Nuust, Vallo, juhendajaTosso, ErleTartu Ülikool. SotsiaalteaduskondTartu Ülikool. Ajakirjanduse ja kommunikatsiooni osakond2010-10-212010-10-212007http://hdl.handle.net/10062/15647In 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.application/pdfH Social Sciences (General)meediauus meediavõrguväljaandedkommentaaridhoiakudsõnavabadusinformatsioonivabadusbakalaureusetöödThesis