Free Speech And WebLogs 271
welloy writes "The WashingtonPost has an article regarding free speech and web logs. Its focus is on how web logs are governed by the same laws/rules of standard print journalism. The header quote: "Bloggers" surprised by legal limits on Web journals."
Makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would hope... (Score:2)
Seriously, if I tell people about my experience with a book, quoting passages of the book to establish reference. Or if I post to my online diary with those statements. I should be free of legal repercussions. But where do you draw the line?
Re:I would hope... (Score:2, Insightful)
If he published it in a book, wrote it on the mens room wall, or told his neighbours niece, it would result in the same consequences.
Theres no big shocker in this article, you have the same free speech on the web as you do in print, but this guy broke a binding agreement that he'd signed.
The line's already been drawn, and fairly clearly too.
Rights of a blogger (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rights of a blogger (Score:2)
Exactly so! These "surprising" ramifications of posting derogatory or revealing comments about people have been appearing in courts ever since Netscape became popular. There is no difference for legal purposes between a blog and a hand-written web page. The difference is what you say.
It may only be that the whole purpose of a blog is to enter day-to-day personal details that runs them into this trouble more often than static pages of whatever a person's hobby interest happens to be. My flute-making pages [earthlink.net] (plug-plug-plug) aren't likely to get me into any trouble, but don't read my Slashdot journal!
What happened to you today? You probably went to work, had private conversations, and if you're lucky you got a little nookie too. Now since you didn't likely get the written consent of other participants to publish the procedings of your encounters, most countries' understanding of "privacy" would put you at legal risk if you do publish.
-Rick
Re:Rights of a blogger (Score:2)
Take for example, the lady who got fired for blasting her co-workers in her blog. Sure it was thinly veiled, but it would seem that her intent was obvious enough for her managers to catch. Now, if I were to do something similar on dead trees, write derogatory comments about my co-workers and start passing it out, if my company caught wind of it, they would probably dump me as being a disgruntled worker, or "not a teamplayer" as the jargon goes. Why should it beng on the internet be any different, its still distributing derogatory comments about your co-workers. You are making a problem of yourself, and they are going to fire you.
As for posting hateful stuff, at least in the US, its still allowed. I've not bothered to check but I have a feeling that there is something like a neonazi.com out there calling for the extermination of the Jews. And I'd expect the KKK and Black Panthers to have websites. So, you can still get away with that. Though again, your company may take a dim view of your personal beliefs, and may look for a way to "right-size" you out of a job.
Slanderous, is a bit more different. Those do tend to be tracked down, as they should be. Though you have to prove that it is actually slander, and not just a statement opinion about a person.
And lastly, you have the posting of comapny information, and/or secrets. This is going to get you canned, and possibly sued, as it should. You signed a contract with your employer, you breach it you are on the hook. Sure, its in your journal, but its a journal that you have specifically made publicly accessable, and you know it.
I don't feel any sympathy for the people that gat nailed for putting stuff in thier blog that should not have been there. If you want to write about this sort of stuff, do it in a dead tree journal, and don't pass it around. If you are going to put it on the web, then you need to be a bit more responsible about what you say. Yes, you have the right to free-speech, that doesn't mean that your employer has to like what you say, and if you signed an NDA with them and you break it, well, sucks to be you.
Re:Rights of a blogger (Score:2)
U.S. persons have the free speech rights on the Web as they do anywhere else. And the same responsibilities.
Two-edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two-edged sword (Score:2)
You're certainly right about it being a two-edged sword, I'm just worried about getting cut by both edges.
Re:Two-edged sword (Score:2, Informative)
While i think journalists are needed and these freedoms are important. I am also concerned that alternative voices( anything from hightimes to maximumn rock and roll to weblogs) may be silenced by not having access to these freedoms. This will basicly make the only "real journalists" people who write for corperate owned media outlets.
Press Rights (Score:2)
Re:Press Rights (Score:2, Informative)
But the thing to keep in mind is that there are hundreds of cases, Supreme Court and many lower federal courts and state courts as well, that spell out and interpret various rights and responsibilities of the press. Some decisions contradict others, or only apply in certain circuits or states. It isn't easy to summarize with a single enumeration, beyond "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
Re:Press Rights (Score:2)
What about the Constitution [findlaw.com]?
Honestly, it's no wonder that it's so easy for Ashcroft and his minions to undo the work of the Founding Fathers when so many people don't even know what's in the fucking Constitution!
Uh...thanks? (Score:2)
Re:Press Rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Two-edged sword (Score:2)
one responsibility is review before publication. (Score:3, Insightful)
It does make sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
Person X is an incompetant fool.
It will be seen as:
I think Person X is an incompetent fool.
There's no real difference except that one statement can be called libel. It's not like they are trying to make Bloggers apply journalistic standards to their writing. It's more like a heads up warning them to be more careful how they commit things to print.
Re:It does make sense. (Score:2)
Saying 'someone did X' can be libel
but mere name calling is not.
One intersting Quote though... (Score:3, Interesting)
"With the advent of cyberspace, we've had to evolve these policies," Farr said. "Somewhere between First Amendment rights and total repression there is a practical middle ground."
It's one thing to enforce NDA's that an employee willfully signed its another thing to find some "middle-ground" with rights in the first amendment. The whole point of calling something a right is to say that there is no middle ground.... a "right" is an absolute... otherwise we would call it first amendment privileges.
If you don't voluntarily sign away a right with an NDA, you should have complete freedom to exercise that right. I think Madison and Jefferson would back me up here.
Too often management types think they can freely bend the rules in order to make their job easier and they never really worry about what the long term negative effect on society of reducing the rights of employees to speak their minds.
Just look at how the ITAR restrictions on academic speech are killing the American Aerospace Industry, and how DMCA is killing research into encryption.
This brings blogs down the earth (Score:3, Insightful)
Blogs aren't anything special. They are just webpages that happen to get updated far more frequently than most. They still contain information, they should be treated like any other webpage.
They aren't diaries. If you keep a text file on your local machine for "blogging" purposes, that's comperable to a diary but the file you make available for all to see isn't.
Re:This brings blogs down the earth (Score:2)
If a girl shows her best friend her diary, does it suddenly stop becoming a diary, and become something else?
Look at the definition of a diary [m-w.com], and tell me where it says diaries can't be published.
Re:This brings blogs down the earth (Score:2)
Ahem. A diary is a diary, whether you keep it locked in a cabinet or publish it for all the world to see. The number of readers it has makes absolutely no difference to what it is.
Isn't that ironic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowadays everybody HAS to be a journalist!
Re:Isn't that ironic? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Everybody gets to be a journalist."
It is the nature of power to concentrate itself. I'm not speaking about any "evil, corrupt conspiracy"; just the nature of power. Make no mistake about it, speech and the right to be heard is POWER. That's why it's protected by the FIRST amendment to the US Constitution.
The problem with "everybody is a journalist" is that the power of speech becomes distributed among the masses. This is not a stable (as in equilibruim) situation. It will not persist. It cannot persist.
I like the idea of a "frontier", where everybody pretty much does whatever they want and leaves each other alone. If ever there was an ideal "place" for such a frontier to exist, the internet is it. It's potentially infinite in size. Participation is piecewise voluntary--if you don't like what's going on, you can simply take what you want and leave the rest. Heck, there's software that will ignore it for you. Most people can live with that.
Citizens, it ain't gonna happen. Some, however, have a need to control everything they're aware of. Not many, actually, and even fewer that can do it effectively. But enough so that when that sort of person notices something--even something that has nothing to do with them--they feel a need to control it. Why does Pat Robertson want to control the behaviour of two gay lovers in their own house? Because as surely as those lovers say they were made to be gay, Pat was made with a desire to control. It's his nature. Once such people become aware of the internet as a place, those people have a need to control it. And some of them have the talent necessary to accomplish the task. The "tragic flaw" of the Libertarian ideal is that it doesn't want to control anything (Shut up, I said "ideal").
As long as we persist in the delusion that the internet will remain an unregulated frontier, we are lost.
Rules and laws will regulate the internet.
We do not get to choose whether the regulations are applied. We do, however, get to choose what those regulations will be.
A successful effort at preserving freedom will not be based an anarchistic ideal.
Successfully preserving freedom depends on the creation of regulations that specifically reserve rights to the people.
Do this exercise: Choose a state of in which power is distributed. Choose another in which power is concentrated. Examine the initial ideals of those states. Now investigate the political structure of those states. You'll find that societies whose legal and political structure are consistent with their original ideals were engineered with the more skull-sweat than a chemical plant or successful operating system.
Starry-eyed dreamers saying "why can't we all just get along" will NOT achieve their goals. Political and legal engineers will. We need to get the engineers working for us. Can you name the profession these "engineers" pursue?
Re:Isn't that ironic? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that ironic? (Score:2)
We get to choose what those regulations will be to the same degree that we got to choose whether or not the DMCA would become law.
In short, there isn't nearly as much choice about this as you seem to think.
Friends and groups (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it is Hollywood, the Recording Industry, Microsoft, or Joe Blow's employer firing them for an unflattering entry in their blog, the trend is clear: "Your freedom of speech exists only on paper, and we're going to make sure it isn't worth even the paper it is written on."
ConsiderIf that mentality doesn't concern you, much less send chills down your spine, then nothing will. You can't have "a little bit freedom of speech" any more than you can be "just a little bit pregnant." Any compromise of this nature must inherently mean you do not retain your freedom of speech (hint: the freedom to only do or say what is approved isn't freedom. Until people figure this out our trembling democracy will remain in need of serious triage).
The barbarians are at the gates and Rome is about to fall, and they are wearing suits and ties, wielding pens, and sidestepping the will and intent of the Consitution at every opportunity.
What is worse, we are passively letting it happen.
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not of course claim that the judicial system does a perfect or even near perfect job at upholding our rights, and often makes the fallacious assumption that a corporation's rights should be on par with the rights of large numbers of individual citizens, or often even superceding them. While corporations should be treated justly under the law, their "right to profit" or "right to not be criticized by individuals" don't exist in the constitution and should never be seen as higher priority than something as fundamental to our society as the First Amendment. But, that being said, there are laws about libel and slander, jurisprudence about the difference between commercial speech and political speech and so on that try to clarify all the intermediate grey areas and fill in the gaps that the Constitution doesn't specify. And that is, at its heart, a good thing. Perhaps we should push for more accountability in the judicial branch, and perhaps we should elect a President that will appoint judges who aren't fucking corporate whores, mmm?
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:2)
Wrong. I hate to tell you but the ENTIRETY of American jurisprudence exists because rights aren't absolute, but rather exist in balance with each other.
If you read the original comment again, you will see that the person is objecting to a balance between what is guaranteed and total oppression. I don't need to tell you that this is a really bad thing, do I? I mean, constantly asking for a balance between what has been agreed and what you want is just another tactic to crush the opposition.
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not only offensive, it's treasonous (altho' of course the First Amendment grants him the right to say what he says, just not to do it). A bunch of people - including the President and the Marines - are sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution. That's it. If the former isn't doing the job, the latter should do something about it.
All enemies, foreign and domestic. That's the oath.
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:2)
Your employer can impose a gag order preventing you from exercising your speech as it relates to your work. That's not unconstitutional.
It's also been well established that Freedom of Speech is not protected equally across the board, but varies based on the type of speech. Political protest enjoys greater protection than commercial speech, for example. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not protected at all, nor is slander.
If Constitutional rights were as simple as you suggest, the Supreme Court would be a lot less busy, wouldn't they? It's a complex issue which often merits vigorous debate.
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:2)
You work for a company? In return for their employing you, I suspect part of your employment contract prevents you from discussing company policies or secrets that you may have access to. Don't like that? Find another job.
Beta testing that new MMORPG? There's a clause in that agreement that you not disclose any information about the game until such-and-such time, after the beta has been finished.
And of course, there's the whole libel and slander issue. Your right to free speech does not carry over into a right to say whatever you want without repercussions.
In your pull-quote up there, Farr is right - there is a balance between free speech and total repression that should be reached; to preserve your right to speech, and your employer's right to their trade secrets, and your co-workers' rights to be free of libelous writings.
Free speech != unrestricted speech
Don't overreact to this story. (Score:2, Informative)
Oh Poo. (Score:3, Insightful)
So you can be held liable for giving away trade secrets online You can be held liable for violating the contract you have with your employer, you know, the guys who make sure you have money to eat. You can be held liable for making up and saying stuff about people that isn't true. Big deal. Your employment contract says "Do not disclose private company information, do not represent the company in a negative light, do not create a hostile environment for your coworkers" - it does *NOT* say "Do not do these things, EXCEPT on the internet, where you can do whatever you want."
What is amazing is that people think the internet is supposed to be some parallel dimension where they can do whatever they want without consequences.The internet is a tool, probably the best tool ever invented, but it's still just a tool. Using the internet to do something illegal isn't any different than using a baseball bat or printing press to do so.
"You are being sued for saying that Person X screws monkeys." "What? I only said that on the internet!"
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:2)
"With the advent of cyberspace, we've had to evolve these policies," Farr said. "Somewhere between First Amendment rights and total repression there is a practical middle ground."
is taken somewhat out of context. The policies referred to are those held by a company concerning what an employee may publicly say about their employer, and whether it is opinion or fact. Surely you're not unfamiliar with this concept? Companies have had these policies for some time. As an example, stockholders are often restricted from what they may discuss in public about a company's business, and for good reason.
This statement does not refer to a person's absolute freedom of speech, but rather their freedom to speak on a specific topic, which in certain cases IS restricted.
The First Admendment does not guarantee your right to say anything you like, it guarantees that Congress won't pass a law that restricts that right.
A contract, implied or literal, between an employee and their company, is a different matter.
Re:Corporatizing the Death of Democracy (Score:2, Informative)
Ok. I think people often misunderstand what this means. Freedom of speech implies a freedom to have your opinions and let them be known. It however, does not guarantee you a freedom from consequences, because we must live with the consequences of what we and others say. If you call your best friend a "lying, cheating bitch" you must then live with the consequence that he may no longer be your friend. Similarly, there are consequences for others based on what you say. To allow total license to make completley unsubstantiated claims that damage another's credibility or reputation with no consequences, however, seems not to be guaranteed by the constitution.
Ahh, the memories of Usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
The best rule to follow is: never say anything in email or in a posting that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know.
Information wanting to be free is a 2 edged sword.
Re:Ahh, the memories of Usenet (Score:2, Insightful)
The best rule to follow is: never say anything in email or in a posting that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know.
Re:Ahh, the memories of Usenet (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a better rule. You should never post onto the Usenet/Web anything that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know, or anything that you'd be uncomforable with when it's pulled out of the archives twenty years later.
I know several people who were highly embarassed when Google made available old Usenet postings...
bradpitt.diaryland.com (Score:2, Interesting)
It was expertly written (incognito at the time) by the well-known diarylander Uncle Bob, until a cease-and-desist [diaryland.com] order was issued by Brad Pitt's legal team.
It was insanely funny, and no one would've ever actually believed that it was Mr. Pitt, but someone got their panties in a wad over it.
No balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing slashdot some of you will think I'm an idiot. But the reason that there's so much wrong going on lies mainly in the fact that people no longer stand up and fight. They sit back and take it in the ass. Every great movement in history was started by a few people who said "screw this shit!" and did something about it. So, to everyone who has gotten or will get a C&D letter from anyone. If you feel that what you were requested to cease doing is not wrong (read: wrong as in evil bad, not wrong as in illegal. What is legal and what is just are completely different) join me in saying "SCREW YOU!"
Most of the time they simply expect you to comply, it will be a great shock when you don't. Often so much of a shock that they wont even follow up. Especially when they realize the legal costs are sometimes greater than what they can get out of you.
MOD PARENT UP YOU NASTY, NASTY MODERATORS (Score:3, Funny)
--
mcp\kaaos
Re:No balls (Score:3, Insightful)
Having money is not a requirement for you to be the defendant in a lawsuit. The court can have your paycheck garnered for the rest of your life until you pay back what you owe. Should you refuse to work and/or pay out what you owe as the result of a settlement, then jail is an option. There you can slave away in the cafeteria for X number of years to payback the debt.
Face it, some way or another you're gonna take it in the ass. Personally, I would rather take it in the ass in the proverbial sense rather than the physical sense.
Re:No balls (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No balls (Score:2)
Re:No balls (Score:2)
I don't know what I'd do, except for one thing:
Post the "Cease and Desist" to my page immediately
That brings the opponent out in the open, something that can only work to advance justice (or what? IANAL!)
I'd probably also submit it to chillingeffects.org. [chillingeffects.org] This is a truly cool place for information on this topic. Go there.
easy to say until it actually happens (Score:2, Insightful)
In the face of an opponent with (for your purposes) infinite resources, folding your tent and going home begins to look attractive fairly quickly--and I say that from unhappy experience. Conceptual martydom is a much more appealling thought that the imminent prospect of actual martyrdom.
Re:No balls (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No balls: Your reputation and freedom (Score:2)
OT: Here is a funny journal entry about balls [kuro5hin.org].
Web Authors Have Same Rights as Any Publisher (Score:2)
Challenges to published information happen every day in all the media, and they've been happening for hundreds of years. (And if to you are ever slandered or libeled, you'll be glad of it.) The web is just another way to publish, that's all.
No need for displays of testosterone. If you get a C&D letter, just get a lawyer and contest it.
People are surprised? (Score:2)
Do other laws work this way? Do laws apply to fraud only sometimes apply to fraud? How about shoplifting. Hey, maybe Winona's only crime was that she didn't check to see when the law applied. Maybe she was only a few hours or even feet from having shoplifted legally!
-Brent
My opinions (Score:2, Interesting)
Whats the American court system to do (Score:5, Interesting)
There's only two real rules in cyberspace that apply everywhere.
1 - Large prime factors are hard to find.
2 - Everything is a bitstream.
That's it - everything else is a matter of quaint local customs and luck, good or bad.
Well DUH! (Score:3, Informative)
The tort of libel has never depended on the number of readers, but on the issue.
Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
This article has nothing to do with Free Speech. You can say whatever the hell you want so long as you do not bind yourself legally not to. In this case, he violated a non-disclosure agreement. This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Well, that's not entirely fair. It may be that for reasons out of the employee's control that they are at the only job available. That said, even if you hate your job with a passion, unless you're planning on leaving already, badmouthing your job in public is a good way to get fired.
No it isn't a lawsuit, any more than my pointing a gun at you is attempted murder. It's just a threat. In this particular case it's a threat by someone with a great deal more power and money than you who could effectively bankrupt you in could. Of course, like all threats, it could just be a bluff, but, like when a mugger points a gun at you, are you really willing to risk it? A Cease and Desist may not be a lawsuit, but for most people it effectively stops their behavior, even if their behavior is legal and ethical. (I'm not arguing the specific case of C&D use in the article, it sounds like the guy accidentally did violate his NDA, he got warned to fix the situation, and he did. C&Ds can be used in perfectly ethical ways.)
Blogs as regulated speech? *snort* (Score:5, Insightful)
Their first example was about a cease and desist order from a _former employer_ about violating a nondisclosure agreement for merely mentioning a project. If the facts are as presented, that's no threat to free speech. First of all, since we aren't talking classified information or even trade secrets, the nondisclosure probably wasn't even violated: a nondisclosure agreement doesn't mean you aren't allowed to talk about your work in public!
Second a threat about violating a nondisclosure from a FORMER employer isn't what I call compelling. Sure, as long as you work there they've got you by the short hairs, but once you're gone the only way they can deal with you is to sue, and that's going to be a lot of work for them and no guaranteed win.
Their next example of
"Our server crashed today, and the idiot IT person at our company couldn't get the thing running." isn't likely to be actionable either, even if it isn't true. Calling someone an idiot is an opinion, not slander, unless their lawyers can twist it into making it look like you were actually claiming they were mentally defective rather than just delivering an insult.
Yeah, if you badmouth your own company in public, you might well get fired. That's as true in a web log as anywhere else. But the rest of it is mostly overblown threats.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on the net.
P.S Oh, and if anyone thinks I speak for any of the companies I have worked for or the company I now work for -- you're out of your mind.
This happened to me... (Score:2)
opinion vs fact (Score:5, Insightful)
For reasons completely unrelated to blogging, I've long since learned to do my best to separate fact from opinion. Modifiers like "I (don't) believe", "In my opinion", and "It seems like", or even just a simple "IMHO", mark opinion clearly as such.
When I post stuff to my (or any) website, I'm fully aware that I have a potential audience of millions (even though I'm usually happy to get 5000 hits/month). I believe that postings on the net (including blogging) should have the same rights (and therefore responsibilities) as publishing a 'dead tree edition'.
I remember in one case, I was responding to someone's request to remove a neo-nazi site from a machine hosted by my employer/client. I actually gave her two responses. One was the official one. The other was a personal response given from my personal account. To make it even clearer, I prefaced my personal comments with a note that the reason why I was using a different account was to make it clear that my response was a personal opinion, not a corporate one.
I was explaining to her why I felt that the site should not be forced off the air for freedom of speech reasons, even though I (like her) found the contents repugnant.
Some years previous to that, I was working at UBC during the Clayoquot Sound protests in BC (1993). I did a good bit of posting to local usenet groups -- often using my university account after hours. For those postings, I changed my 'organization' field to 'Just Another Radical' -- once again to provide the distinction between my employer and my opinions.
Such little touches allow me to express my own opinion more freely while/by being responsible for my employers' legal fears.
As for posting on the net about what goes on at an employer where I have a non-disclosute agreement, that's just a legal minefield from day one. Even when writing about personal feelings about what occured, I'd be careful to only explain my feelings, not what occured -- until, and unless, I got an OK from my boss for the types of stuff I wanted to write about.
There's a big difference between writing about events in a personal diary vs. in a blog. A personal diary has some expectation of privacy and non-publication (at least until I get around to publishing my memoirs 30 years down the road). 'Blogs, on the other hand, start public. They have absolutely no pretense of privacy. Putting stuff that might turn out to be sensitive in such a location seems simply silly.
If I wouldn't put it in a letter to the editor (presuming that they'd publish it), then I wouldn't put it in my web log. Period.
Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)
- People are held personally accountable for their own actions
- "Equal protection under the law" means just that
- The phrase "except on the internet" to be found nowhere in US Constitution
Why do so many people here have such a problem with this?Publish your writings (on the internet or otherwise)? Don't want to get sued for slander? Use the five magic words:
"I believe..."
"In my opinion..."
It's not that difficult!
Re:Duh! (Hmmm...) (Score:2)
Be derogatory over the air, and not get caught (Score:2)
Chances are, you're the ONLY one in your company that even comes close to listening/using the HAM radio bands.
Only use blogs for what their meant for, to talk about the newest color of your baby's poo. Which in itself, can be a metaphor for work.
Oh cmon (Score:2)
Speech is Speech, Regardless of the Medium (Score:2)
The fact that the Internet uses different technology that radio, TV, newspapers, etc., doesn't mean the rules have changed.
Internal Memos (Score:2, Informative)
Free Speech is a delusion only. (Score:2)
The only speech that is allowed is what your respective government permits AT THAT TIME.
If you dont believe me, tell an FBI agent how to blow people up and that you want too.. ( or a web page with instructions, they will come to your house so you can tell them in person ) or that xyz race should be burnt at the stake, or that the president should be shot.. ( or what ever other ruler you have in your country ). Or about telling a US judge how to decode a DVD encryption, or give him a serial number to windowsXP...
See how fast your speech is squelched..
or give Paladin press a call.. or most any other company that has 'alternative' information. They have plenty of experience with being told 'no that is restricted information'..
The examples are endless.. so why bother even pretending we have any true freedom in what we say or do?
Freedoms vs Freedoms (Score:3, Interesting)
The ideas of libel and slander evolved in a world where there were major practical differences between privacy and publicity. It was easy to outlaw certain things in public declarations while still allowing people to speak freely in personal conversations and private letters. Now along comes the Internet, which not only gives individuals the capability to publish their private thoughts to the whole world with ease, but lets them do it in a way that feels as normal and natural as writing a letter to a friend. Or for that matter, loaning someone a book or whistling a popular song in public. It's definitely not a given that people should be prohibited from treating the world as a big group of close friends, or that the limits created for a world in which that was impossible should continue to apply.
While there are such things as trade secrets and business confidentiality, a company's right to limit its employees freedom to speak about things that go on at work should not be unlimited. I understand that companies have good, practical reasons to want to control absolutely everything that's said about them. But they don't necessarily have the right to do it.
Most of us are used to the idea that our companies can limit what we say about them. We could just as easily get used to the idea that a lot of people shoot their mouths off meaninglessly in blogs and learn to ignore most of it. In my mind this would be better than going in the other direction and treating everybody on Earth like a 20th century publisher.
Legal Limit (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Legal Limit (Score:2)
I meant 'Legal Limit' in the context of 'They shouldn't be allowed to do it'
You read 'Legal Limit' in the context of 'There should be a limit to the amount you can cull'
Awww heck, now I don't know which is funnier and if I should give you my karma!
*grin*
Re:Duh! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh! (Score:3, Funny)
but google showed me to be correct on both counts.... that's some weird shit.
Re:Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be an idiot.
Do you really want to explain to a jury of regular middle-class people that "Yes, this picture of a 10-year-old being fisted was on my free website, and it came from my IP, but you didn't find it on my hard drive, so na-na na-na-na, you have to let me go free"??
And also, I have it on good authority that you can buy a Brooklin Bridge really cheap...
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I'm going to call bullshit on this one. I simply don't believe that they can't bust you because you don't own the computer it's on. The ISP would be able to show who is using the storage space from their logs.
I'd bet that if you rented one of those self storage garages and stored drugs in there you'd get busted just as if the drugs were in your house/apartment.
Re:Duh! (Score:4, Interesting)
Putting aside the flame-inducing child porn reference, you're still way off. The host is more like a news stand, and you're the author of what they're distributing.
This is about authorship. If I post on a blog "Hilary Rosen is a heroin addict, it's affecting her judgement, and I have proof, here are the pictures [insert doctored photos here]", she can sue your ass for libel, and rightfully so (assuming you don't have real proof that she is, of course). There's no reason web content should be immune from standard libel laws, or other laws that govern free speech.
Of course, they should also be protected by those same laws. What's really distressing are moves by various entities that are trying to exert more control over online publishing than they'd have over traditional media.
IJBT (I've Just Been Trolled)
Have A Nice Trial and Conviction! (Score:3, Informative)
The data you post to a web site that is under your control is just that, under your control. Your assertion that you are not liable for illegal material that you collected and placed on a server that is owned by someone else is fatuous. You're renting space on that server, and you're responsible for what you put in that space.
And don't get to cute about imagining you can post pseudonymously or anonymously and evade responsibility. Your IP address points right back to you. Any prosecutor worth his/her salt can get a warrant compelling your ISP to trace that info and identify the person who made the post. (Happens a lot to AOL in the Loudoun County, Virginia, courts.)
MOD PARENT TROLL! (Score:2)
I simply don't believe you. If you put the content on the server you are responsible. The minor detail of who owns the computer is not relevant.
I have no facts to back my opinion, but neither have you.
Re:Duh! (Score:2)
Nonsense. If you rent an apartment, does that mean that stuff you put into it is not yours? Of course it is yours, storage is storage whether it is physical or virtual.
What these people need to wise up to is that you should just make yourself a pseudonym, use no personally traceable information
Can you do that? I can't, not with absolute certainty, and I know Unix backwards, frontwards and upside down. It's easy enough to defeat a casual attempt to trace you, but if the FBI subpoena your ISP's billing records and proxy cache logs, what are you gonna do then?
Then it's someone else's problem, not yours, and there are no consequences.
I'll be amused to read about you on the frontpage of
Re:Duh! (Score:2)
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Sir, you have no proof whatsoever that the people who control our media are Jewish. Please refrain from posting such offensive garbage.
Re:rediculous (Score:2)
I think the bigger point is WHO CARES?
It's a pretty well-established fact that there are more Jewish entertainers, compared to the proportion of Jews in general society. WHO CARES?
A lot of people in charge of studios/media companies have been, and are, Jewish. (Hint: look up MGM sometime
Oh no! Negroes are controlling the NBA and NFL! Whatever shall we do?
However, denying the preponderance of a certain race/ethnicity is equally as silly. Facts are facts. Doesn't mean sweet diddly, though.
Re:rediculous (Score:2)
Sir, you have no proof whatsoever that the people who control our media are Jewish. Please refrain from posting such offensive garbage.
Um... this reads to me as if the people controlling the media might have been offended to be called Jews, rather than vice-versa. Probably not what you wanted to say.
Re:rediculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now watch... Clarence Thomas got pubic hair on his coke can because he sucks donkey dicks.
Re:rediculous (Score:2)
Which means it's the first article of amendment. It's written right under the phrase (emphasis mine):
Re:rediculous (Score:2)
Did you have something specific in mind?
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw an interesting alternative reason (I wish I could remember where): It's not the expense of publishing a rebuttal that is significant, but rather the difficulty of bringing the rebuttal to the attention of people who may have seen the original libelous statement. I think this alternative argument *is* applicable to "publishing" on the internet.
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually modded you up, but wanted to reply (sorry
This is a very good point, but there are very interesting legal and ethical questions. If, say the Drudge Report slanders me--is it also libel as it would be in print?
Sure, I can respond with my own web page, but no one will see it. In other words, I don't have an equal chance to make my point and defend myself. This can cause actual monetary and emotional damages.
I think such protection should be required or else large internet media outlets could abuse their power.
However, if I slander someone on my web page--only my family and a few friends will ever really know. It would clearly be restrictive if we all needed libel insurance to publish a web page.
I think the answer--as it does in the print world---will have to lie in page views. After a certain amount of people have seen it--it goes from slander to libel.
Andrewsullivan.com: Subject to libel laws
Talkingpointsmemo.com: Subject to libel laws
Livejournal.com/~aneng: Not subject
This is all sort of a side point anyway. The article mostly deals with people getting fired for breaking company policies. (First rule of fight club, don't talk about your company
Re:rediculous (Score:2)
Re:ridiculous (Score:2)
Sigh. If you want to read some good journalism on the "Jewish Conspiracy" check out this book [amazon.com] by Jon Ronson. It's called "Them: Adventures with Extremists." You can read an interview with the author here [amazon.co.uk]. He basically investigates cults of all forms and sees what's true and what's not. Spoiler: A lot of it's true but not at all in the way you think. It's a great read. Until then, knock that unsubstantiated, mildly racist shit off, will you?
Triv
Re:rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I can't believe there are still idiots like you who believe that the internet is "special" and requires "special" laws that only apply to it. The only new questions the internet brings up are questions of jurisdiction. That's all.
"Regulation of print journalism was necessary because the barriers to entry were so high; it was not reasonable to expect Joe Sixpack to purchase his own printing press and retaliate against libellous allegations."
You missed the entire point. It has nothing to with whether or not "Joe Sixpack" can afford a printing press or not, it's about Joe Sixpack seeking compensation and/or retribution for damage to his character through outright lies and falsehoods.
If publication A (and "publication" does include publication on the internet) says "Joe Sixpack is a child molester!" what can he do? In your idiotic worldview, he'd publish something saying "No, I'm not," but where would that leave him? He'd be a child molester in denial, that's where (and him denying it only goes to prove publication A's point). The only thing that would have done for him is to take a bite out of his wallet (even web servers aren't free).
And why should he have to do this? It's not like it's his fault that publication A lied about him. If anything, publication A should be held responsible for the damage their actions have caused.
Libel and slander laws have nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with personal responsibility. Just as the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shoot people, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander. It does nothing more than give you enough rope to hang yourself with.
And when all is said and done, I'd much rather deal with slanderous allegations in a civil trial than in the court of public opinion. Especially when the court of public opinion includes "people" who would write that last paragraph in your post.
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The value of archives (Score:2)
Re:The value of archives (Score:2)
And yes, the backup copy of the archive in the library of Alexandria, Egypt blocks access, too.
Re:yet another way to get arrested. (Score:3, Insightful)