Survey Reveals Americans Support Blog Censorship 502
renai42 writes "A new survey has revealed that Americans overwhelmingly support strong censorship for blogs, even though a substantial amount have never actually been to one. Eighty percent of the 2,500 respondents did not believe that bloggers should be allowed to publish home addresses and other personal information about private citizens. However, more than one-third of respondents had never heard of blogs before participating in the survey, and only around 30 percent of participants had actually visited a blog themselves."
Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Insightful)
respondents have never been to a blog, but more to do with the fact
that the question is worded such that they are bound to answer in a
given way. Mark Blumenthal points out:
"The error is the incorrect belief that there is a "right" or
"unbiased" way to ask a question about any given public issue. There
is no such thing. Everyone who works within the polling field is well
aware that small changes in wording can affect the ways in which
respondents answer questions. This approach leads us into tortuous
discussions of question wording on which reasonable people can
differ. Further, as you have pointed out many times in the past,
random variation in the construction of the sample or in response
rates can skew the results of any single poll away from the true
distribution of opinions in the population."
Given the question in the survey: "[do you] believe that bloggers
should be allowed to publish home addresses and other personal
information about private citizens?" Of course they are going to say
no. They would say so regardless if it were bloggers, firemen or
priests. It's like asking if you think children should have enough to
eat, everyone is going to say yes, even if it is attached to some dumb
bill raising taxes on golf balls.
What should we do then? Mark Blumenthal goes on to say, "The answer is
NOT to find a single poll with the "best" wording and point to its
results as the final word on the subject. Instead, we should look at
ALL of the polls conducted on the issue by various different polling
organizations. Each scientifically fielded poll presents us with
useful information. By comparing the different responses to multiple
polls -- each with different wording -- we end up with a far more
nuanced picture of where public opinion stands on a particular issue."
Makes sense to me.
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, it doesn't make sense to those that have an agenda. And they certainly found a group that would provide 'ammunition' for their agenda.
The questions are framed in terms of privacy issues, not freedom of expression. Most of the respondents likely didn't even think about how it could affect themselves personally if and when they would want to express themselves on a blog.
This is slippery slope stuff.
Maybe because privacy IS the issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
And sometimes it's just that: privacy. I don't care about "slippery slope" theories, you just have no business giving away someone else's data. I'll worry about "freedom of speech" issues when it's about actually censoring political opinions, which is really all that that ammendment was supposed to protect. Bullying your boss or your ex-girlfriend via publishing their life on the web, is one "freedom of speech" I'll be quite happy to do without.
And it's not even just about bloggers.
Companies too _are_ bound by some privacy laws, and doubly so in Europe. If anyone published my details, even in a newspaper or company brochure or as "customer of the month" on their games e-commerce site, they could get their pants sued off. That data is, simply put, mine not theirs in the first place. If they published children's addresses and schedule to go to school, I _think_ they may even run into some criminal laws.
But even in the USA, there are already laws covering that kind of thing. E.g., a newspaper can't publish your medical record.
So I see nothing wrong with asking that "bloggers" are bound by the same rules. Again, no, just being able to type a whine in a text box does _not_ make you god, does _not_ put you above privacy or common courtesy rules, and sure as hell does _not_ give you carte blance to bully other people ("here's my boss's home address and phone number. He's a fucking moron. Do something to inconvenience him.")
You're just a guy with a web page, nothing more. You're not above the law. And if something annoys enough people, the law gets changed to reflect that. Even if it involves bringing you down from the imaginary pedestal of blogger godhood. That's all.
Wrong Scale. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, at heart, a question of scale. In how many cases is the release of "private" information by bloggers 1) possible, 2) not remediable under existing laws? Answer: damn little. Potential for rediculous escalation and abuse of power? Certain.
Let consider some examples: some disgruntled employee goes and whines in his blog about his boss, and publishes his home address on the page, with the implication that someone should go and egg the boss's house. Ok. How many people will seriously do that just because they read that on the web? Maybe a few - but they would be looking for trouble in any event, and this is simply a different focal point. Vandalism is an offence. If they get caught, there will be some legal trouble, and the boss has to garden hose his house for a bit. Case settled.
Another, more serious case: someone with access to medical records finds info on a person they don't like and publish it. Now it's on the web, i.e. for everyone to see. This is serious. Serious enough that the offended person can have recourse to full strength of laws about privacy and god knows what else (IANAL). The person is sued, fired from his condifential job, and probably become unemployable. Troubling for the victim - yes. But if they take action within the civil, personal scope, ultimately self-correcting. It's true that the person who would think of violating their professional ethics to this extent is already highly unbalanced, should not have been employed there, and the Internet facilitates (but by no means is the sole cause/avenue) for such behaviour. However, that's the reality of the changing world - more info available nearly-instantly to everyone.
Now your solution. "'checked' censorship". Checked by whom?! "Who watches the watchers" isn't a new question - it's as old as sin. The Romans even knew about it. As you have pointed out, the censorship is difficult. Read: unenforceable. How in the world are you going to do this: hire more federal employees to check every online forum and post? Have the Department of Online Blogging? Only blogs hosted by the Feds are legal? Signing up to their account? What are you talking about? This is about as rational as Argentina requiring IP records for 10 years on all connections. It's beyond delusional.
The most disturbing thing is that people are in favor of government supervision in things that they don't even know about. This is "Big Daddy White Father Knows Best" attitude at it's finest. This is what the pioneer descendants of Lewis and Clark have turned into? A country of savage surviving badasses that hacked and slashed their way across the country, worked, sweated and died as rugged individualists, *this* is what they've become? A people in favor of having some pencil-neck bureaucrat in a Washington Office Ok-ing the publication of even the garbage that they post online? What next? The Office of Bathroom Permission? Yes, Citizen 8849393, you may visit the bathroom now. Citizen 4921993 - you have made 3 unauthorized bathroom visits in the last 2 days. How about you explain that behavior?
Oh my country! What have you done to yourself!
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we care what 72% of people say if 71% of them are incompetent morons? Public opinion is worthless on issues where the majority doesn't actually have one.
The solution is easy (Score:5, Funny)
Bleh you're both wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
But the exact wording of the questions would, to a certain degree, "open-source" opinion polling.
Re:Bleh you're both wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Commissioned polls, OTOH, can get amazingly sloppy. When the Handgun Control, Inc. wants to prove there's support for the assault weapons ban, they won't hesitate to ask "How do you feel about strangers being allowed to bring loaded assault weapons into your neighborhood?"
Pro-gunners can ask "If you came home and found your wife being raped on the floor, would you wish you had a gun so you could stop it from happening?" Then they'll publish all those "hell, yeah!" answers as proof that we're all pro-gun. My answer ("I'd wish I had a taser to stun him and then use pliers and a blowtorch to work him over for a few days in the privacy of my own basement") gets marked down as "undecided."
Okay, this has been discussed elsewhere in this topic; I'm just feeling particularly graphic this morning.
DOESN'T make sense to me (Score:4, Interesting)
You would be a fool to believe that this is not occurring constantly.
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes!"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they don't know what a blog is, then why is their sample point counted? I'd be more interested in the opinion of those who have actually visited a blog.
The question, as has been pointed out, is obviously designed to elicit a specific answer and should be considered in that context.
I'm more concerned about this part:
What are we defining as "personal information"? Addresses, phone numbers, yeah. I can see that. What about history about the politician? Spouse's name, business dealings (especially for politicians)? You could make a case for all of these as being personal information.
Since when, in the United States, do traditional journalists have MORE freedom of speech than ordinary citizens? IANAL, but methinks the Australians might have a misunderstanding as to what freedom of speech for Americans means. It's not for some Americans, it's for ALL Americans.
Actually, on a tangent. Reminds me of a discussion I got into with some Canadian friends of mine a couple years ago. They simply couldn't understand why I was so against censoring "objectionable" speech. In this case, speech deemed to be "hate speech."
sigh Anyone want to help me buy an island for libertarian refugees?
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the confusion stems from the fact that certain states, and maybe the federal statutes, provide a "journalist's privilege" which allows a journalist to avoid testifying as to the source of a story in court. This privilege is like other privileges, such as attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient privilege, in that it doesn't give anyone any more "freedom of speech," but it does allow people who can take advantage of the privilege to avoid speaking in court.
There's a few cases recently where "bloggers" have tried to assert these journalist privileges to avoid revealing a source, and this has brought up the question as to just what is a journalist, and should they have a privilege to begin with.
That's probably where the confusion comes in. It's not that journalists have a greater right to free speech that bloggers would also like to have -- as you correctly point out, a journalist has the same right to free speech as anyone esle does, and no more -- but they do have this privilege (in those states that provide for one, not all do) to avoid having to reveal their sources. So journalists are afraid that if a blogger becomes a journalist, then the privilege will end up getting "watered down" and will eventually wind up not being useful, or wind up being repealed if it gets overused.
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the fear is simpler than that. Journalists are afraid of competition. In a time when real quality investigative journalism is at an all-time low in the mainstream media, bloggers have come along and started providing the original spirit of investigation that used to be part of journalism. Yeah, maybe there's no great depth of accountability for bloggers, but there doesn't really seem to be any greater accountability for the mainstream media either. This is a close parallel to the debate between open source and proprietary software.
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech doesn't go as far as being "unpatriotic" of course. Don't _ever_ criticize the president.
*you're not getting them? I guess your credit rating score is below the required level.
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:4, Informative)
If it were, then why is Ahenakew [cjnews.com] being charged under the hate speech laws? He didn't incite action. He simply went off on an anti-semitic rant. He's a jerk and his views are terrible but they didn't contain an incitement to act. And he's being charged for hate speech.
The act itself (Look at Section 319) [justice.gc.ca] specifies 4 elements that are necessary for a charge.
To get charged you have to:
1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, (not necessarily action) 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
In other words you can be charged if your statement is likely to cause a breach of the peace even if you had no call to action in your statement.
The only problem with the act in regards to free speech that I can see is the odd distinction between public and private statements. If someone makes a bunch of statements in public that qualify as hate speech as they're likely to cause a breach of the peace, that's a crime. But if they make the same statements at a private invitation only dinner event and the statements a breach of the peace is still the likely result that's okay? Doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance.
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Doesn't really mean much... (Score:3, Insightful)
Distinguish between words and utterances. The latter are context-sensitive actions, "performative speech." Some utterances are threats.
But how? (Score:2, Interesting)
Are we going to see a rating on each blog? G, PG, M, R, and P? For PG Rating, mothers will have to read blogs for their innocent children.
It a blog's breaking laws, then there are already venues to take action.
Re:But how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Eighty percent of the 2,500 respondents did not believe that bloggers should be allowed to publish home addresses and other personal information about private citizens.
Banning people from publishing the personal details of others is perfectly fair. This is nothing to do with 'unsuitable' content. While the article goes into more detail this appears to be more about privacy than regular censorship based on mature content. This just appears to be slashdot trying to kick off a load of censorship arguments and get more ad hits.
Re:But how? (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about unsuitable content or privacy, it's a poll with questions designed to stir up trouble. Addresses are public information. You may not like someone posting your address on their blog, but you can't stop them, or anyone else, from figuring out what your public address is. If it's information that is private, sure this is an issue of privacy, but that's not what the article says, it says "home addresses", starting us off right away with the main bit of personal info being totally public.
The problems occur when you have sites/blogs that are encouraging others to commit violence/etc. against the people they're posting about, but current laws cover this. I remember an anti-abortion website getting in trouble because the courts found they were actively encouraging people to kill the doctors they provided info about on their site.
Re:But how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personal Privacy, haha! Can't lie in WHOIS. (Score:3, Interesting)
But then these same people who are trying to enforce some rules (such as this) on blogs turn around, and are for forcing you to publish your own address [theregister.co.uk], and aren't you also a Private Citizen? It's already happened [bobparsons.com] for
That is what I call "backwards", if you ask me.
Two sides to the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
However, nobody wants their personal infomation listed on the internet. I think we all agree that we wouldn't want that. Just posting somebody's email gets them spam.
I know that if somebody posted my son or daughter's picture, address, and phone number... I would want it removed. What if somebody posted your address and said, "They are always gone by 8:30 in the am."
We all want freedom... and that's why we hide ourselves on slashdot and in blogs. The things we say can hurt us. However, it can be used for evil too...
Kinda like everything else in life.
To suit the moment (Score:2)
In one corner
A silent hall, dry echoes
The dark man claps
Re:Two sides to the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
- What if it was their school's website showing them among other students participating in sports/misc. school activities? Kid's pictures end up in the newspaper all the time from sporting events especially, would you raise hell with the newspaper for publishing it or be proud your kids made it into the paper? Why would this be different?
What if somebody posted your address and said, "They are always gone by 8:30 in the am."- Then if your house gets broken into and robbed, they could quite easily find themselves an acessory to the crime. Just posting your address isn't a major issue, it's already out there (unless your phone's unlisted) on a couple of hundred different sites that have phone listings. You're trying to confuse the issue by tying posting of your address along with information that could encourage a crime. They're not necessarily linked.
We all want freedom... and that's why we hide ourselves on slashdot and in blogs. The things we say can hurt us. However, it can be used for evil too...It's not anti-blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
It could be argued that publishing such information is a violation of a person's privacy. Free speech extends so far that it does not violate the rights of another person.
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
Re:It's not anti-blog (Score:2)
The problem here is people. The American mindset is far, far from the ideals of freedom. Remember the outcomes of surveys for torture? Or rounding up Muslims(or Japanese not too long ago)? Or using nuclear weapons in Iraq? etc? I do.
Drop the land of the free defense and just accept that fact that Americans (and other nationalities of course) care very little about Western Enlightenment, decentr
were they also asked.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:were they also asked.. (Score:2)
Maybe people didn't didn't know what a 'Blog' was because it's a trendy slang word?
Re:were they also asked.. (Score:2)
what would their response have been if the word instead of blogs would have been "avid scrapbookers" or "special interest groups"?
Re:were they also asked.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:were they also asked.. (Score:3, Funny)
Pro-War Rally in Palm Springs, California
A huge group of nearly 40 Palm Springs fanatical pro-war supporters showed their patriotic spirit in a rally for President Bush and our brave young men and women on the front lines near Syria.
The demonstration occurred on Good Friday, April 18, on the opposite side of the downtown street where peace activists had gathered for an Easter candlelight peace vigil.
The "pro-war" supporters waved American Flags, chanted slogans in fierce support
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:were they also asked.. (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? a lot of "real" journalists also keep blogs. a lot of 'papers' are also one man
Who cares what the fuck you call it? (Score:5, Insightful)
More from the survey:
Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said bloggers should have the same rights as traditional journalists, while 27 percent did not express an opinion.
[...] most respondents classed bloggers in the same category as journalists when it came to free speech [...]
[...] most people used blogs to obtain information about politics or current events.
This isn't about "blogging". The personal information bit was about what usually constitutes harassment, that just happens to come in the form of a blog.
God I love these misleading, scare-tactic titles. "AMERICANS SUPPORT BLOG CENSORSHIP", which of course brings to mind nasty, ignorant, redneck religious right wanting to censor Common Dreams and DailyKos. No, morons. They do not believe that bloggers should be allowed to publish home addresses and other personal information about private citizens. All of a sudden that equates to wholesale BLOG CENSORSHIP? And yes, I realize that any censorship - even of that information - is still censorship, but let's get a freakin' grip, here, before people start talking about the "good little sheeple doing what Monkey Boy Bush tells them" etc., ok?
That's a good question (Score:2)
Until you wouldn't mind having your own personal information and home address posted to a blog, it wouldn't seem appropriate to do it to someone else, would it?
Whether a person is a CEO, a politician, a school board member, a church official, or an AC slashdot poster, your home and personal life is just that, and people shouldn't be harassing you and your family in the supposed privacy of your own home.
If you want to p
What a surprise (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Man, Slashdotters will do ANYTHING to try and meet a female, won't they?
Or in other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
The consumer-drone sheeple strike again.
Re:Or in other words... (Score:2)
I think hes DEAD-on correct.
RTFA (Score:2)
Web hosting company Hostway this week released the results of its poll of 2,500 respondents on blogging.
We all know Hostway's stellar reputation for high quality surveys.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)
Blogs Should Be Banned Anyway. (Score:2, Funny)
Not just blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just blogs (Score:2, Informative)
It's long been shown that the average American citizen, when shown a list of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights is likely to be shocked at the idea and state that many of those rights shouldn't exist.
While I'm sure the poll question biased the result, what part of "Freedom of the Press" do people not understand?
Jeez! No wonder Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidents can get away with treating the Constitution as if it doesn't exist, most
Re:Not just blogs (Score:2)
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but I do disagree with this romanticized version of our nation's history.
Once upon a time, blacks were murdered for looking at a white woman the wrong way, gays were severely punished for having consentual sex in the privacy of their own home, women couldn't vote, poor people were shot by police for demanding a 5 day work
Re:Not just blogs (Score:3, Interesting)
</baffled>
Who did the study? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who did the study? (Score:3, Informative)
That said, those polls typically have carefully asked questions, rotating answers, and national sample sets. I didn't RTFA, but somehow I don't think the Hostway poll was conducted the same way.
Freedom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Censor What? (Score:2, Informative)
I think the word "censor" when it comes to blogging should be used carefully. It depends on what is being said. For example if it is secret company products being announced (ex: Apple and ThinkSecret), it might make sense to try and keep it secret, as it is a product that was bound by a non-disclosure agreement.
But if it is simply censoring for censorship sake about whatever the censor deems unreasonable, then that is a whole different ballpark. Then it is a infringment of First Ammendment rights.
Re:Censor What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Products are not bound by NDAs. People are. There is no legal problem with publishing trade secrets at all, nor should there be.
Don't forget judges (Score:2)
incestuous world of online writing (Score:2)
So what is going on with the political blogs thing is people trying to percolate ideas up into the sphere of journalism and media. Some of blogger ideas and writings do make it into the mainstream, at least if they are business-friendly e
Re:incestuous world of online writing (Score:2)
"Home movies" have been around for decades. Have you ever watched someone elses without cringing? I don't care what you call it...videoblogging, PhoneCamVideo, MyVideoLife...its still a home movie, and almost always crap. Unless there is a lot of taut skin involved. Or something very, very humorous (and pr
Blogs and tabloids (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not *me* reading it I'm worried about (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't me reading a blog entry about me. I already know where I live, what my ID numbers are, etc. etc. The problem is that I can't stop somebody else reading that.
This issue is bigger than just personal info valuable to strangers, too. I've had a bitter ex-g/f post intimate personal e-mails on her blog from the time we were going out, and with a large dose of editing, taking out of context, and outright lies thrown in for good measure. She knew damn well that several close friends of mine also read that blog, and would think less of me after reading what she wrote (or her adapted version of what I had once written).
The real killer is that despite the blog host being a big name [livejournal.com], they didn't give a shit. In fact, after the ex made the post "private" (which didn't stop our common friends from reading it) when I wrote to her and asked her to remove the comments, the LJ admins then claimed (in response to my formal complaint) that they couldn't access that area of the database, and therefore couldn't do anything about the post. All of which helped me and my relationships with some formerly close friends not at all.
So, what am I supposed to do? I live in the UK, so I'm hardly going to pay hundreds of $$$ to hire a US attorney and pursue a defamation suit against my ex in the US just to get LJ to take the post down, am I? But without any official, international regulation of this area of the Internet, the damage was done all the same, and it hurt a lot more than posting any credit card number would have.
Freedom of speech is a valuable thing, but it is not the only valuable thing, and it is far too powerful to be an absolute.
Re:It's not *me* reading it I'm worried about (Score:5, Insightful)
That really must have sucked for you, but why should they care? Ex-girlfriends badmouthing ex-boyfriends (and vice-versa) has been going on for years, and how are they supposed to know whether it's true or not?
But without any official, international regulation of this area of the Internet, the damage was done all the same,
So you want the government to stop this? You're not willing to pay hundreds of $$$ to stop this, but you want the government to spend hundreds of $$$ to investigate this? Or do you want every ex-girlfriend who was viciously abused to be silenced by the government, just because some of them lie?
People are stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
People are generally stupid, after all.
Funny way of asking (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly a reasonable survey (Score:4, Informative)
Many Merkins don't know what bloggers are, but feel that they should have the same rights as mainstream journos. Many 'Merkins are also less likely to trust bloggers than other journos.
What's the problem? Why am I wasting time writing and thinking about it?
censorship or right to privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
americans overwhelmingly support privacy of citizens
but doesn't fly as well with the america-haters...
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are willing to censor blogs? Does this surprise anyone?
I saw an article (sorry, no reference) where the researchers took a poll to see if people thought certain things should be allowed. They rewrote the Bill of Rights to they'd be unrecognizable to the casual reader, and they asked people if each amendment should be allowed. For each amendment in the Bill of Rights, many (if not most) thought that the right need not be constitutionally protected.
It's not that people agreed strongly with the idea of preventing the government from forcing the quartering of soldiers. It's that most people are so ignorant that they don't know why we have certain protections in place in the Constitution. Freedom of speech? Naw, the government should be able to censor. Freedom of the press? Naw, the press should be required to get government approval for items published. The results were amazing and disturbing!
The point is too many people in America are so comfortable that they take their rights for granted. When people spend more time worrying if a certain entertainer is wearing slutty clothes than they did considering whether the government had given enough (or even correct) justification about going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of people, you know that a country has its priorities screwed up.
It's sad but patriots have died to protect these freedoms and most people don't give a damn. But that's why we have our Constitution: to protect the public from its own shortsightedness.
indeed (Score:2)
I bet if you asked "should everyone be given $10,000 by the government", they'd all say yes to it too! On the face of it, it sounds like a good deal. This is because they do not look deep enough to see why it is foolish.
The wisest thing government founders have realized over the
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It, by itself, can do nothing to prevent our rights from being eroded and worn away to nothingness. It takes *people* to stand up for their rights, possibly even fight and die for their rights, to back up what the Constitution says.
Yes, the form of government created in our Constitution has done a good job for a long time of preserving our fundamental rights.. but you can kinda feel that lately things have started to slip in a negative direction... and by "lately" I mean at least since about 1930 or thereabouts, although arguments could be made that our freedoms have been eroding since before the ink was dry on the Constitution.
Re:Surprised? (Score:2)
The survey was about whether bloggers should be allowed to share private,
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
The poll was stupid and asked a question with such a biased stance that you could ask that to any nation anywhere in the world, and you would get 80% of the populace answering the same way.
The best you can conclude is that when asked a casual question people do not always think through the entire line of logic on the spot. Thankfully though, we live in a democracy. Any such question needs to go to debate, and even after the debate, any decision needs to also go through the judiciary which is ruled by the constitution. When the move to amend the constitution to remove the first amendment starts, give me a call and I will tell you that you are right.
"Americans Support Blog Censorship" (Score:4, Informative)
Elected, appointed, or celebrity... (Score:2)
If any of the above three apply to someone, they have asked for a place in the public eye. I believe that personal information needs to be published about at least the former two types of people.
To be clear, I don't mean "here are pictures of their kids, their license plate numbers, and their last known trip to a public bathroom".
What I mean is that it is inane to have a place in the public view and expect that no one will talk about you.
Insofar as celebrity status meriting protection, can you imagin
unbelievably slanted take on the poll responses (Score:5, Insightful)
You have here a first rate example of the economic elite using mass media propaganda.
They have been doing this for over 100 years here in America.
Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Quick! (Score:2)
(Note I don't actually think that the survey people are at fault. But it's just a bit hard to get the phone numbers of every person who voted for cencorship...)
Soon (Score:2)
Sensitive public information it is not! (Score:5, Informative)
The replies show how other respond to items like this. This is not about bloggers rights or whether or not they are journalists. They are about the fact that most Americans continue to revel in their ignorance about what they think is their right to privacy.
Public information! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey everyone! Mr. Smith at (555)555-6547 is a complete ass."
"Hey everyone! Jon Doe at (555)555-4578 Lane is a registered sex offender."
Are you going to call up Mr. Smith and ask him for a cup of sugar? Do you plan on asking Jon Doe to baby sit? Do you expect to have any kind of meaningful dialog with these people?
"Is it true you
Some bloggers should be censored (Score:2)
Cue David Brin... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, a lot of people seem to be their own worst enemy in this regard. A couple weeks ago I received a forwarded email from my shocked mother informing me of this frightening fact: if your address is listed in the phone book, someone can Google your phone number to f
Here's an Example (Score:2)
Most Americans believe bloggers should not be allowed to publish sensitive personal information about individuals, according to a new survey.
Wow, does that change the tone of the discussion.
Metadata (Score:3, Interesting)
The appearance of blogs on the media agenda is important to people who care about blogs. Because the broadcast media inevitably distorts, especially when its corporations and personalities perceive a threat. Associating blogs with privacy invasion indicates which way their propaganda will go, though this one tiny datapoint is a drop in the bucket. But the inevitable storms of public opinion, especially as people gradually grow more connected to interactive blogs than we ever were to broadcasts, will partly be formed by these butterfly wings flapping in Hollywood. We who consume blogs, especially we who hope blogs can replace the failed broadcast media in the essential task of journalism, rather than mere infotainverts, ignore these early warnings at our peril. You read it here first
privacy versus freedom of expression (Score:2, Insightful)
probably not
2. does the "slashdot party line" support the censorship of blogs?
definitely not
but y'all should work out what the overlap is between question #1 and question #2 before everyone here starts crying "the sky is falling!" because there is concern for freedom of expression, and concern for privacy rights,
My question ... (Score:2)
(and presume an implied 'without the individuals express consent', since I would assume that no one would have a problem in that case).
Who did this survey? (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously, the above is a lot of rubbish, but you read the whole thing, so it was probably good, wholesome rubbish.
Not surprising... (Score:2)
As Bill Mahar said... "When did we become Utah?"
There are a large number of people in the US who are very willing to eradicate the opinions of others given half a chance. (These are also the same people who will winge loudly if their opinions are supressed or doubted in the slightest degree.)
It is all explained in my new book "I'm OK, you're a unpatriotic terrorist". On sale at Christian bookstores and gas stations everywhere.
State of the First Amendment Report (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.
The First Amendment Center regularly polls Americans about their feelings about the First Amendment - and as the second URL, an assessment of the 2004 report reveals, it's an exercise that reveals that as a population we are ambivalent and conflicted about the freedom of speech, often asserting contradictory opinions about related topics. I think this is an example of the same issue. We overwhelmingly support the First Amendment in principle... but when it gets to the specifics we get sketchy. And I can sort of understand this: when asked about freedom of speech we think about general principles, abstractions. When asked about something like posting personal information on the internet we imagine personal scenarios: our own information or the information of our loved ones being made public (of course we're not talking about information that is otherwise truly private, but the question focuses attention on a specific scenario), bad things happening as a result. It's not surprising we're conflicted.
Yeesh! (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point of this? (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't believe this, go to your local courthouse - who has purchased what property and how much they paid for it is a public record and anybody can access it.
"other personal information", depending on what that covers, may be worth protecting.
Personally, I would suggest a privacy amendment to the constitution. Just take a national referendum and protect what the majority wants protected. Oh, and no special provisions for corporations, politicians, law enforcement, or the wealthy - everyone gets treated equally.
FUD, nothing but FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Take this "survey" with a grain of salt, but put on your rain boots, it's going to be a FUDdy day for the media.
Data Protection (Score:3, Informative)
This particular thing has nothing to do with media censorship, freedom of speech, etc. etc. It is about data protection.
In the UK we have had a Data Protection Act for eleven years, and it has done much more for the rights of the private individual than it ever did for the government/spies/corporations.
The gist of it is this. If you give personal information to someone, they may only use it for the purposes you permitted them to, and after those purposes are complete, you must destroy the information. Additionally, if someone is collecting information about you and it is impossible for you to consent, they must warn you about it beforehand, and you may ask them at any time for a copy.
Here are some of the rights the DPA entitles me to:
I believe that this law also applies to the rest of the EU now, but I don't believe there's anything like this in North America yet.
God Bless America (Score:3, Insightful)
Bunch of fucking sheep in this country.
not publishing private info is not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Web logs are a nice 'invention' for communicating ideas, opinions etc, but since the pen is mightier than the sword, blog content must be 'politically correct' in the sense that it does not harm others. If revelations about scandals are to be published in weblogs, they better be accompanied with evidence, otherwise it is yellow journalism.
google (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got the phone book, sure, but remember you've also got Google out there. Type in someone's full name and city (sometimes city isn't even needed) and pop! there is their address, and, unless it's unlisted, their phone number.
Now, one can play the game, saying that posting information like that on a blog somewhere is a lot more like pointing a finger directly at the person in question, highlighting their information, but to me the difference is slight, if tenable at all. All you need is someone's name to get an address out of Google, and it is still legal for bloggers to post a name.
Besides (and I have seen this posted above), personal addresses and phone numbers (unless specifically requested) are not private information at all. So we're talking about intent here. The intent to misuse this information.
The focus is supposedly on people's ideas of censorship, in whatever form you want to take it, but what we're really talking about here is discrimination.
I don't really want my information highlighted on the internet, public or private as it might be. But I want even less to discriminate against those who are exercising a perfectly legal right to publish public information. *That* is where the slippery slope begins, and we don't want to go down that road.
Oh wait... we already are.
80% of Americans want water banned (Score:4, Funny)
I don't really think that the 20% of Americans who are not idiots or the rest of the world will be too surprised.
MMMMmmmmm. Government by the majority. Tasty.
How propaganda machine works (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how the Propaganda Machine works. The media tell you what you should think, then they conduct polls using questions based on false premises with answer sets designed to exclude dissenting opinions.
Goebbels would be so proud.
Have you stopped hitting you're mother yet?Beware when Headline != Questionnaire (Score:3, Insightful)
Surveys ask particular questions, and when properly conducted under certain assumptions, can yield statistical inferences about the behavior of a defined universe with respect to the questions asked. Done properly, they can offer remarkably good insight about a population at large.
Strike any of the assumptions, however, they are meaningless numbers, reflecting only a census of the narrow population that was actually polled, permitting no meaningful inferences about larger populations.
But in any case, even where the survey is properly conducted and permits inferences about the attitude of a broader population, the results of the survey are only the inferences concerning the QUESTIONS THE SURVEY ASKED.
And even so, it is as important to consider questions not asked and to measure the impact of the question on the sample. Are there adequate controls.
Here, the article suggests that persons were asked, among others, whether bloggers should be permitted to publish personal information. Is that a question about privacy law or about blogs? Would the same persons, asked the same question answer the same or differently if the medium was a home newsletter, network news or a newspaper? Perhaps the censorship sought here is merely the publication of personal information regardless of medium. Would it matter if the material were itself newsworthy?
Absent scientific control questions, we'll never know. In any case, I saw nothing to suggest that a poll of consumers of a particular service using the questions asked without more would support the far-flung suggestion in the headline, the squib or een the article itself.
Re:ty (Score:2)
Here, lets do our own poll. Should be just as accurate as theirs.
I agree very much
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
I guess your post does have some merit. Most polls are inaccurate, as anyone who's done politics/government studying may know.
You have:
Re:sounds reasonable to me (Score:2)
I would have given you a 2/10 until I saw your slashdot username. 8/10