first off, I do not understand why we need to discuss this in English. As fas as I can tell all active participants of the discussion are Estonians. For that reason I will continue in Estonian. If you do not understand Estonian I recommend that you use http://translate.google.com and pray that they do good enough job at translating from Estonian to English. Or Kari can exercise his right as the owner of this blog and censure my commentary.

Tahtsin anda ka oma väikese panuse sellesse diskussiooni enne kui pühapäeval sellest näost-näkku räägime.

Murray Rothbard ja mitmed teised libertaalid väidavad (minu arvates küllalt veenvalt), et kõik vabadused (negatiivsed vabadused) on taandatavad eraomandile. Sõnavabaduse puhul tähendab see seda, et minu omandusel oleval maal võin öelda mida tahan ning teised (kellele see maa ei kuulu) võivad seda teha ainult minu loal. Ma loodan, et see on suhteliselt mitte-vastuoluline seisukoht – kui keegi tuleb minu koju (algselt minu kutsel) ja hakkab mind või mu peret mõnitada on mul õigus teda välja visata. Sama kehtib ka minu poolt välja antava ajalehe/TV/raadio ja online väljaande (blogi) kohta. Sellist printsiipi järgides saab tsensuuriks olla ainult riiklikult kehtestatud piirangud minu vara kasutamise kohta sõnavabaduse kontekstis. Minu enda reeglid selle kohta mida minu väljaandes avaldatakse ei saa olla tsensuur, vähemalt mitte üldise sõnavabaduse kontekstis. See, et minu poolt välja antav päevaleht/veebisait on kõige loetavam, ei tee sellest automaatselt ühiskondlikku omandit, see on ikkagi minu eraomand ja seal info/arvamuste avaldamise reeglid kehtestan mina. Kaudseks põhjenduseks on kasvõi väljaande ülalpidamisega seotud kulud mida kannab väljaandja. Kui võib jääda mulje, et “internet on ju tasuta” siis tegelikkuses on veebisaidi pidamisega seotud kulud ning mida suurem sait seda suuremad on need kulud (serverimaht + traffic).

Praegusel kujul saab siis antud diskussioon käia ainult selles osas, mida võiksid meediakanalid oma äranägemise järgi avaldada ning mida mitte. Kõrvaltvaatajatena saame teha neile ainult soovitusi, mida ka memokraat on teinud.

Riiklike reeglite kehtestamine oleks kindlasti tsensuur. Me peaksime iga hinnaga vältima sellise pretsedendi tekitamist. Kui praegu võivad meil võimul (või isegi parlamendis) olla erakonnad kelles me ei näe ohtu sõnavabadusele ning loodame, et nende kehtestatud reeglid piiravad väheste õigusi siis ei saa me olla kindlad, et tulevikus ei tule võimule keegi kes arvab, et vastu võetud reegleid võiks laiendada “tagamaks rahva õiglustunde puutumatust” või “demokraatliku diskusiooni puhtuse tagamist”.

Loodan, et kedagi sellega ei solvanud.

P.S. Rakendasin selle kommentaari kirjutamisel enesetsensuuri – ei kirjutanud sellest kes ma arvan, et te tegelikult olete ega seda mida ma arvan teie arvamustest. Selline väike näide tsensuurist. Sue me!

And as you know, the case with Estonian online comment system has been that xenophobic and other -phobic stuff was never moderated either. So, the level where this would be moderated would already be a huge step.

The way I understand it, the service provider has a legal duty to remove content that is illegal. What constitutes illegal content is questionable as there is no significant body of cases or guidelines on what is and what is not allowed under the incitement to hatred on racial grounds for example (§ 151 of the Penal Code has rarely been used). Outside of criminal law, there is definitely a margin of appreciation for the siteowner on what kind of comments to allow, but it should not become a tool for discrimination or suffocation of freedom of speech. It is open to debate where the line should be drawn: you seem to advocate a cleaner, moderated, and more quality-oriented discussion space, whereas I also see the value in low barriers of entry and wider participation.

One solution would be to create an independent appeals body (similar ot ASN or Pressinõukogu), where one could appeal the moderator’s decision and from which certain common practices could arise, which would also create legal certainty in what can and what cannot be deleted.

Further, well, yes, it is totally agreeable that the matter of insult is subjective, therefore to be handled with care.

And we have pointed out the other side of it, what happens if there is total lack of both, handling and care and we have not invited anyone to go to the other extreme. What we pointed out was that, if you do not have good practice, there is actually a threat that some new Rein Lang will come up with a regulation that no one would like.

Finally, I can not help but ask one question – Delfi.ee has reportedly taken down 14 721 insulting comments in August 2009 and in all likelihood is continuing to be more strict, rather than less. Postimees.ee is moderating comments and so is also Epl.ee.

So, do you consider this development a threat to the freedom of speech in Estonia?

The NYT and HS are different in my mind. They have never provided commenting in such a large scale (you must even register to read NYT articles only, if I am not mistaken). In the area of internet I do not think these newspapers are to be set as some sort of examples how things should be. I think that in Estonia these comments are more than simply few readers voicing their opinions about newspaper articles, that they have become larger than the newspaper hosting them and therefore there is a special duty that the NYT or HS might not have.

I completely agree with the notion of radicalisation, I just have not seen that this happens in this case. I still refuse to agree with the argument that there is a suppression of freedom of speech. The fact that some people feel it is so does not make it so. I doubt that any court would accept it as a valid argument.

Most of the trollhunter document seems to me to be dedicated to fighting against anonymity, but if that is not the case then I stand corrected.

As I was the one pointing out in the thread that the argument that “people are not obligated to care what is written about them in comments” itself is superficial and rude to many people, I did not make the point that your opinion itself is trolling, your opinion was considered valuable as were the others.

Why is this a mistake? Because you push the judgment issues to the straw man level of saying that any opinion that is not liked or is considered unwishful is “trolling” in our opinion. That has never been the case.

Without wanting to go into too much argument, my second comment is – what about New York Times that is moderating comments and what about Helsinkin Sanomat that is actually pre-moderating comments. Are these newspapers threatening freedom of speech in their respective countries? I could suggest that you seem to mix different venues and levels of freedom.

Another error is obviously due to the lack of reference. It is NOT an unresearched fact that radicalisation can happen in conditions where opinion of some is supressed and the trollhunter paper gives also quotes for that. Also you might want to read “The Banality of Evil” by Hannah Arendt or other such works that show the baby-step logic of radicalization.

And finally one claim which I definitley need to oppose – you say that according to the authors, anonymity itself is the root of evil. Thus you are ignoring manyfold assurances, both in the document and also in the commentary thread, that this simply is not our claim. It is quite fascinating that you still find yourself able to put it this way.