Defending Free Exchange of Ideas

On September 25, someone contacted me about one of the posts I archive on this website, requesting a page to be removed because my quoting her public comment created "erroneous impression." Her argument was that because I did not include her reply, the page failed to provide the context for the statement that I was quoting and commenting on. The original interaction took place in the Women's Studies list and her posts are archived in the WMST-L File Collection, which was fine with her because it gave the whole context. Fair enough. Below is the response I sent her in which I offered several remedies, and another email I sent after she kept requesting the page be deleted altogether.

Forum: Private Email
Date: 09/29/2003

******,

Thanks for sharing your concern with me, but I am weary of complying with requests to "delete discussions." If you feel that I am not giving enough context to your quote, I would be happy to address that by a) add a link to the WMST-L archive so readers can see the whole exchange, b) include your subsequent comment in the page, or c) include this email you sent me. Would either of these options satisfy you?

Emi K.

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

Date: 09/29/2003

******,

The reason I do not agree with "total deletion" is because I believe that comments published in a public mailing lists are publications just like any other, which would mean that others may quote the comment without the author's specific permission for the purpose of review or criticism (WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, Article 10). I did not seek your consent for me to quote your comments in my post or website because I strongly believe that to require consent before one's published comment can be quoted would be morally wrong, as it would stifle free exchange of ideas and information that is vital for democratic and creative processes.

I am very concerned about recent copyright legislations in my country that purport to "strengthen" copyright protections, when in reality they would only protect certain commercial interests (music and movie industries attacking otherwise legal re-uses of CDs and DVDs, pharmaceuticals blocking the production of cheaper AIDS drugs, etc.). When I say that I do not need your consent, I'm not doing something just because I legally can; I truly believe in defending the "fair use" convention in any way I can, which I view as the foundation for democracy and culture. Given the current climate of ever- expanding powers of the copyright holders that threaten our society, I find your request for "total deletion" based on lack of "consent" immoral, which is why I do not feel obligated to comply with it legally or morally.

I am very much concerned about fairness, and that is why I offered you various options. For me, being respectful of those I quote means that I do not intentionally twist their words or take them out of context. It means that I correctly and prominently attribute each comment to the author who stated it. It means that I would be open to discussion and redress when the person I quote tells me that I mischaracterised their words. But it does NOT mean that I seek consent before quoting them, or deleting mentions of their comment altogether simply becuase it is requested. That is not respect; it is stifling of intellectual exchange.

Frankly, I do not even feel that I mischaracterised your comment, but I realise that you disagree with me on this. Because fairness is important to me, I offered you several options that would resolve the potential problem that you felt existed. Thank you for your specific permission to reproduce your later comment on my website-- I think my readers would benefit from having access to the whole exchange. I will make the change to the website sometime this week.

Best,

Emi K.

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.