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.

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.

Copyright infringement is the highest form of flattery?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.