Freedom of Speech and the Internet

Every once in a while I like to log on to facebook and check out some of the discussion on various political pages, which has lead to this explanation of freedom of speech.

The first thing, and perhaps the only thing, I want to explain is that the right to freedom of speech does not affect anything on facebook, myspace, blogs, etc. The first amendment is a right that in the beginning prevented only the federal government from censoring people and their ideas. This right was later expanded to include a requirement of the various states to abstain from interfering with freedom of speech under the 14th amendment. (It took a while after the 14th amendment was passed to apply that right).

The point of explaining this is to show that freedom of speech is a "negative liberty" or in other words it keeps certain entities from removing your right to free speech. It does not however entitle anyone to a platform from which to project their message. That would be a "positive liberty". So when you complain about facebook censoring your words, posts, groups or other activities, it is completely within their right. The command to forbear from interfering in your free speech does not apply to them. You are essentially on private property, perhaps the last private property to have any rights in the U.S.

Imagine, if you will, a large tract of land where a person, we'll call him Mark just for kicks, invites you to come and live in a home. Mark does not give you any land, but gives you a basic home and allows you to dress it up the way you want. The land is Mark's, the house is Mark's and because of the agreement you signed when you moved onto Mark's land everything inside the house is Mark's as well.

So after you are happily settled into this house that Mark has given you, lets say he comes by one day and asks you to take down a mural of shakira you painted on the outside of your home. Lets also say that you disagree with Mark and you decide to leave up the mural. One day you come home and your mural has been white-washed clean off of your house. What are you going to do?

The land belongs to Mark, the house belongs to Mark. What right do you have to complain about him taking down something that he doesn't want on his land and building?

It is exactly the same way with facebook (Whose founder happens to be Mark Zuckerburg). Mark owns the website, mark owns the code that you use on a daily basis. If Mark wants to take something down it is purely at his discretion.

So please, before you complain about freedom of speech on facebook, remember that you don't have a right to be there, you are there as a guest. And please, understand that just because you think you have rights doesn't mean that you understand how those are applied. Your freedom of speech is only existent when you own the "land" and the "house".

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

Over all I would have to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 was a great movie. It had action, it actually followed the book quite closely and the special effects were great. I do however, have two major complaints about the film. The acting was spotty in places and sometimes the action was just a little bit too fast paced.

The acting of the support cast was magnificent, as usual, so the focus will mostly be on our heroic trio.

Rupert Grint gave a great performance as our lovable goof-ball Ron Weasley. His acting was solid the whole way though and we got to see some new emotional reactions from him that we hadn't seen before. I would probably watch Rupert in anything after his performance in the Deathly Hallows (assuming its not rated R).

Emma Watson, what to say about Emma? It really seemed that she was trying to take on a grown up role in this movie but she wasn't quite ready for it. Not that she was terrible, far from it, but there were parts in the movie where she didn't quite portray the scene intelligibly to the audience. Occasionally I had to reference the book itself (mentally) to understand what she was trying to portray in the scene. It felt, very much, that reference to the book was an expectation of her performance. Like in filming the director just let small things go because it's assumed that everyone watching the movie has read the books.

Daniel Radcliff suffered somewhat the same, but to a lesser extent, from the same maladies that effected Watsons' performance. Still fun to see Harry though.

The movie itself was darker than I expected, even having read the book a couple of times, and I'm actually surprised that it got away with a PG-13 rating. In places it felt very light-less as opposed to just dark.