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."
Ever hear of web server access logs? Most ISPs also keep track of who has what IP when. Unless you limit yourself to editing your blog from the public library or from open WiFi access points, "the man" can find you and squash you when "they" feel it's appropriate.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
The tort of libel has never depended on the number of readers, but on the issue.
Fight Spammers!
here in Texas a woman was jailed for refusing to give up a source. The judge said she( writing a book about a trial under contract from a publisher and published other places) was not a "real" journalist. This really gets to the heart of a problem in the US. "Real journalists" are often allowed freedoms other people are not.
While i think journalists are needed and these freedoms are important. I am also concerned that alternative voices( anything from hightimes to maximumn rock and roll to weblogs) may be silenced by not having access to these freedoms. This will basicly make the only "real journalists" people who write for corperate owned media outlets.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
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.
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.
no, debtors' prisons have been illegal (in the US, at least) for quite some time.
actually having money really is a requirement. In the state that I live in it is almost impossible to collect money from a person on unsecured( not a house , car etc) debt. Plus anywhere in the US you can file bankruptcy pretty cheap. BAnkruptcy is a hassle BUT no lawyer will sue somebody unless they have assetts that can be attached to. If you do not own a home, company, stocks or securities( and anything in your IRA or 401k can't be sized from a lawsuit) property of some kind a judgement is IMPOSSIBLE to collect from you.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
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"
But the thing to keep in mind is that there are hundreds of cases, Supreme Court and many lower federal courts and state courts as well, that spell out and interpret various rights and responsibilities of the press. Some decisions contradict others, or only apply in certain circuits or states. It isn't easy to summarize with a single enumeration, beyond "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
I wonder what she would have to say about Internal Memos where all you do is post secrets about your company.
Ok. I think people often misunderstand what this means. Freedom of speech implies a freedom to have your opinions and let them be known. It however, does not guarantee you a freedom from consequences, because we must live with the consequences of what we and others say. If you call your best friend a "lying, cheating bitch" you must then live with the consequence that he may no longer be your friend. Similarly, there are consequences for others based on what you say. To allow total license to make completley unsubstantiated claims that damage another's credibility or reputation with no consequences, however, seems not to be guaranteed by the constitution.
The right to keep your sources confidential operates on the state level, so they'll change from one state to the next. Some have no right, some have mixed, some have strong rights. Not a very specific answer, but hope it helps.
-- Hobbits suck!