Slashdot Mirror
Free Speech And WebLogs
welloy writes "The WashingtonPost has an article regarding free speech and web logs. Its focus is on how web logs are governed by the same laws/rules of standard print journalism. The header quote: "Bloggers" surprised by legal limits on Web journals."
It only makes sense that it is governed by the same laws as printed material. I mean, it has the potential of reaching just as many people...
There should be a legal limit on first posters...
gotta love this internet.
That's why it's so important to look at the legal concept of ownership. For instance, if you get free storage from a free hosting site, and you put, say, child porno on that site, do you own the child porno? No. So you can't get busted for posession. The trick is to keep stuff off of your computer and host it on someone else's computer.
Anyone hosting their own blog in their own name is confining themselves to boring content. What these people need to wise up to is that you should just make yourself a pseudonym, use no personally traceable information, and post your content on a site with an active legal team, like Slashdot's journal system.
Then it's someone else's problem, not yours, and there are no consequences.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
That in the coming years some legal precendent could be made for the legality of classifying Weblogs as form of media to which the laws of copyright and ownership must apply.
Seriously, if I tell people about my experience with a book, quoting passages of the book to establish reference. Or if I post to my online diary with those statements. I should be free of legal repercussions. But where do you draw the line?
I don't see how what a blogger posts could be any different from a person who posts a web-page discussing their personal beliefs or opinions. You find hateful slanderous material all over the internet, and your gonna crack down on people that keep what amounts to a journal online for expressing themselves? Gimme a break.
Memories become legend, Legend fades to myth, and even myth is forgotten by the time that age comes again.-Robert Jordan
_If_ bloggers are considered the same as print journalism, they should, on the balance, be happy about it. It would mean they have a right to protect their sources, for example, among other special considerations. Of course, if this implies they have all the responsibilities and none of the rights it's a different matter...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Nothing in the article is too suprising if you take a minute and think about it. Blogs are print, thus there is an obligation to mark opinion as opinion, and not try to present it as fact. The difference will be instead of seeing:
Person X is an incompetant fool.
It will be seen as:
I think Person X is an incompetent fool.
There's no real difference except that one statement can be called libel. It's not like they are trying to make Bloggers apply journalistic standards to their writing. It's more like a heads up warning them to be more careful how they commit things to print.
Doesn't anyone think that there *must* be a more palatable word for an online journal than "blog"?
Sounds like something I would see on ratemypoo.com
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
I can't believe how these archaic laws that are necessarily steeped in obsolete technology are being abused to limit online speech, which is by nature completely free and above the laws of any one nation.
Regulation of print journalism was necessary because the barriers to entry were so high; it was not reasonable to expect Joe Sixpack to purchase his own printing press and retaliate against libellous allegations. The Internet does away with all that. Anyone can, and has, speak their mind and defend their good name.
This misapplication of outmoded laws is a direct result of the media and justice systems being run by the Washington fat cats and the Jewish media moguls in New York and Hollywood. The Internet is truly a medium of, by, and for the people, and it disgusts me to see these insiders and common gangsters trample all over the rights our forefathers died for.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
For some reason, Blogs have been treated as something special for a while. Perhaps it's the media attention to the phenomenom.
Blogs aren't anything special. They are just webpages that happen to get updated far more frequently than most. They still contain information, they should be treated like any other webpage.
They aren't diaries. If you keep a text file on your local machine for "blogging" purposes, that's comperable to a diary but the file you make available for all to see isn't.
Laws apply to the internet. What will they think of next?
In the early days of personal websites (out of which the phenomenon of Blogging emerged) it was this great breakthrough thing--EVERYBODY gets to be a journalist.
Nowadays everybody HAS to be a journalist!
What would the implications be if the blog were limited to subscribers or "friends" as is the case in Livejournal. Would a "terms of use" email between the two parties absolve the blogger from any accountability?
What kind of country would we have if people were allowed to speak freely? This country wasn't founded by people who were interested in freedom from opression, you know.
If we let you speak your mind, the terrorists have already won.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Whether it is Hollywood, the Recording Industry, Microsoft, or Joe Blow's employer firing them for an unflattering entry in their blog, the trend is clear: "Your freedom of speech exists only on paper, and we're going to make sure it isn't worth even the paper it is written on."
ConsiderIf that mentality doesn't concern you, much less send chills down your spine, then nothing will. You can't have "a little bit freedom of speech" any more than you can be "just a little bit pregnant." Any compromise of this nature must inherently mean you do not retain your freedom of speech (hint: the freedom to only do or say what is approved isn't freedom. Until people figure this out our trembling democracy will remain in need of serious triage).
The barbarians are at the gates and Rome is about to fall, and they are wearing suits and ties, wielding pens, and sidestepping the will and intent of the Consitution at every opportunity.
What is worse, we are passively letting it happen.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The best rule to follow is: never say anything in email or in a posting that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know.
Information wanting to be free is a 2 edged sword.
dooce is the unnamed woman.
This reminds me of the Brad Pitt diary/blog that existed on Diaryland from 4/2000 to 12/2000.
It was expertly written (incognito at the time) by the well-known diarylander Uncle Bob, until a cease-and-desist order was issued by Brad Pitt's legal team.
It was insanely funny, and no one would've ever actually believed that it was Mr. Pitt, but someone got their panties in a wad over it.
-- he's not heavy, he's my sysadmin!
People have no balls these days. If someone ever sends me a C&D letter, I'm going to say no. I wont bend over for anyone. I've got nothing to lose. The worst you can do is sue me, and I've got no money! What are they going to do? Jail me for writing something and putting it on a website? I doubt it. If somehow they do, then I'll do my best to become a martyr for the cause.
Knowing slashdot some of you will think I'm an idiot. But the reason that there's so much wrong going on lies mainly in the fact that people no longer stand up and fight. They sit back and take it in the ass. Every great movement in history was started by a few people who said "screw this shit!" and did something about it. So, to everyone who has gotten or will get a C&D letter from anyone. If you feel that what you were requested to cease doing is not wrong (read: wrong as in evil bad, not wrong as in illegal. What is legal and what is just are completely different) join me in saying "SCREW YOU!"
Most of the time they simply expect you to comply, it will be a great shock when you don't. Often so much of a shock that they wont even follow up. Especially when they realize the legal costs are sometimes greater than what they can get out of you.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
People are surprised that protection laws applied to speech, actually applies to speech? Where is the surprise here? Did people really think that laws applying to speech might only sometimes apply to speech?
Do other laws work this way? Do laws apply to fraud only sometimes apply to fraud? How about shoplifting. Hey, maybe Winona's only crime was that she didn't check to see when the law applied. Maybe she was only a few hours or even feet from having shoplifted legally!
-Brent
that means that the usual liberal application of who is worthy of certain rights and priveledges will be applied. So if I voice my opinion and it falls against the rabid, mouth foaming liberal "rule over all" agenda then it will be ok to censor me.
"Somewhere between First Amendment rights and total repression there is a practical middle ground." Niiice....now we have to compromise our rights...I guess I'm lucky I still have a FEW, 'cuz they could take them all if they wanted to! They must be doing me a favor...gee, I'm so lucky!
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
What would the Libertarian party do about it, anyway? They're against laws in general!
The Green party, on the other hand, wants to stick it to the big guy like he deserves!
Now the moral majority has invaded it along with the millions of e-shopping grandmas. They have turned that wonderful collection of all that was good (smart, helpful and funny people) and rotten (kiddie porn and flamewars) in the human nature into a bland mall with ads and guards keeping everyone in line and consuming.
Perhaps the best collective vision of what the human culture really means (the good and the bad sides) has been destroyed and turned into a fuckfest where corporations are screwing consumers ass at every turn.
Yes, kiddie porn is nasty and messed up, on-line fraud is not nice and fucked up people on-line threatening to kill you are scary, but they are all a part of the human culture.
I think the reason why the government is making arcane internet laws is because they are scared, nothing has ever been this powerful, to think that I can make my own website and host it for less than one hundered dollars and talk about how George W. Bush the president is a crack whore. The government is worried more about what someone is going to say, and working on getting them arrested or removed or killed. I personally think the first ammendment right should apply online. But hey, I also think we should end the war on terrorisim and make microsoft go away and let Linux take over.
---
Do you deny another's freedom to capture those words in writing?
Speek a different language (encryption) only people you trust can understand.
oh boy, this makes everything redundant.
If the libelous blog is published anonymously from a server in, say, Lebanon?
There's only two real rules in cyberspace that apply everywhere.
1 - Large prime factors are hard to find.
2 - Everything is a bitstream.
That's it - everything else is a matter of quaint local customs and luck, good or bad.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
He makes a great point - it's nice to hear people called out to (attempt to) make a difference. Besides, the more web loggers that stand up for their written words, the better the chances of the legal system becoming too bogged down to worry about all of my parking tickets. Er, forget I said that. Revolution!
--
mcp\kaaos
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
This misapplication of outmoded laws is a direct result of the media and justice systems being run by the Washington fat cats and the Jewish media moguls in New York and Hollywood.
Sigh. If you want to read some good journalism on the "Jewish Conspiracy" check out this book by Jon Ronson. It's called "Them: Adventures with Extremists." You can read an interview with the author here. He basically investigates cults of all forms and sees what's true and what's not. Spoiler: A lot of it's true but not at all in the way you think. It's a great read. Until then, knock that unsubstantiated, mildly racist shit off, will you?
Triv
The tort of libel has never depended on the number of readers, but on the issue.
Fight Spammers!
Kiddie Porn is .... hmmm ..
damn is hard to twist this one. Kiddie porn is actually a pretty big business there.
This article has nothing to do with Free Speech. You can say whatever the hell you want so long as you do not bind yourself legally not to. In this case, he violated a non-disclosure agreement. This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.
If I didn't know better, I'd think the Washington Post was feeling threatened and was trying to create a bit of a chilling effect on their own.
Their first example was about a cease and desist order from a _former employer_ about violating a nondisclosure agreement for merely mentioning a project. If the facts are as presented, that's no threat to free speech. First of all, since we aren't talking classified information or even trade secrets, the nondisclosure probably wasn't even violated: a nondisclosure agreement doesn't mean you aren't allowed to talk about your work in public!
Second a threat about violating a nondisclosure from a FORMER employer isn't what I call compelling. Sure, as long as you work there they've got you by the short hairs, but once you're gone the only way they can deal with you is to sue, and that's going to be a lot of work for them and no guaranteed win.
Their next example of
"Our server crashed today, and the idiot IT person at our company couldn't get the thing running." isn't likely to be actionable either, even if it isn't true. Calling someone an idiot is an opinion, not slander, unless their lawyers can twist it into making it look like you were actually claiming they were mentally defective rather than just delivering an insult.
Yeah, if you badmouth your own company in public, you might well get fired. That's as true in a web log as anywhere else. But the rest of it is mostly overblown threats.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on the net.
P.S Oh, and if anyone thinks I speak for any of the companies I have worked for or the company I now work for -- you're out of your mind.
So let's say someone does pull down a page. Chances are rather high that I will still find it on Google. Chances are higher still if I look at Archive.org.
Removing information from public view is not as easy as it may seem. The real question is what will court think of that. Will they consider it to be a best effort undertaken, or will they issue orders to compromise the archive?
This phenomenon is best illustrated by old Geocities pages that still have their cache versions available via Google.
Leonid
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
Personally, I think weblogs are stupid. I really could care less if "sarah's new dog is sick" or if "it found a new place to pee". Again, IMO, weblogs of peoples worthless personal lives are WORTHLESS CRAP. And another thing... people that read them have problems. Mind your own business and find some better ways of entertaining yourselves. This weblog junk is for teeny boopin wannabe's. Thank you.
Everyone who didn't RTFA should. This is about (a) somebody who violated NDA; (b) somebody who was fired for posting derogatory stuff about her employer (if you don't like it don't work there!); (c) a dumbass HR consultant who said moronic things about the First Amendment; and (d) a dumbass journalist who didn't understand the issues at all, including (i) the nature of contracts with one's employer, (ii) what a C&D letter is (HINT, YOU MORONS, IT IS NOT A LAWSUIT), and (iii) the First Amendment.
sulli
RTFJ.
Farr is an HR consultant. You're treating him like a First Amendment scholar, or a lawmaker. Don't.
sulli
RTFJ.
Why is this interesting?
I'm curious how this works -- it was my understanding that a website is only responsible for statements made by visitors if they have an active filtering or censorship policy in place.
Prodigy and similar have been sued for statements made in their forums because they have a censoring policy, whereas sites like Slashdot have refused to alter or remove user comments, and so no cases have been brought to trial as they are (effectively) common carriers -- they're responsible for conveying information, not the information itself.
Is my understanding of this clear? If so, why would any online forum elect to take on the kind of liability that active censorship introduces? Wouldn't it be better to let the responsibility rest solely with the users?
I received a DMCA-formatted cease and desist from ALS Scan over a stupid fake picture that I copied from stileproject.com. It was a modified pr0n picture that had been edited in a humorous way. Nothing happened, but the email was accepted by Chilling Effects. You can view it here. Needless to say, I am much more careful about what I post on my site, and urge others to be, as well. What I don't understand is why they didn't go after stileproject.com - a site that makes money off these things. I was just a college student running a stupid blog that got 20 hits a day from my friends. Oh well, DMCA sucks.
For reasons completely unrelated to blogging, I've long since learned to do my best to separate fact from opinion. Modifiers like "I (don't) believe", "In my opinion", and "It seems like", or even just a simple "IMHO", mark opinion clearly as such.
When I post stuff to my (or any) website, I'm fully aware that I have a potential audience of millions (even though I'm usually happy to get 5000 hits/month). I believe that postings on the net (including blogging) should have the same rights (and therefore responsibilities) as publishing a 'dead tree edition'.
I remember in one case, I was responding to someone's request to remove a neo-nazi site from a machine hosted by my employer/client. I actually gave her two responses. One was the official one. The other was a personal response given from my personal account. To make it even clearer, I prefaced my personal comments with a note that the reason why I was using a different account was to make it clear that my response was a personal opinion, not a corporate one.
I was explaining to her why I felt that the site should not be forced off the air for freedom of speech reasons, even though I (like her) found the contents repugnant.
Some years previous to that, I was working at UBC during the Clayoquot Sound protests in BC (1993). I did a good bit of posting to local usenet groups -- often using my university account after hours. For those postings, I changed my 'organization' field to 'Just Another Radical' -- once again to provide the distinction between my employer and my opinions.
Such little touches allow me to express my own opinion more freely while/by being responsible for my employers' legal fears.
As for posting on the net about what goes on at an employer where I have a non-disclosute agreement, that's just a legal minefield from day one. Even when writing about personal feelings about what occured, I'd be careful to only explain my feelings, not what occured -- until, and unless, I got an OK from my boss for the types of stuff I wanted to write about.
There's a big difference between writing about events in a personal diary vs. in a blog. A personal diary has some expectation of privacy and non-publication (at least until I get around to publishing my memoirs 30 years down the road). 'Blogs, on the other hand, start public. They have absolutely no pretense of privacy. Putting stuff that might turn out to be sensitive in such a location seems simply silly.
If I wouldn't put it in a letter to the editor (presuming that they'd publish it), then I wouldn't put it in my web log. Period.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
This has nothing to do with quashing people's freedom of speech. It has to do with quashing people's ability to lie, character assassinate, and give away stuff that isn't theirs.
So you can be held liable for giving away trade secrets online You can be held liable for violating the contract you have with your employer, you know, the guys who make sure you have money to eat. You can be held liable for making up and saying stuff about people that isn't true. Big deal. Your employment contract says "Do not disclose private company information, do not represent the company in a negative light, do not create a hostile environment for your coworkers" - it does *NOT* say "Do not do these things, EXCEPT on the internet, where you can do whatever you want."
What is amazing is that people think the internet is supposed to be some parallel dimension where they can do whatever they want without consequences.The internet is a tool, probably the best tool ever invented, but it's still just a tool. Using the internet to do something illegal isn't any different than using a baseball bat or printing press to do so.
"You are being sued for saying that Person X screws monkeys." "What? I only said that on the internet!"
paintball
Sounds pretty good, I think I'll check it out when it is implemented.... just to see if people from Wisconsin tan talk about more than just, brats, cheese, beer, and deer hunting.... lol
- People are held personally accountable for their own actions
- "Equal protection under the law" means just that
- The phrase "except on the internet" to be found nowhere in US Constitution
Why do so many people here have such a problem with this?Publish your writings (on the internet or otherwise)? Don't want to get sued for slander? Use the five magic words:
"I believe..."
"In my opinion..."
It's not that difficult!
Is there anything in writing enumerating the rights of the press? I've done some googling, but I'm not finding anything like what I'm looking for.
dude! why are you all anonymous and shit! what you did to my post is awesome. I actually had originally written a more serious longer post (that would have probably also been +5), but I said "fuck all" and wrote that in like 10 seconds. Says the same thing, less elegant.
You rule.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Just get your Amateur radio license and bitch about the problems at your company to fellow HAMs during your commute.
Chances are, you're the ONLY one in your company that even comes close to listening/using the HAM radio bands.
Only use blogs for what their meant for, to talk about the newest color of your baby's poo. Which in itself, can be a metaphor for work.
everybody's got something to lose
In the face of an opponent with (for your purposes) infinite resources, folding your tent and going home begins to look attractive fairly quickly--and I say that from unhappy experience. Conceptual martydom is a much more appealling thought that the imminent prospect of actual martyrdom.
mod him down now.
We did not have blogs, but gosh darned, we had Aldus Pagemaker and a laser printer. Almost as much fun. My wife did a newsletter (with our last name on it) and named my stupid boss by name in his trials and tribulations. It was funny as hell. When I got sued (and fired, of course), I tried the "parody" defense, but them darn germans have no sense of humor. I had to pay, I forgot how much, but for all the laughs I got it was worth it. I wish I still had some copies.....
This is like limiting what one can write in their journal. Well, except that these journals have the potential to reach a billion people. Anyways, no one that would happen to stray across my blog could ever mistake it as anything serious or to be taken literally. The same goes for most blogs. I mean, while it might be interesting to hear what Wesley Crusher thinks about the political strife in the Middle East, or why CamGURL8080XXX chooses Microsoft operating systems over Macintosh, they are not going to start any controversy or spark rebellion.
If you've ever taken the time to actually READ a EULA, no host, free or otherwise, takes responsibility for the content of your site. You are responsible for child porn on your site. The free host is just responsible for removing it when they find out about it and submitting YOUR information to the legal authorities so you can be prosecuted.
The only time the host is responsible is if they knowingly allow child porn or other illegal material like ROMs to be on their server.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
That's one of the lamest, most ill informed, statements I've ever seen on Slashdot (...think about that.)
The data you post to a web site that is under your control is just that, under your control. Your assertion that you are not liable for illegal material that you collected and placed on a server that is owned by someone else is fatuous. You're renting space on that server, and you're responsible for what you put in that space.
And don't get to cute about imagining you can post pseudonymously or anonymously and evade responsibility. Your IP address points right back to you. Any prosecutor worth his/her salt can get a warrant compelling your ISP to trace that info and identify the person who made the post. (Happens a lot to AOL in the Loudoun County, Virginia, courts.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
For instance, if you get free storage from a free hosting site, and you put, say, child porno on that site, do you own the child porno? No. So you can't get busted for posession.
I simply don't believe you. If you put the content on the server you are responsible. The minor detail of who owns the computer is not relevant.
I have no facts to back my opinion, but neither have you.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Has inmyopinion.org be reserved yet...? Set up subdomains for all bloggers under it? ;)
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
The laws and Constitutional guarantees regarding free speech concern themselves with speech, not the medium by which that speech is transmitted. Knowingly posting lies about someone on your weblog is equivalent to posting the same lies in an ad you bought in your local newspaper. Or a commercial on TV. Or splashing it on a billboard next to the Interstate.
The fact that the Internet uses different technology that radio, TV, newspapers, etc., doesn't mean the rules have changed.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Then there's the troubling case of voxfux in NYC who was reportedly tracked down and forcibly detained for alledgedly running voxnyc
I get laid off for real reasons; not "you're mean to us in your blog". It's mostly "We are no longer able to pay all you people and you all must leave." I have slandered most companies I work for and never got a letter; I guess they don't care one way or another. Plus they don't know about my blog anyways..
OT: Here is a funny journal entry about balls.
Sex - Find It
I wonder what she would have to say about Internal Memos where all you do is post secrets about your company.
Why blog when you can come here and Troll instead????
Distribute your weblogs in Freenet and you will not run into restrictions on your freedom.
Its never truly existed and doesn't today.
The only speech that is allowed is what your respective government permits AT THAT TIME.
If you dont believe me, tell an FBI agent how to blow people up and that you want too.. ( or a web page with instructions, they will come to your house so you can tell them in person ) or that xyz race should be burnt at the stake, or that the president should be shot.. ( or what ever other ruler you have in your country ). Or about telling a US judge how to decode a DVD encryption, or give him a serial number to windowsXP...
See how fast your speech is squelched..
or give Paladin press a call.. or most any other company that has 'alternative' information. They have plenty of experience with being told 'no that is restricted information'..
The examples are endless.. so why bother even pretending we have any true freedom in what we say or do?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One thing I love about the Internet is that it screws with so many accepted institutions, often revealing how heavily they rely on assumptions about things like distance, scale and difficulty, and how fragile they are when those assumptions stop working.
The ideas of libel and slander evolved in a world where there were major practical differences between privacy and publicity. It was easy to outlaw certain things in public declarations while still allowing people to speak freely in personal conversations and private letters. Now along comes the Internet, which not only gives individuals the capability to publish their private thoughts to the whole world with ease, but lets them do it in a way that feels as normal and natural as writing a letter to a friend. Or for that matter, loaning someone a book or whistling a popular song in public. It's definitely not a given that people should be prohibited from treating the world as a big group of close friends, or that the limits created for a world in which that was impossible should continue to apply.
While there are such things as trade secrets and business confidentiality, a company's right to limit its employees freedom to speak about things that go on at work should not be unlimited. I understand that companies have good, practical reasons to want to control absolutely everything that's said about them. But they don't necessarily have the right to do it.
Most of us are used to the idea that our companies can limit what we say about them. We could just as easily get used to the idea that a lot of people shoot their mouths off meaninglessly in blogs and learn to ignore most of it. In my mind this would be better than going in the other direction and treating everybody on Earth like a 20th century publisher.
Their next example of
"Our server crashed today, and the idiot IT person at our company couldn't get the thing running." isn't likely to be actionable either, even if it isn't true.
You're missing a whole other section of law here: if the company is a public company, leaking information like that could subject both employee and company to the wrath of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
NDAs aren't just there for competitive reasons, and (possible) libel isn't the only way for someone to be hurt. Insider leaks are as old as time, and have sent quite a few companies' stock prices down the tank when bad info has leaked. The weblog is just a new venue for the same old screwup: If stock prices move based on inside info somebody blogged, that somebody can be charged with insider trading.
I'm about as far from a lawyer as one can get, but based on my understanding of business law, there are good reasons for corporate security to be worried about stuff like this.
Oddly enough I posted a question to "Ask Slashdot" about a year ago on this same topic. It didn't get posted then.
I was almost slapped with a liable case for things I'd posted in my weblog regarding my rocky relationship and diovorce. I was suprised to hear from my ex a year later that if I didn't remove my web log she would seek a liable suit. Consulting with a lawyer brought me to the conclusion that there was a right to privacy for anyone regardless of how public that record might be and as long as a reader can reasonably figure out who you're defaming, then there is a case for liable. Conclusions that I drew balancing personal philosophy and the legal consultation. It still could have made for an interesting case (although it wasn't worth wasting money on).
The important lesson. Use codnames. I changed all the references in my blog to a character name from Butterfield 8 which I thought conveyed my ex-wife fairly. Better yet, leave names out completely.
---------- Hot Rats!
And you don't have to pay taxes either because it's voluntary! :). riiiiiight
Evolution still works to some extent. If you are gullible enough to believe that you can't be prosecuted if you host kiddie porn on somebody else's server, you will go to jail. It's difficult to propogate your genetic line with your prison bunkmate (though he may try to do so despite your pleas to the contrary), so you will be isolated from the gene pool and society will evolve.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Your rights to publish what you choose on a website are exactly the same as they would be if you published the same information in a newspaper that you owned or broadcast it on a radio station that you owned, or stood up and shouted it at a public meeting.
Challenges to published information happen every day in all the media, and they've been happening for hundreds of years. (And if to you are ever slandered or libeled, you'll be glad of it.) The web is just another way to publish, that's all.
No need for displays of testosterone. If you get a C&D letter, just get a lawyer and contest it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
An interesting quote from the article:
"With the advent of cyberspace, we've had to evolve these policies," Farr said. "Somewhere between First Amendment rights and total repression there is a practical middle ground."
It's one thing to enforce NDA's that an employee willfully signed its another thing to find some "middle-ground" with rights in the first amendment. The whole point of calling something a right is to say that there is no middle ground.... a "right" is an absolute... otherwise we would call it first amendment privileges.
If you don't voluntarily sign away a right with an NDA, you should have complete freedom to exercise that right. I think Madison and Jefferson would back me up here.
Too often management types think they can freely bend the rules in order to make their job easier and they never really worry about what the long term negative effect on society of reducing the rights of employees to speak their minds.
Just look at how the ITAR restrictions on academic speech are killing the American Aerospace Industry, and how DMCA is killing research into encryption.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
A blog cannot carry out the responsibilities of a print journalist unless it has a very small number of submitters. Something like Slashdot cannot do it because there's too many people putting things up on the page, in the form of comments. In a newspaper, every editorial is reviewed before being published. Every letter to the editor is looked at before it is published. Slashdot doesn't do that with it's comments, and any other blog of similar size won't do it either, because there's no time to view everyone's submissions. That is one key way in which a blog cannot be a "real" journalistic outlet at cannot be held responsible for things said on the site. But that also means it doesn't get the protection "real" journalistic outlets get.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Slashdot could be THE Portal for Free Speech
in the United States of Amerika if you would
credit the above news.
Now go back to your Republican sugar daddy.
Very Truly Yours,
W00t
Having said that, the only point I really want to touch on from the article (being that most of it has been said very well by others by now) is that I do not agree with the recommendation that people need to put 'my opinions are not those of my employer'.
I am myself as an individual first, and a represesentative of my employer second, not the other way around. It should not be the responsibility of a person to state who they are representing when they say something, but rather the responsibility of the company to make sure their spokesperson states they are speaking at that time as a representative of the company. If a person reads my statements as a de facto opinion of my employer, then they drew an incorrect conclusion and should have known better. If it isn't explicit, then don't assume.
Having said that.....making statements that are disparaging of one's employer, or reveals their internal business workings, should not be done lightly. It might not be illegal, but if you are an 'at-will' employee offending your employer with your antics could swiftly get you reprimanded or fired. A good acid test might be if the statement is not something you would want to say to your boss directly, then you may not want to say it and have it get back to them indirectly.
Freedom of speech is a two-way sword. It might be your right, but it's also your responsibility. You have merely the right to free speech, not the right to be immune from the fallout of your words. Both come as a package deal.
Karma: Shagadelic (mostly affected by those tight knickers - yeah baby, yeah!)
Would any employeer want that kind of negative energy around?
If you had someone badmouthing your staff, if even for legitimate reasons would you want that information broadcast to the world?
If you're the type of person to blog every little thing that happens to you good, bad, and ugly -- are you going to recoil with a gasp when it comes back to put you on the ass end of an ass-kicking?
This is really a common sense issue. You get what you give, and if you're so desperate to get it off your chest there are non-googleable ways of expressing it.
Maybe you could go yell 'fire!!' in a crowded theater?
http://www.remix.net/
I'm not an idiot, as you'd like to think, and I'm well aware of the first amendment, however, I was referring to specific rights such as mentioned in the parent post -- "it would mean they have a right to protect their sources". I'd like to know where that right is listed and if there are others, but don't bother replying. It's apparent that you don't know the answer to this question.
well I'm all for free speech, but anything that shuts down those annoying blogs is fine by me.
.. comment on this
.. comment on this
.. comment on this
--
Tuesday, March 14
I had a sandwich today. Man, what is it with those sandwiches? They're like TWO pieces of bread and ONE piece of something in between. Shouldn't there be two of each?
6 comments
--
Wednesday, March 15
Been thinking more about yesterday's sandwich incidence. Really, there should be two pieces of meat and two pieces of bread. Those people at the sandwich shop are COMPLETE MORONS who deal in CHILD PORN. I'm going to go in there with dynamite strapped to my chest and an AK-47 and teach those fuckers how to make fucking sandwiches.
34 comments
--
Thursday, March 16
Thanks to everybody who sent me emails of support (yes, even you, SubwayBoy). I'm better now. I really need a girlfriend.
11 comments
May be that should be : P.S Oh, and if anyone thinks I speak for any of the companies I have worked for or the company I now work for -- I *think* you're out of your mind.
A publication is a publication is a publication. Just because the source of a publication is something that is generally regarded as private (like a diary or journal) that doesn't afford a publication of that work special rights or considerations. If I write a journal filled with unfounded accusations and keep it to myself, nothing is going to happen. No jackbooted thought police thugs are going to break down my door despite what many on ./ would have you beleive. But if I publish that journal in book form, in a magazine or newspaper or on the web, I better make sure I can defend the content against slader or liable charges.
What I find particulary striking is: __BEGIN__ "With the advent of cyberspace, we've had to evolve these policies," Farr said. "Somewhere between First Amendment rights and total repression there is a practical middle ground." __END__ Right... so somewhere *between* 'First Amendment right' and 'total repression'. Well if you have something inbetween your rights, and total repression, then you DONT have your rights. Two things can not both be true and untrue. You either have first amendment rights, or you don't. Obviously if you can be taken to court and be sued and lose your job for your exercise of free speach, then you are not allowed to have free speach. This country is insane. At least dictatorships are honest!
I wonder if she could sue the judge for slander, or libel since it was taken down by the court reporter. What the judge says in that context isn't an opinion, its a statement of fact, and if she's being paid, no matter how worthless she is, she's a professional. Of course I'm not a lawyer :).
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
"Americans" surprised by legal limits on 1st amendment.
abridge
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Mein Leiben!
Your "freedom" to be paid by the people you are speaking negatively about is not.
Freedom of Speech does *NOT* mean someone is obligated to keep paying you if you decide to speak negatively about them.
paintball
of moderators not understanding sarcasm
On the top of every page of Slashdot comments is "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
Which basically says if you're upset about something said on Slashdot, you sue the person who wrote it, not Slashdot.
So, if somebody wants to sue an Anon Cow, they just have to convince a judge to subpeona Slashdot to reveal what they know about the post... the date, time, and the IP it came from. Find out who owns that IP space, then find out what user account had that IP at the time the post was made, and get the billing information from the ISP. You've now tied it down to a household, and it should be easy to figure out who did it from there.
Yep, you can be sued for anything you say on Slashdot.
Not going to cut it. Courts have a pretty clear definition on the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact specifically worked out for libel cases, and what you label it doesn't matter (the opinion page of your local paper is just as much fair game as the front page).
In short, a statement fact is something that is provably true or false. Saying, "It is my opinion that Commander Taco robbed a bank once and also ran over my dog," is a statement of fact, even though you prefaced it with "It is my opinion." This is because we could, in theory, prove whether or not he robbed that bank and whether or not he ran over your dog.
Likewise, saying, "It is a fact that Commander Taco is a complete fool" is opinion. The word "fool" has a vague definition and is entirely subjective, making the claim one that would not be actionable.
read the faq - slashdot doesn't log ip's - say whatever the hell you want, we have a moderation system that removes comments from the eyes of most slashdot visitors
> What these people need to wise up to is that you should just make yourself a pseudonym, use no personally traceable information, and post your content on a site with an active legal team, like Slashdot's journal system. Nothing to see here folks, keep moving... In other news, usage of the journal feature in Slashdot's website have risen 400% in under 24 hours. Taco and most of the crew issue a statement to the media that people have just learned where the option to use it is, and CowboyNeil just comments at random intervals... No corelation between the two. ;-p
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Yes, but that's not true simply because they assert it.
It may be true; it may not. I don't know enough US law to tell. But if the law says that Slashdot may be held responsible, then I doubt any amount of disclaimer will prevent them from being sued. Sad, but true.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Of course, I always thought Dan Bricklin had a pretty fair head on his shoulders.
utter rubbish
Nigga plz, you fucking fairy faggot. Nader's Green Party and Nader are as big business as the evil feco-industrial shadow complex you backwoods, college kids at WTO protests are getting angry about every year. Nader just has a better spin and knows how to pretend like the Macintosh pretends to be a useable and flexible computer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Umm... I wouldn't count on that. Some big communication conglomerates have club stations at many of their offices.
Thanks to vanity callsigns in the US, Motorola, for example, has the club callsigns K9MOT, KE9MOT, KM0TO, W7MOT, 4Z4HX (Israel), VE7MDI (Canada), and others. Many of these sites have their own radios, repeaters, etc.
And no, I don't work for Motorola; I'm just using them as an example since they don't mind having such Amateur Radio clubs onsite. This information is not secret; anyone can search for it.
I agree though that in some areas the Amateur Radio bands may seem quite dead. However, I assure you that in certain areas (such as well around New York City), there is a lot of activity.
I love my job. I love all the people I work with. Especially my Boss, who is the kindest, hardest working, most intelligent Boss there is.
Of course, my praise does not extend to the secret, semi-secret, sort-of-secret, and almost-secret stuff we do here at work. Oh no, I couldn't praise that at all, it would violate my NDA
Now leave me alone while I watch TV....
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Perhaps all blogs should have a disclaimer
like this: All opinions expressed on this site
are those of the bloggers and only the bloggers.
The opinions expressed in no way represent
My Employer Corp. or any other entity mentioned and
if you think otherwise in my opinion (can't sue
me for slander!) you are an idiot.
Anyone who thinks weblogs are anonymous is a freekin idiot. Don't want to piss off the boss/relatives/church/government etc?? Don't post things in your blog that would piss them off. This really isn't that hard, but if you want to express your freedom of speech and face the consequencese of doing so (there are consequences), then do so. You have the right to express yourself, but remember that not everyone is going to be happy when you write about things that are controversial.
I really thought this was common sense.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I always figured farkers loved child porn, and this post just proves it.
So you don't mind it if someone hacks your pc and starts using it to distribute child porn, its not thier problem since it is someone elses who allowed them to do so.
Well, from here:
; if((@a=unqT="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;q b25,_;^ Q))>8^(E &(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)= R^=110&(S=(unqT,
#part 1
#!/usr/bin/perl
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142
_=unqb24,qT,@b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;
s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,
H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8
^S*8^S6))9,
_=(map{U=_%16orE^
"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);
Well, from here:
1 2:0,@z)[_%8]}(16..271))[_]^((D>>=8o r@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s /q/pack+/g;eval
#part 2
E^=(72,@z=(64,72,G^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),
H^=_%64?
)+=P+(~F&E))f
s/[D-HO-U_]/\$$&/g;
surely, surely it could be considered contempt of court to report and discuss legal proceedings on a website before sentencing or during jury selection. It just seems so bleeding obvious. I've been worried about this for a while, as many of my favourite sites do this.
Like it or not, people have to take responsibility for what they say, even if you're just a single person operation at home. We're all journalists now.
If you're in Australia, pick up the ABC's all media handbook, that will give you the rundown on defamation, contempt, libel, etc.
Here's a link to a story on a wee little blog, with a link to another blog, that details the plight of a fellow who was doing Teach for America and, more or less, canned because of the content of his blog. It's very interesting that something so small can turn around and byte your bum.
why was he suprised? he signed an nda...hello? did he just forget about that?
Nothing you said contradicted what I said in the post you were replying to. Yes, Slashdot says they aren't responsible for content in comments. That doesn't change the fact the since the site maintainers never review the comments before publication like a "real" newspaper does with letters to the editor, they aren't in the same category, legally.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.