Posted on 02/16/2009 4:32:58 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
What's political? ..... glorgau
See Post 20.
Examples:
PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH Posted on Free Republic: "I oppose gay marriage and I contributed money to Proposition 8 - - - 17 posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:45:29 PM by glorgau"
NON-PROTECTED SPEECH Posted at Gay Vigilantes: "A guy with the screen-name of glorgau has posted on Free Republic that he has financially supported Proposition 8. His real name is William Brown, he lives at 5732 E. 32 Street and here are Map Quest directions to his house. Our next club meeting will be on Thursrday, February 19 at 3:00 AM. Freddie, it is your turn to bring the Vaseline to our next Club meeting."
It’s obvious that our current fascist government will soon get around to prosecuting people for their views, whether they are expressed in print, on picket signs, by standing in front of abortion clinics, or on websites.
Isn’t eric schmidt already doing this? Test this for yourself. Go to google news and type in anything that should return a substantial number of results: Say...Soros, Indymac, Schumer. You would think a member of the Banking Committee causing a run on the bank just prior to the election would be news.
Who gets to decide?
Why, the moral and intellectual superiors that the left appoints.
And since they ARE morally superior, it never enters a good little sheep leftist’s mind that they might misuse the power that is entrusted to them.
Actually, the First Amendment only protects pornography.
Political speech may be regulated at will by the government.
Thus sayeth the current climate in America.
There is a difference between "threatening emails and phone calls," which is against the law, and outlawing political speech or opinion. These people are talking about legally enforcing the "right" not to have your feelings hurt or to be offended. Did you not follow the recent freedom-of-speech case in Canada regarding Mark Steyn? The organization suing him claimed a 99% success rate in prosecuting people who offended Muslim.
People, at least for now, have the right to offer an opinion on any subject, be it calling Susie a tramp for stealing someone else's boyfriend (e.g., the Juicy Campus gossip website mentioned in the article) or exposing the abominations of an overreaching, corrupt administration. If it's left to that corrupt administration and its minions in the legal system to decide that hurtful comments, gossip, or opposition speech are harmful to the nation ("Fairness" Doctrine), all of society will be muzzled indeed.
See Post 21.
The case specifically mentioned in the article deals with gay activists publishing the names, addresses and map directions of people that had supported Proposition 8 against gay marriage.
"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."
Why do I need your name, your address and exact directions on how to drive to your house in order to exercise my First Amendment rights regarding "political speech or opinion" over the Internet?
I don't. I only need your name, your address and exact directions on how to drive to your house in order to physically intimidate you or physically attack you.
How does the following, in any way shape or form constitute "political speech or opinion"?
Posted at Gay Vigilantes: "A guy with the screen-name of shezza has posted on Free Republic that he has financially supported Proposition 8. His real name is William Brown, he lives at 5732 E. 32 Street and here are Map Quest directions to his house. Our next club meeting will be on Thursrday, February 19 at 3:00 AM. Freddie, it is your turn to bring the Vaseline to our next Club meeting."
Hey Drake,
One of your colleagues in Tennessee published a list of CC permit holders and those folks think it might endanger them by targeting them for criminals. Seems like your notions cut both ways. If anything, maybe it’s print media that should be forced into a 50/50 balance. Whaddya think?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2186657/posts
You had to see this coming from these people. Censorship is good when it is against THEIR liberal indoctrination! They are everything they claim conservatives-Republicans are: racists, elitists, sexists, intolerant, and the attempted censorship is now starting. This is at the point where our military will have to turn their guns on these people because they are attempting a totalitarian state.
I work in the electronic patient record business and we have some pretty tight mandatory FDA guidelines on this. Including the fact that we get a full anal probing called an audit every year. By an agent of the government.
I work in the electronic patient record business and we have some pretty tight mandatory FDA guidelines on this. Including the fact that we get a full anal probing called an audit every year. By an agent of the government.
As long as it’s not libelous, physically threatening, or an incitement to riot, there should be no restrictions.
It’s like Scott McNealy said - “You have zero privacy anyway, Get over it.”
I’d think think that for a few hundred bucks I could track down most anyone on this board. Probably a whole lot less.
I’m not suggested that the government regulate the internet. I am saying that the same libel laws that apply to the print and broadcast media should also apply to the internet. People who publish in the print and broadcast media are free to say anything they want about politics, religion, etc. But they are not free to make libelous statements about private citizens without running the risk of being sued. The same thing should apply to people who post comments, pictures, articles on the internet. They should NOT be able to hide behind anonymity while trashing someone else’s reputation. Their own identities should be made public so that the people about whom they are writing can face them in court if they so choose.
This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech because free speech has NEVER included the right to libel or slander someone else.
BTW, I know someone whose life and reputation were ruined by online slander/gossip.
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.