Posted on 02/16/2009 4:32:58 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
HERE ARE TWO stories about the Internet.
The week before last, the crippled economy coughed up a gift for picked-on college students across the country: It shut down Juicy Campus, a notorious website where campus gossips nationwide were invited to hold forth anonymously. "Just remember, keep it Juicy!" the home page had exhorted. Posters had duly obliged, and many students had found their social skills, weight, grooming habits, sexual orientation, and/or promiscuity to be the subject of gleefully vicious discussion by unseen online classmates. In a healthier economy, it's unclear if anything could have closed down Juicy Campus - university administrators and even state prosecutors were eager to take it on, but had all but conceded that they had few legal options, and the website had been rapidly expanding the number of its member campuses.
And then there is this: Last month, someone posted a map showing the names, home locations, and occupations of thousands of people who gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage in California. A number of these Proposition 8 supporters have since reported threatening e-mails and phone calls.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
change
One good reason why much of that information should not be public.
And who, I wonder, will be the arbiters who get to decide? Any criticisms of Dear Leader or the actions of a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do government will be hate crimes, no doubt.
At least the comments to this BGlobe censorship article offer some strong defenses for the 1st & 2nd Amendments!
I notice he doesn’t think the Boston Globe needs to be censored.
Read the comments. With the exception of a few “well, tsk, tsk, we need to do something” quotes, they tear him apart. I think even the lefty loonies know where this is going.
The First Amendment protects political speech. We shouldn’t invoke it to protect online gossip and innuendo. The problem is that because people who go online to post comments, pictures, etc. about others can do this anonymously, they can’t be held accountable the same way that they would if they were publishing these things in a newspaper or magazine. People are entitled to their good reputations. Unfortunately, technology now makes it possible to trash someone else’s reputation without any risk to oneself. This is an abuse of technology. It is one of the immoral uses to which technology can be put.
Websites should be held accountable for the content of message boards, posts, and chat rooms, especially when such content concerns private citizens as opposed to public persons, such as politicians. The law should be able to compel websites to reveal the IP addresses of posters who commit libel.
This really shouldn’t pose a risk to political speech. Since the average person can easily tell the difference between online discussions and articles about issues and anonymous online attacks against private persons, the law should be able to as well.
What's political?
The problem is that a hammer can swing at anything, and the government could care less if you, personally, are slandered. They care deeply about whether the truth is printed about Barney Frank. The first target of internet “hate speech” laws will be those that disagree with the government. I’d rather take my risks with the wild west than hire “Little Bill” to run my town. (Unforgiven reference)
The censorship of the Internet.
The cult of personality for Obama.
The movement to permit Obama, like Hugo Chavez, to be president for life.
The indoctrination of grammar school kids chanting praise for Obama.
The indoctrination of older kids in quasi military indoctrination camps.
The creation of compulsory youth camps with "education."
The imposition of the fairness doctrine or its equivalent local Soviets.
The extension of hate speech and hate crimes.
The practice of legislating through fear i.e. porkulus.
The practice of legislating by stealth i.e. porkulus.
The practice of governing by executive order.
The appointment of criminals and cronies to government office.
The culture which plays the race card on criticism of African-American president.
The criminalization of policy.
The establishment media which is abandoned its role to protect democracy.
You'd think they'd wait until they get the unfairness doctrine implemented and all dissenting views on the radio silenced before they started kicking around the idea of internet censorship.
There has to be a line where a person needs to be secure in the property of their thoughts.
For example, publication of the prop 8 supporters was, in light of the violent homosexual reaction, a clear intent to endanger people FOR exercising their free speech rights.
Perhaps some things such as divorce proceedings regardless of whether there is or or not children should be automatically sealed and not on the net.
I understand your point. However, if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Who decides what is appropriate?
In short, an oligarchy disguised as another populist- socialist security blanket.
No. Once again, the First Amendment restricts Congress, and does not protect (or grant) anything. "Congress Shall Make no law..." is an unqualified statement in this context. ...held accountable
Who does the accounting?
I'll be willing to discuss the complexities of abusive behavior on the Internet (maybe) when print media or other established information brokers begin providing something more than the illusion of "neutrality."
And who, I wonder, will be the arbiters who get to decide? ..... shezza
Well, after your name, your address and a map to your house has been published on the Internet because you did NOT support gay marriage and some gay marriage radicals with ski masks come over at 3:00 AM and "teach you a lesson", maybe the local District Attorney would be the one to decide if deliberately publishing your name, address and a map to your house put you in danger of "Imminent lawless action".
Do you believe that posting "maps showing the names, home locations, and occupations of thousands of people who gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage in California" on the Internet so that those people are targeted for potential physical attack is a protected First Amendment right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.