Europe, Free Speech, And The Internet 341
drdale writes "Declan McCullagh responds at CNET.com to a proposal by the Council of Europe to require Internet sites to publish replies by individuals whom the sites criticize. This would apply to all web sites, apparently, including blogs. Per McCullagh, the Council's proposals do not have the force of law, but often serve as the basis for new laws." Imagine the chilling effect if McCullagh's own politechbot and similar sites had to follow such rules.
Dupe, perhaps? (Score:2, Informative)
This just highlights the bad search engine on /. (Score:2)
How about search for dupe posts? (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, this isn't a dupe, exactly. It covers the topic of the proposed law, but this article is an expert's response and should bring up issues that /. folk hadn't thought of yet...
--PhinMak --
Re:How about search for dupe posts? (Score:2)
Re:How about search for dupe posts? (Score:2)
Re:This just highlights the bad search engine on / (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This just highlights the bad search engine on / (Score:2)
Re:Dupe, perhaps? (Score:2)
Re:Dupe, perhaps? (Score:3, Funny)
Worse. . . it's a glitch in the Matrix! Run for your lives! :p
Re:Dupe, perhaps? (Score:2)
"Today, the Council of Europe (an influential quasi-governmental body that drafts conventions and treaties) is to finalize a proposal that would force all Internet news organizations, moderated mailing lists and even web logs (blogs) to allow a right of response to any person or organization they criticize. This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate t
FreeSpeech means you can Duplicate (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want to repat myself (Score:3, Funny)
Definitely! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait!
Re:Definitely! (Score:3, Funny)
You might have something. If Microsoft felt a need to reply to every negative article that made it onto Slashdot, their PR costs would skyrocket. We could drag them into bankruptcy!
Seen it in action... (Score:5, Insightful)
I commented this late in the very-similar post from the other day, but I figured it was worth it again, now that this is recieving more attention.
The print incarnation of this rule has long been in force in Belgium, and it was funny, the local english-speaking magazine had to print a response by what is considered here to be a radical right-wing group (the Vlamms-Blok, more harmless than moderate republicans in the US, if you ask me); they printed the response, along with several articles sorrounding it (literally, on the page) about the introduction and severe abuse of the laws which mandate it, hence completely invalidating the response piece. They weren't even obligated to allow a re-response, it was great.
My real question is, though, how can something as widely defined as European online communication be expected to produce cases which can actually be enforced in court. What's to prevent me from using a US blogsite, or host my site on US servers? Nothing. There's nothing like Eurocrats speanding hideous quantities of time and money on something which proves useless by sheer virtue of its unenforcability.
freedom of speech!? (Score:3, Insightful)
I shouldn't have to pay the bandwidth costs for someone else's opinion any more than they should have to pay them for mine. It violates my right to free speech if I have to spread their ideas and their right if they have to spread mine.
If this ever comes out in the states, I'll send so many replies to M$ that it won't even be funny.
Re:freedom of speech!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. If you critize someone, you have to allow them a rebuttal--and if someone critizies you, they have to allow you to rebut.
It's not a violation of the freedom of speech per se. It's an infringement upon your right to exclusivly use your property in an attempt to improve the quality of speach.
Re:freedom of speech!? (Score:2)
Microsoft posts a lot of stuff about you on its site, does it?
How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?
Getting a jump... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Getting a jump... (Score:2, Funny)
Why chilling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why chilling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, that's mostly useful in non-litigatious countries (;-))
--dave
Re:Why chilling? (Score:4, Informative)
What does a right of reply have to do with not being able to sue for slander or libel?
Come on, if your local newspaper, or, more likely, the National Enquirer, published a headline on page one saying you're a pig-fucker, you already have the right to write back to the editor. So they publish your rebuttal and say - "see, we've published your rebuttal, nyah-nyah, don't sue us".
Would you be satisfied? Not very likely. You'd sue (unless you really are a pig-fucker, or the goatse.cx man, in which case there has been no libel).
You think people are going to pay attention to a rebuttal? Or that it would have as much credibility as a million-dollar award by the courts?
Re:Why chilling? (Score:3, Informative)
No, it means that when you post anti-Microsoft tirades on your little blog site, MS has the right to come in and force you to put up a 500k .doc file telling everyone why you are full of shit.
Re:Why chilling? (Score:2)
And you can tell them to host it themselves and you link the damn thing.
I am not saying that I am for this (I am undecided), but the hosting dificulties arguments are BS.
Re:Why chilling? (Score:2, Insightful)
In a way it makes sense to hold media organizations to a right-of-reply standard since they generally have control over the media distribution channels (the capacity to print newspapers, ownership of the broadcasting stations, etc.) and therefore could easily stifle contrary opinions.
There is no such potential monopoly of information on the web. Anyone and everyone can put up a web site (by hosting it themselves,
Re:Why chilling? (Score:2)
Rubbish.
As has already been said (here and in the earlier dup story), this is the same as laws that already exist for newspapers, etc.
If your alarmist reaction had any foundation in reality, our newspapers would by now be reduced to massive slabs of paper filled with 500 page responses to various articles.
It simpl
Re:Why chilling? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was simply that the scare-mongering reaction "I might be forced to host a 500 meg file that will crash my server" is simply and demonstrably wrong.
You can object to the principle of it if you like (that's your call, and I don't really care much either way what your principles say on the matter) but alarmist reactions are not a good way to further your cause.
Sadly, they seem to be par for the course here, but that's a who
Re:Why chilling? (Score:2)
Indeed. In fact, it should be extended even to advertising; but the right-of-response would not be given to the competition, but rather to organizations fighting some kind of product.
For example, Mc Donald ads would have to post rebuttals by healt
You have it backwards. (Score:2, Insightful)
> It just ensures the powerfull and rich people
> can't bash and blaim poor people
What would happen is that the moment some little guy opened his mouth and printed even the slightest criticism of the wealthy or of a large corporation, they would receive an overwhelming ton of rebuttal that they would be 'required' to post.
Write in your blog that you hate your Ford, and you will find yourself with 100,000 words of pro-Ford verbiage -- from 100 paid Ford shill
Re:You have it backwards. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why chilling? (Score:2, Insightful)
It also ensures that relatively poor people can't say anything because the labor and/or expense of complying is beyond their means.
I think this is a symptom of a larger problem.
Whenever a situation arises where it becomes possible for "little guys" to compete with the "big guys" the big guys come up with a response to make it difficult or impossible.
Examples:
Situation: Anyone can come up with an invention and file a patent. Response: flood the office with patents so arcane and numerous that the
Re:Why chilling? (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that journalists are "powerfull and rich"? Do you have any idea what the average reporter's salary is?
Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
Here in the US it's stated explicitly that freedom of the press
Anonymous Coward is a fool (Score:5, Funny)
In accordance with European law Anonymous Coward may reply to this comment.
Re:Anonymous Coward is a fool (Score:2)
...I didn't think so!
I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Compagnies like Microsoft can bash linux as a file server or Java as a viable programming language and Sun and the OSS community can't do anything about it. With laws like these the truth can come out. It is a law of fairness. Not just the rich media have a voice anymore.
I'd love to see such fairness happen in North America.
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:2)
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:2)
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech is not hindered by this law. It is enhanced.
There is only good with the US constitution's goal especially regarding freedom of speech. However today a few media giants control what information you are presented with and it is very hard for many people to have an unbiased point of view.
You are right to ascertain that two conflicting points of views means that one certainly isn't right. I'd even go so far as saying that two conflicting articles could both be wrong!
The point is to get peopl
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:2)
Why do you believe that politicians and media in the US live in a free haven from public backlash? There were plenty of anti-Hatch remarks on the Hatch
"Compagnies like Microsoft can bash linux as a file server or Java as a viable programming language and Sun and the OSS community can't do anything about it."
And do we not bash Microsoft regularly on
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:2)
Stupid post of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't the public vote for politictians into or out of their job? How much more "public backlash" do you want?
Compagnies like Microsoft can bash linux as a file server or Java as a viable programming language and Sun and the OSS community can't do anything about it
Don't the vast majority of
With laws like these the truth can come out.
Or slanderous lies.
Not just the
Re:I think the US doesn't get it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell this to Trent Lott and Howell Raines.
That's a good thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
And what is the alternative? Facing countless lawsuits? I think it would be less easy to sue someone if he already had to publish your clarification.
And it doesn't say you would have to delete your original or that you can't make sure everyone understands you were forced by law to publish the "clarification" and you still stand by your original report.
Re:That's a good thing! (Score:4, Informative)
It's not the law for newspapers in the U.S.; the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a right-of-reply statute in 1974. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) [cornell.edu].
Re:That's a good thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are writing well researched material, then your opponent must reply in kind. If you are writing unresearched, knee-jerking, reactionary garbage and didn't set your facts right, then maybe you have something to worry about.
Think of it this way: What if Microsoft wrote a terrible review of a Linux filesystem with obvious errors. The right of reply would allow the coder responsible to send in a reply that said "actually, we do have that feature. It is in the code, lines 789-1245. It works. It has worked for several years now, and we have a mailing list full of responses to prove it." This is good.
What this law does (or what it intends to do, and I hope that the law is not bent to other purposes) is level the playing field. Microsoft can try and publish a slander paper on Red Hat, but Red Hat can refute the charges just like Microsoft can refute something that Red Hat says about Microsoft.
What this forces people to write more about the strengths of the idea that they are proposing and less about the weaknesses of someone else's idea. It is easy to be a critic. It takes a lot more thought to come up with a better idea. But better ideas change the word and negative comments take it nowhere.
The right of reply can be very good. Far too many stories are one-sided. Some of the best journalism I have ever read involved a newspaper committing half of a page to one side of an issue and the other half to the opposite issue. That format forced the reading to really THINK about the issue.
Please reply with your well-researched and insightful comments. They may be contrary to mine, but if they are insightful, then I am listening.
Re:That's a good thing! (Score:2)
Two reasions that this is appropriate for newspapers but not appropriate as a general online law.
First of all Newspapers are a priviledged/advantaged speaker. Unless you happen to own a newspaper of your own you are incapable or equivalent speach yourself. This law places a very minor burden on a large corporate newspaper in order to grant others a voice.
On the internet everyoe already has the right and ability
Re:That's a good thing! (Score:3)
I don't see what lawsuits you think are faced by not granting the right of reply, newspapers are largely exempt from libel in common law, provided that the publication does not appear to be intentionally malicious. So short of the most irresponsible, blatantly partisan newspapers, lawsuits should not be a huge concern. Again, this is the Anglo common-law pr
Re:That's a good thing! (Score:2)
The US could not mandate right of reply. However, the US could mandate that people can't bring libel actions if they are given a right of reply.
Right of reply to a reply? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right of reply to a reply? (Score:2)
If you outlaw comments... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand maybe if you're trying to come across as an "unbiased" news site, but to make even personal and overtly editorial sites comply with this would just be silly.
If they have to do it, they should make the responder host his own comments, and at the most make the original article include a link to the response. And even then, only for certain sites. To have to post the response on your own site it too much burden and would severely stiffle freedom of expression.
And if I posted an article on how great Linux is, would I have to give space to Microsoft for a rebuttal?
Re:If you outlaw comments... (Score:2)
> I have to give space to Microsoft for a rebuttal?
No, you wouldn't.
On the other hand, if you'd post that Windows XP is made out of mushed baby toes, Microsoft can ask you to post their version of the story telling that no baby toes are involved in the production of Windows and only the best quality fertilizer on the market is used.
Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Flamebait)
It smacks of Totalitarianism where an elite few are allowed to decide WHO gets listened to and WHO doesn't.
The idea that a crazy bum has a right to be heard is insanity in itself. Sure, he can SAY anything he wants, but I have a RIGHT not to be forced into listening to his crazy talk. It doesn't matter if he speaks truth either.
Nothing good can come from this.
You're joking, right? (Score:2)
No one is "forcing people to listen to others," but being required to print responses. No one has to read it. Your rant is all about this supposed movement to "force listening." I don't know what you are talking about.
Re:You're joking, right? (Score:2)
You have absolutely no right to COMPELL me to take action to include your comments in my blog.
-
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody forced you to read the rebuttal.
THIS STORY IS NOT A DUPE ... (Score:2)
I Think what was mentioned holds true, this is about as effective as slashdot trying to make and enforce a law ... well we'd be sure the laws were redundant and there was more than one classification by duplicating the laws often ...
hehehehe
Will this do any good? (Score:3, Funny)
Thats the way I would handle being forced to publish critisim.
Dupe and a stupid knee jerk reaction to boot. (Score:2)
First, this is a dupe
Second, this puts internet media on even footing with newspapers which do not seem to have died from this. This is a standard condition under which newspapers, radio and TV in EU operate and they have established very good rules on how to do this over the years. Actually it is a good thing (TM). Saves feeding the lawyers which cannot be bad.
Third, any claims that this will put small sites out of business due to expenses on verifying repliers is complete crap. In most (if not all) EU
Re:Dupe and a stupid knee jerk reaction to boot. (Score:2)
I think it's a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not concerned about this law, as I'm interested in letting people see the replies I get to anything I put online. Simply allowing comments on the article would take care of this.
I don't see it as chilling, especially since it only has to be there for 24 hours and you can just link to it.
It requires you to add a "Replies to our stories" link on your news site. Boo Hoo.
Hell, I can see this becoming a new source of revenue for geeks. Take blog software, make some cosmetic changes and market it as a "response administration system."
Authenticating the source of the replies could be handled by a login process, and news sites could automate the process of inserting a link to the "replies" section a hundred different ways.
I'm not worried. If people want to make fools of themselves by disagreeing with me, let them. Half the time the arguments against me just strengthen my point.
Re:I think it's a good idea (Score:2)
RTFA! It would apply to anybody.
This is asinine. There's no reason a person can't reply. If I print something in my blog, that's my opinion. I should not be forced to give somebody else's opinion as well. If I want to give others' opinions, then it should be my choice.
Also, others are free to res
Thank heavens for the First Amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
A requirement like this would have a huge chilling effect on any individual who owns a domain name ("company") and wants to make an unpopular comment. Said individual would be forced to publish all the replies! You could easily make it unfeasible to say unpopular things with this regulation, if you were a dirigiste Eurocrat aimed at such a thing.
Remember, the victim isn't you,
Re:Thank heavens for the First Amendment. (Score:2, Interesting)
Now what do I do? Post my rebuttal on my own site, hosted on a lousy residential DSL, or in my slashdot journal. Nobody, I repeat, nobody, is going to read my rebuttal. However, if I let them publish my rebuttal I might at leas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sneaky way to make everything a Blog (Score:2)
Internet should be the cure, not the disease (Score:2, Insightful)
This legislation is really silly. Even if this was ever needed in the past it was because the cost of publishing was a barrier to entry, so if a newspaper slagged you the cost to refute them would be too high to ever get your voice heard. However the beauty of internet is that the cost of entry is almost non-existent. After all, I'm spouting my opinions right here and now and it didn't cost me a penny.
However regardless of the medium I am against anything like this. Declan appropriately quotes the foll
Why does everyone think this is about censorship? (Score:2)
Re:Internet should be the cure, not the disease (Score:2)
While with print media there was some minimal chance to reach the same audience with paid ads, on we
Re:Internet should be the cure, not the disease (Score:5, Insightful)
The point about right of reply in this context is that it gets to the same people who saw the original piece.
Unless the legislation is written truely clumsily, it shouldn't be a big problem. Or unless you're under US jurisdiction - but then, as Mark Twain once commented in another context, I repeat myself.
Cacophony (Score:2)
so what ? we have this already (Score:3, Informative)
this means that if someone badmouths me, i have the right to defend myself.
is usual to see this right being used by politicians during campaigns. ans since the arcticle is generic, it applies to _ALL KINDS_ of media. doesn't matter if is writen, spoken or digital. you badmouth me in your blog and your blog is in brasil, i'll get a reply right. if you don't publish my reply i'll get a warrant to shovel the reply down your server's throat. simple, efficient and it's there since before internet went public.
Hmm... (Score:2)
If allowing The Opposition (whoever The Opposition may be) to write a response to your article, and then linking to that response, is enough to satisfy the "right of response", then frankly I'm all for it.
There is no such thing as unbiased media, no matter the medium, no matter the author. It's a simple consequence of the fact that as humans, we aren't omniscient, and so everything we perceive and express is subject to the limitations of our own viewpoints. Even a camer
Repeat after me (Score:3, Informative)
The Europeans do not have a bill of rights. They do not have a constitution granting them freedoms like we have.
They've chosen it themselves. If laws like this are the result, then that's just what they'll have to put up with.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:2)
One small correction, friend. The BOR doesn't grant us rights in America -- God does that. The Constitution, and its Amendments guarantees us that our government will not interfere in these inalienable rights. [Practically speaking, though, we're drifting far from the ideals of freedom upon which this country was founded. It is a sad truth of humanity, that rights of freedom begin to erod
Re:Repeat after me (Score:2)
Reasonable (Score:2)
Especially on the net.
If all you have to do is link to the response this takes almost no resources away from your site.
Someone posted that an additional part of the burden would be in verifying the identity of the respondant. But the law could easily put the onus of proof on the respondant.
The law also doesn't say that everyone can post anything on everyones web site it only says that you need to post replies t
Re:Reasonable (Score:2)
There is a grey area between when something is critial and when it is merely stating facts about someone.
But by the same token there is also a grey area in defining "assault". Yet we don't have a problem with people calling a casual bump "assault".
And furthermore even if the law said that anyone who is even mentioned on a web site had the right of reply, I don't see how the miniscule effort invovled in posting a single link constitutes a chilling effect.
Let It Fall Down Around Them (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Goad someone in to mentioning you on their website.
2) Demand right of reply.
3) Just like politicians never reply to the actual question, nor do you.
Now you get someone else to pay all of your hosting costs for you.
Imagine Petsmart, "PetCo has described themselves as the best pet store in the country. We demand the right of redress to fill their site with advertising for our own store."
Every time Microsoft posted anything about Linux, the open source community would get granted rebuttal space on Microsoft's own web servers.
Not only that but who gets the right of reply? Linus? Every contributor to Linux? Anyone who's ever reported a Mozilla bug?
Then there're the counter exploits: Refuse until they take you to court. Continue refusing until the day before the court date. Then post the rebuttal on the same page as the now two-years out of date story.
The reality is it's totally unenforcable. Sit back, rather than get worked up over it, let them try it and watch it fall to pieces around them.
New feature request for Slashdot: "Autodupe" (Score:2)
imagine the chilling effect... (Score:5, Insightful)
The European proposal seems to amount to "if you are a news site (commercial or non-commercial), you have to put in a link to the person/company you write about if they ask you to". I fail to see the "chilling effect" in that. It seems to be a matter of simple journalistic ethics to do that anyway.
If we could eliminate product libel and many forms of trademark infringement lawsuits that have cropped up around web sites through such a simple requirement in the US, I think we should adopt it, too: it would seem to be a great way of ensuring that people can exercise their right to free speech without fear of being sued out of everything they own.
So Timothy doesn't bother reading Slashdot... (Score:2)
Meaning of equality (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine the consequences for Slashdot! (Score:2, Funny)
53n4t0r h4tch is a fuxx0r and a l4m4!
Senator Hatchâ(TM)s right of reply response:
???????
Done right, this can be a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Summarizing, despite the fact I have one of the most stringent definitions of censorship [jerf.org] I know of, this doesn't fit as long as it remains as limited in scope as it actually is. There are a lot of ways to screw this up, but the actual proposal [coe.int] (which should have been linked in the Slashdot article!) actually manages to avoid the traps. As such, this can qualify as a bona-fide cultural difference without destroying the world.
Now, be sure you understand that my approval is fragile and the things that people are reading into the proposal, since they didn't RTFProposal, are indeed scary and it's heartening to see people responding to that. But the limited proposal as it stands is not really a threat, until it is expanded.
(If you are against it because you feel it will inevitably expand into unethical extremes, well, I'd say the odds of that are pretty decent too so I would definately respect that view of things.)
A few points.... (Score:2, Insightful)
2) If this were passed, I'd expect to see bloggers, etc., reduce the number of specific people they crit
An easy demonstration . . . (Score:2)
Find a reference to yourself somewhere in Europe, and demand your right to reply. In your reply, criticize someone else, and encourage them to reply to your criticism, and hope they criticize you. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They've turned the WWW into Usenet.
They should be made to answer ;-) (Score:2)
That is part the reason why some people make (company)sucks.com sites - because sometimes these cowards in corporations will not answer justified criticism.
I have been waiting for years for the answers to some simple questions from people in the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
It is my informed opinion that they and others in ICANN are corrupt.
UN WIP
The Suspended Diary of Samuel Pepys (Score:5, Funny)
May 27 1669 This morning, before I went to the office, Nick the servant of Mr. Scobell came requesting that I correct what I said of him and link to his version of events. Staid past noon so to make this correction: "Mr. Scobell says that Parliament merely misunderstood how it was writ that Parliament was dissolved and that Mr. Scobell was not in danger of being arrested and you may find his version at Desk.Mr.Scobell.KingStreetByHayMarket.London." Thence to the office. Dined with my cosin which was very good; only the venison pasty was palpable beef. Then to home and to bed.
May 28 1669 To my office till noon. Intended to meet with Mr. Harper to drink and eat, for I had not eaten earlier. But hither my cosin comes to complain and ask that I write this correction "That I shall say that my cosin does buy his meat from fyne butchers and that he would not mix venisin with beef" and you may find his writings at Diary.ThomasPepys.LeftPocket-TheGreenCoat.London. Unable to meet Mr. Harper. Drank two cups of Metheglin instead. Then to bed.
May 29 1669 Up in the morning and I was to go to King's Crossing to collect my salary so I can pay my landlord before he gets apoplectic. But Mr. Cook came angrily to correct me about what I wrote of him so let me write "Mr. Cook did not 'Rail' or otherwise speak in any but a rational way when confronting Mr. Pepys about if Mr. Pepys was after my job." and you may find his statement at MrCook.DiaryLibrary.BehindTheSwan.CrookedLane.Lond on.
Again I was to leave and hither comes the servant of my Lord Chesterfield with a note that "Lord Chesterfield wishes to correct Mr. Pepys and requests him to link to Chesterfield's account of the duel. To whit: Chesterfield did not 'flee' but merely had an important meeting the next day in Holland." I then was to go to my brothers but in comes Mr. Cook to say "You must tell them I was not angry when I spake with you this morning." And you may find his words at MrCook.DiaryLibrary.EtcEtcEtc. And then to bed.
May 30 1669 I lay in bed intending to practice my lute, but then came three servants of three men each telling me to correct what I did write of their employers. I spent until 3 O'clock fixing my writings. Then to King's Crossing but just as I started Mrs. Jewel accosted me to say I wrote badly of her in that "She was not drunk and even if she did drink she still sings better than anyone else in the Tavern" and I should link to her diary which I do not know the location but you may search at DiariesOfDrunkenLadies I am sure. Drank three cups of Metheglin and then to bed.
May 31 1669 This morning comes a pounding on my door from both my landlord and John the Tavern owner ordering that I tell you their versions of what I had writ so "the landlord is not apoplectic" and "All singers at the tavern sing like the nightingale". Spent the afternoon hiding from Mrs. Jewel. And now I shall stop the keeping of my journal, I being not able to do it any longer, having done so much corrections and additions every time I take a pen in my hand I do not have time for my own words. And so to bed.
The United States' Greatest Achievement (Score:3, Insightful)
True freedom of speech includes the right not to speak on your behalf. The government cannot prevent you from issuing a rebuttal against my opinions, but it also cannot force me to be an outlet for such a rebuttal. If I make libelous statements about you then your only remedy should be to sue me and demand a retraction. Otherwise you have absolutely no right to force me to speak. None.
It's frightening that a large political body like the European Union does not have the same constitutional restrictions on its legislative powers as the United States. It keeps growing, while the member nations slowly lose their sovereignty.
Why chilling? I don't get it... (Score:4, Interesting)
In looking at something like this we have to balance the burden of the requirement against the public benefit of it being in place.
So, what is burden? Well, you would have to have a "letters to the editor" place in your web site, blog, or ezine. From a human factors point of view, you should have an indicator that would call out that a piece has a response to it. In terms of system building and design, this would be trival to add to blogs and web sites.
What is the benefit? Well, when reading a piece, you get to see the "other side of the story" from the person, persons, or organization which are the subject of the piece.
From my point of view the minimal burden coupled with the benefit of getting a more complete picture of a situation only equals goodness.
This brings me to my final point: how, why do people see this as chilling? When has dialog ever been chilling. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is reported to have said, "Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own printing presses." Yes, the cost of entry for publishing the internet has dropped. But in some ways the cost of attention has gone up. If you write something about me, I can go and setup a blog and write a response, but I have no way to insure that your audience has the opportunity to see my response. This proposal would give me the opportunity to get my story out. If you are going to call me out by name, shouldn't I - in the sense of fairness - have the opportunity to let put out my story and for folks to know it is there? To have a chance that they will see it and chose to read it?
Re:The great thing about the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
If, however, *you* were required to pay for the servers, bandwidth, and hosting to publish the views of people with whom you disagree, then possibly you'd understand that this is really a tax on speech.
It is essential to understand that whether speech is published via ink on dead trees or bits across a wire there are costs that *someone* must bear.
This law isn't merely "silly," it's evil and sho
Re:Dupe, i think so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:redundant mods (Score:2)
I personally find the overmoderation of this topic more chilling than whatever the story was about (I forget).
Dupes should be allowed to be successfully threadjacked in my opinion.
Re:Ummm... (Score:2, Informative)
"A January 2003 draft envisioned regulating only "professional on-line media." Two months later, a March 2003 draft dropped the word "professional" and intentionally covered all "online media" of any type."
Re:The History of the World. (Score:2)