making it public (although I don't know what would be the point). If you do make your page public, you certainly have the right, and perhaps the responsiblity, to delete objectionable comments; the people who post such comments should not be engaged on any level, because they are not interested in any genuine kind of debate. However, solid, constructive critism, while painful, can help with performance. I think you *have* to have a thick skin to be able to do anything like performing publicly. You have to be able to stand back and honestly evaluate legitimate cricism for its merits. If you can do that, your performance ability can only benefit.

From Yixi Zhang
Posted on July 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Here is where this reply I meant to put. Duh!

Very good discussion, Laurie, and a lot of good points, especially about the right and responsibility of deleting objectionable material.
The freedom of speech is the freedom of those who owns a forum for expressions. Some of us seem to think free speech should be enjoyed by everyone, any time and everywhere in a free society. This is clearly not what the speech right is about. Speech rights, like all other civil liberties and human rights, are intended to primarily protect individual’s freedom against the state or the government. It is not applicable in private settings such as someone’s home or one’s own website. At home, like in any small communities, people set their own rules for members to follow. At someone else’s website or, say, at a grocery store, members of a society are invited to visit and enjoy as long as they obey the policies set by the owners. As invitees, what we then enjoy at the websites or grocery stores are certain privileges solely granted by the website or store owners, and such privileges can be taken away any time at the owner’s discretion based on his/her policy.

Can a store owner tell you to leave the store because you have violated his policy (and the way he interprets the policy)? Absolutely! Has he limited your mobility right by doing so? Yes. Is this justifiable? Most likely. For the same token, a website moderator’s deletion of your comment is a form of censorship, but it is completely different from the censorship comes from the government. Again, it is the latter our speech rights are what worth protecting.

From Laurie Trlak
Posted on July 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Okay, I got the posts deleted that were in the wrong place.
Thanks for your comments. Too many people think "free speech" means being able to say what they want, when they want, where ever they want, without any criticism or repercussions whatsoever. Of course, that's not what it means at all, but trying to convince people of that will likely get labeled a fascist. They forget that free speech cuts both ways: the freedom to speak and the freedom to respond. And of course, freedom of speech is not absolute; as someone once famously said (was it Oliver Wendell Holmes?), you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

This entry has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.

Free Speech and YouTube

Subscribe

Laurie's Books