Smothering free speech
The public mind doesn’t distinguish the 10 Commandments from the Bill of Rights. And whereas the 10 Commandments is a wearisome litany of prohibited behaviors (“Thou shalt not … “), the Bill of Rights in the 1st Amendment offers such delicious American freedoms as the right to run one’s mouth about anything or anyone without constraint of fact or reason. And this because the Founding Fathers believed the intelligent and educated citizenry of their new nation easily capable of distinguishing reasonable discourse from nonsensical abuse of the intellect. In recent years, we’ve failed to learn from the experience of living in a culture of mass media, where almost all 1st Amendment freedom is exploited by commercial enterprise to push us towards irrational consumer behavior, and with no little success. The proof of our inability to deserve our 1st Amendment rights is ever before us.
Then there’s the blogosphere. What are blogs? Some would say that blogs are the democratization of journalism. Anyone with a cheap computer and an Internet account can set up as his own NYTimes, WSJ, or Washington Post. And, as the freedom of the press shall not be abridged, so the blogger claims full protection of the 1st Amendment for himself.
But as the law, the courts and due process are to mob rule and the lynch mob, so the NYTimes, WSJ and the Washington Post are to the crowd of false witnesses who call themselves the blogosphere. If global warming has produced a hole in the Ozone Layer, then the blogosphere is smothering free speech in countless defamations, distortions of fact, theft of intellectual property, and abuse of the rational faculty.
December 29, 2007 at 10:48 am
Here’s the real public knowledge of the 10 commandments and the bill of rights. At best they can recall one or two of either. Take the test, see how many of each you can write down in order or what’s the 5th commandment and the 6th ammendment?
December 30, 2007 at 7:41 pm
My point is not that people don’t know the occasional right or commandment, but that the Bill of Rights, in particular the 1st Amendment, has soaked up all the prestige of both. What’s more, the 1st Amendment seems to collide with the sense of the 9th Commandment (“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”). The 9th Commandment, incidentally, seems to be a biblical anti-perjury, anti-libel statute. Blogging, or what I call blog justice, is nothing but an endless stream of defamatory comment.
December 30, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Take a look at the actual wording of the first amendment.
“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.”
This isn’t a license to say what you want. It’s directed at restriting the congress. In fact, the bill of rights doesn’t grant individual rights. It starts with people having rights and then restricting what congress can do that affects those rights.
Bearing false witness and perjury are part of State and Federal Law in respect to legal and criminal matters. There are also laws against slander and libel but they aren’t part of the constitution.
So I hope I kept this post clean and didn’t attack anyone.
December 31, 2007 at 1:42 am
The 1st Amendment is commonly understood as a license to defame. Many 1st Amendment legal activists share that view. Although perjury as a form of false witness is illegal under criminal law in various jurisdictions, the Internet equivalent, which is defamatory speech published all over the planet, is viewed as protected by the 1st Amendment.
December 31, 2007 at 10:00 am
There is now a ton of case law regarding the first amendment. It’s grown way beyond the original intent of protecting political speech and keeping the government from establishing the church of the United States.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting about the internet. Are you looking for speech police?
December 31, 2007 at 5:23 pm
None of that case law is relevant to the Internet. The Internet is a demagogue’s dream come true. Say anything, and publish it around the world at no cost.
What’s needed is a more stringent libel law for bloggers and materials published over the Internet. Criminalize malicious false statement. An absolute right of privacy, the right not to find one’s name in Google. We’re not all Britney Spears.
December 31, 2007 at 9:06 pm
You just need to do a little homework to find out that all the same laws about libel and slander apply on the internet. Here is a good site that explains the current state of the law. It even talks about the liability of the blog owner for the posts of others.
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1874
December 31, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I’ve been doing the research. I know the differences, which are slight. I want more stringent laws for bloggers.
There’s usually some kind of a balancing test in the law. Bloggers enjoy unprecedented reach at unprecedentedly low cost (like zero). I can’t expect the blogger sitting behind his monitor in his underwear to feel the weight of his responsibility, so I think it must be brought home to him through palpable legal sanctions.
December 31, 2007 at 11:18 pm
In all case of libel and slander, it’s the person harmed who need to file suit since it’s not a criminal matter. It’s the same with copyright infringement. If you’ve been wronged, all you have to do is prove it in court. You just have to prove the statements are wrong and that you’ve been damaged in some quantifyable way.
December 31, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Yes, plaintiff has the burden.
Damages may not be necessary if I seek an injunction.
January 1, 2008 at 9:21 am
Scandal,
I do believe that we are kindred spirits!
And thank you for your kind comment on my blog!
January 1, 2008 at 9:34 am
Yep.
Happy New Year!
January 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Might I ask, why? Have you been personally harmed in some way? I’m just curious, because it seems that if looked at objectively, most blogging will be perceived as harmless. The fact that it CAN be viewed all around the world by literally billions doesn’t mean that it will. I probably say lots of things on my blog that some people won’t like, but first, they are still, for the most part, my persoanl opinions, second, are seen by very few people, most of who are sycophantic, i.e. on my side, and third, don’t really harm anyone in any palpable way.
Yes, there is some really vitriolic blogging out there (have you ever looked at the blog, “Atheism Sucks”?) but it’s still just a lot of words. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm. “Sticks and stones” also comes to mind. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
As Steve R mentioned, for you to have an actionable defamation case (libel is written defamation, slander is verbal) you need actual damages, out of pocket money, to even have a case (with a few small exceptions – accusing someone of a crime or noxious disease). And at least in America, it is well nigh impossible under well developed legal standards to get prior restraint on speech (an injunction).
So to say that the 1st Amendments is a license to defame is just, in the long run, your opinion, not grounded on much fact, which brings me back to my first question. Have you personally experienced some online defamation that you feel impotent to do anything about?
January 1, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Most blogging is blood sport. It’s nothing like a harmless speech in a public forum or an article in a small circulation newspaper as envisioned by Jefferson. Jefferson also thought of speech and the audience for speech as inherently rational in the Enlightenment sense. He simply couldn’t conceive the like of modern crowd demagoguery as refined to perfection in the early 21st Century blog. Any blog post can reach right inside your home. It can be read by the government, your employer, your fellow employees, your friends, your classmates, your girlfriends, your ex-classmates and your enemies. It’s both cheaper and more widely distributed than any form of publication previously known to man, and for that reason, it facilitates: 1) defamation; 2) copyright infringement; and 3) warrantless invasion of privacy. A nasty blog posting is like being made to run a gauntlet of hatred across the country from Portland, ME to Baja, CA.
As I said before, the libel laws fall short in relation to the potential harms, which far exceed the harms that could be inflicted by the NYTimes. There does need to be a change in the law, although I’ve received some indication that there’s more than actual damages at stake in egregious Internet defamation.
No, I haven’t been the victim of blogger defamation, but I don’t like the tone of things in Cyberspace. Your question is somewhat demeaning. I raise the issue, and you ask whether I’m not engaged in special pleading. The blogosphere is a wound to civility and polite dealing between parties who disagree, though it could be argued that this is just a continuation of ’90s era radio talk show rancor in a different medium.
January 1, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’m not sure why you feel the blogosphere is such a bad thing. I still contend it is nothing more the the blogger’s own personal opinions on things and issues in the public realm (from the media for example).
You want to see more stringent laws for bloggers? More stringent than what? Those already in place in general?
Free speech is allowed and acceptable as long as it does not incite chaos and riot. As long as it harms none, what more could you want?
I keep getting the feeling that you are someone who would be comfortable should we have rules like in Communist China. But then again, those rules would also shut you down too. But you don’t seem to mind that either. I find THAT scary.
I’ll make you a deal, you stay away from my blog and I’ll stay away from yours.
January 1, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to demean, but your problems with cyberspace just seem, I don’t know, exaggerated? . Maybe you don’t have any special problem, but it SEEMS like you do. At least to me.
Yes, the blogging world, indeed the entire Internet, changes the way we look at information. But it doesn’t facilitate all those things you mention any more than an anonymous newspaper or flyer would. In colonial times, those were rampant. And if there is actual, harmful defamation, copyright infringement or invasion of privacy, those can be dealt with, once the culprit is ascertained, by the court just as if it was disseminated elsewhere.
You’ll say, I’m sure, that the problem is in ascertaining the culprit, because the Internet hides them so well. Sure, there are new corners where people can hide. Lots of spam coming out of Russia, for instance. Frankly, if anyone should be strung up by their balls, it’s spammers, not copyright infringers, IMHO.
What changes to the law do you propose to remedy the problem you see?
January 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Inquisitor:
Might seem exaggerated if you’ve tossed away your figleaf in MySpace. Not everyone’s as dumb as that.
Saying the Internet doesn’t facilitate innumerable harms doesn’t change the fact. Newspapers are a physical medium. The production and distribution of physical newspapers serves to slow the velocity of harm and limit its reach.
No, I don’t worry about ascertaining the culprit.
Most spam is nicely handled in Google mail.
As for changes to the law, the criminalization of libel by Internet would be nice. Criminalization of copyright infringement would also be nice. Think of it this way, you could libel someone by other means, you could infringe his copyright by other means, but use of the Internet exacerbates the wrong just as armed robbery is generally considered a more evil form of robbery.
January 1, 2008 at 7:00 pm
swfreedomlover
You’re not sure you understand why I think the Internet is a bad thing and you’re not sure you know the reasons for your own opinions.
Yes, current law isn’t very stringent and could easily be made more stringent. Does the exercise of free speech over the Internet cause harm? I believe the answer is yes.
I’m sorry you’re so upset. Just shows what happens when there’s too much free speech. But do kindly think of reasons for your beliefs. Just ’cause it’s not what they do in the PRC don’t make it right.
January 1, 2008 at 8:24 pm
You know, for someone who is making free use of the internet in general and a blog specifically, asking for the criminalization of libel and copyright infringements seems a bit drastic, not to mention against you own self interest, don’t you think?
You get to blog all about your stringent penalties for matters you believe should be punished drastically. You’re voicing your opinion. That’s freedom of speech in action. You want the government to have the ability to shut you down? Because that’s what you are proposing.
I recently posted copies of a weeks worth of Doonesbury comic, praising them in the process, giving credit and providing a link to the cartoonist. I think it’s “fair use” under the current laws, and the cartoonist is probably happy to see his work disseminated in a positive way (though even negative infringements can have positive benefits). I make no money from the process (most blogs cost bloggers, or are at least income neutral – you don’t pay for your blog), so the minimal copyright infringement is probably offset by the goodwill I engendered for the cartoonist, and the added eyeballs, but one could argue, under your proposal, that I should go to jail for that.
Is that what you are talking about?
January 1, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. You might not have gained in any obvious sense, but the cartoonist lost out in book sales.
Copyright infringement is the highest form of flattery?
January 1, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Well, I’d have to disagree with you on that too. The cartoons were the one’s published in the local paper, and put up on the internet on the cartoonist’s web site, for the past week. Anyone could go to his site and see them. No one has to pay to do so. He had not published them in any book form, and probably won’t for quite some time. I linked to his web page, so he actually may have had more traffic to it because of me. He certainly didn’t have less. And, people who read them may be more inclined to purchase the book when it comes out, because my site is targeted to an audience who will be more amenable to the message in the cartoon.
So, if there is infringement, my guess is the cartoonist, Garry Trudeau, would probably say “infringe away!”
Really, BJ, your complaints are much ado about nothing.
January 2, 2008 at 2:05 am
That’s self-serving. I’d like to know what his agent has to say.
January 2, 2008 at 11:35 am
Blog Justice……You misunderstand. I’m not upset in the least. I find myself looking at you, as you obviously look at me. I find your way of thinking to be as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, the very things are complaining about.
There are plenty of sites out there that I feel promote nothing but hatred and intolerance, and you sit here whining about innocent bloggers voicing their opinions on information, news bytes, etc that is already posted on the PUBLIC information highway? That’s all I do, and I include the links to the whole article, etc. That’s all the majority of bloggers do.
No, I’m not upset, but I do wonder where your twisted logic comes from that you feel censorship is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, I am fed up with MY rights and choices being trampled all over just because of a few bad apples.
I agree with Spanish Inquisitor you really are making too much of this.