Interesting amount of chatter around the AP piece picked up on various news sites. Due to overly aggressive and short sighted AP limitations I cannot quote from the story. But the core of the piece is while free speech is protected offline, it is not in many online sites.
There is an indignant tone to the article that suggests individual rights are being violated by private companies choosing to remove user content from their sites. The simple truth is that free speech protection as a constitutional right does not extend into someone's property. It is interesting to me that people expect the opposite.
Deciding what to allow on company sites is a complex issue. Dell's rules of engagement are often cited as a good example, and it covers both our commitments as well as what we ask of the people participating in the conversations. At Military Child we are about to launch our new site which will include a new focus on conversations both on our site and others. While every organization needs to decide what is right for their own brand and audience, in general the policy should lean toward openness.
Comments