Some people seem to find themselves in the worst of all worlds. The value of their literary efforts is claimed by their employers, while they are held responsible for what is said. In some not particularly extreme cases, employers have been so incensed by blogs that employees have been dismissed.
Of course this cuts right across the conventional claim that business is detached from politics. The relationship between employer and employee is rarely an equal one, making its regulation inevitable. It then necessarily becomes a political matter.
So if employers insist on having control of what can be said in weblogs, a whole area of political life is being constrained. What use is democracy and free speech if most of us are obliged to enter into contracts that prevent us from expressing our views about vital aspects of our lives?
The problems are not confined to junior staff. We can afford to wait while some of the big names dither over whether to start blogging. But it is a pity that so far Scott McNealy has been persuaded to refrain. His blog would certainly attract a large following and could be guaranteed to provide entertainment and perhaps even litigation.
Copyright in blogs might at first be supposed to belong to the authors. But many bloggers are tempted to use the apparently easy option provided by their employers' websites. That allows employers to claim the copyright to material, even if it is not created while working. This further extends the already doubtful principle that anything created by an employee belongs to the employer, even if the work is done at weekends in a shed at the bottom of the garden.
Or there are now huge weblog services such as MSN Spaces, where the operator of the service claims all rights to the material posted. It is hard to see any justification for this practice, even though it has not discouraged large numbers of people from signing up. Microsoft reserves the right to modify or remove anything that is published, as well as profiting from it in any way it can. The subscriber gives up all potential benefits.
Contradictorily, Microsoft allows some employees to retain copyright in their weblogs. The belief is that they may be more effective and more creative if they have the incentive of owning what they write. Moreover, there is the question of credibility, of the relative weight carried by copy written in the company's name or in the individual's name. Naturally, there is still likely to be a significant degree of self censorship in blogs that have employer support.
If you are thinking of starting your own weblog, it seems to make sense to check out a few things first, especially if you are an employee. One is the critical question of who will own the fruits of your efforts. Another is the employer's policy on what comments can be made publicly without the risk of punitive action.
When all that is sorted out, you also need to take care over where to publish your work. If you do not expect your output ever to have any value, it does not matter too much. But if there is potential worth to what you are planning, the choices will be much more restricted. Get it right, though, and you could achieve a big pay-off.
The article refers to two imaginary concepts; democracy and free speech.
Neither are implemented or rights, in Australia.
If the article is about Australia (that aspect is not mentioned in the article), then is should be mentioned explicitly, that free speech is not a right in Australia. And, it should be considered, and mentioned, that democracy, and whether it exists in Australia, is a subjective matter, and is very much, "in the eye of the beholder".
The reference in the article to democracy, in the context of the mention of democracy, is quite false.
Democracy has nothing to do with what people can say or do.
Democracy is solely to do with the method of government, not with the nature of the applicable laws, and the presence or absence of rights.
In fact, the only connection between free spech (or, rather, the lack of it), and democracy (or, rather, the lack of it), in Australia, relates to the imprisonment several years ago, of the man who tried to tell the Australian voting public, that the law provided for voters to vote democratically, and how they could vote democratically. He did not tel people how they should vote, only how they could vote, to vote democratically.
For that, he was imprisoned, and the law was subsequently changed, to ban democratic voting in Australian Federal elections.
But, the article has nothing to do with democracy, and, as I have said, any right to free speech in Australi, is purely imaginary, as we do not have an Billl of Rights, and the Australian Consitution does not include any right to free speech, and legal precedent shows that free speech does not exist in Australia.
.................................................