Kommentaatorite suhtumine online kommentaariumite regulatsiooni
Date
2007
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Tartu Ülikool
Abstract
Description
In the bachelor’s thesis the attitude of online commentators towards the so-called Delfi
draft (draft legislation amending the Electronic Communication Act, the Information
Society Services Act, the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of
Misdemeanor Procedure) and other means regulating commenting was researched
involving the period 25.02.2005-07.05.2007.
The methods used were text analysis, with a comment as a unit of analysis, and a standard
online questionnaire.
The main questions and hypotheses of the thesis were:
1. Which are the principal arguments of commentators against the draft legislation?
2. Which method of regulation is preferred by the commentators themselves?
Hypothesis 1. Opposition to the draft legislation is maintained although time passes.
Hypothesis 2. Commentators are against any regulations (limitations).
The research work for the seminar is a part of the bachelor’s thesis. During the first period
(25.02.2005-01.05.2006) 2915 comments were analyzed for the seminar. During the
second period (08.05.2007-09.05.2007) 266 comments were analyzed for the thesis. The
analyzed comments had been made on the articles, which dealt with regulating means
imposing limits on making comments, e.g. registration, deletion, draft legislation.
An article was published in Postimees online to encourage the commentators to express
their opinions in the commentary room with regard to the imposition of regulations. The article received 91 comments and these comments were also analyzed by the means of text
analysis.
There were also published 6 questions on the web page of Postimees. The aim of these
questions was to find out the opinions of readers and commentators with regard to
regulations and commenting in general.
All these data were compared and analyzed and the questions and hypotheses got the
following answers:
1. The principal arguments against the draft legislation were that Estonian politicians
would benefit from this law and this draft will restrict the freedom of speech.
2. The commentators did not suggest any preferred means of regulation, but they are
definitely against any restricting laws.
Hypothesis 1: Opposition to the draft legislation is maintained although time passes. It
has proved true.
Hypothesis 2. Commentators are against any regulation (limitations). It was partially
proved as the number of those commentators, who understand the need for
regulations, has increased.
There was a need to carry out a research in the given issue to map the present situation in
commentary rooms of the Estonian daily newspapers before the corresponding draft
legislation will be open for discussion.
Keywords
H Social Sciences (General)