Slashdot Mirror
Europe, Free Speech, And The Internet
drdale writes "Declan McCullagh responds at CNET.com to a proposal by the Council of Europe to require Internet sites to publish replies by individuals whom the sites criticize. This would apply to all web sites, apparently, including blogs. Per McCullagh, the Council's proposals do not have the force of law, but often serve as the basis for new laws." Imagine the chilling effect if McCullagh's own politechbot and similar sites had to follow such rules.
Dupe of this story?
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
At least in this country you can repat yourself as many times as you like and not be arrested.. :)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think Slashdot in particular would benefit a LOT from having a right to reply. :o)
Oh, wait!
it is
I commented this late in the very-similar post from the other day, but I figured it was worth it again, now that this is recieving more attention.
The print incarnation of this rule has long been in force in Belgium, and it was funny, the local english-speaking magazine had to print a response by what is considered here to be a radical right-wing group (the Vlamms-Blok, more harmless than moderate republicans in the US, if you ask me); they printed the response, along with several articles sorrounding it (literally, on the page) about the introduction and severe abuse of the laws which mandate it, hence completely invalidating the response piece. They weren't even obligated to allow a re-response, it was great.
My real question is, though, how can something as widely defined as European online communication be expected to produce cases which can actually be enforced in court. What's to prevent me from using a US blogsite, or host my site on US servers? Nothing. There's nothing like Eurocrats speanding hideous quantities of time and money on something which proves useless by sheer virtue of its unenforcability.
...so, like, Slashdot is getting a jump on this, and replying to it's own previous story?
Do not read this sig.
'nuff said.
.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Websites forced to provide a medium for a response should simply link to a slashdot journal, such as this one.
Why would this have a chilling effect? It just ensures the powerfull and rich people can't bash and blaim poor people, without giving them a chance to defend themselve. Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
Is that almost anyone can publish. It's really simple, and fairly cheap. Laws like this are just silly.
Anything changed in the last day and a half or so that makes it worth to repost?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
In accordance with European law Anonymous Coward may reply to this comment.
Omnis amans amens
Naw it's just /. exercising their right of repetition.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
danormsby (529805) is a blithering dolt.
Good enough for you, cockmonkey?
You can search for a story using its complete title and not find it in the list of hits at all. Perhaps fixing the crappy search function would help editors stop posting dupes. Hell, this was on the front page already, even. Of course, it could just be that timothy didn't even look, in which case, push him out the airlock
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First up, I don't agree with this proposal at all, but it seems apparent that there are some exaggerations here.
First, this proposal seems to be aimed at protecting the individual from slander by business, not vice-versa.
Second, I don't see how this relates to blogs.. the draft specifically says "professional on-line media": The right of reply, and in particular the principles of Resolution (74) 26, should apply not only to the press, radio and television, but also to professional on-line media.
and in the "definitions": the term "professional on-line media" means any natural or legal person or other entity whose main professional activity is to engage in the collection, dissemination and/or editing of information to the public on a regular basis via the Internet
"Imagine the chilling effect" most /.ers would have if the editors actually stopped posting dupes :)
/. be without duplicated stories every few days?
Where would
Better patent laws +1 + Limiting free speech -1 = Weekly European Modifier 0
Compagnies like Microsoft can bash linux as a file server or Java as a viable programming language and Sun and the OSS community can't do anything about it. With laws like these the truth can come out. It is a law of fairness. Not just the rich media have a voice anymore.
I'd love to see such fairness happen in North America.
This is already law for newspapers, and why would internet sites be held to a lesser standard?
And what is the alternative? Facing countless lawsuits? I think it would be less easy to sue someone if he already had to publish your clarification.
And it doesn't say you would have to delete your original or that you can't make sure everyone understands you were forced by law to publish the "clarification" and you still stand by your original report.
So if somebody has a web site that offends another person, that person gets to have his reply posted for a period on the web site. What, though, if the reply offends some third party? Does the third party get to have his reply to the reply posted on the original web site? What about a reply to that?
article replies to you!
...only outlaws will make comments.
I can understand maybe if you're trying to come across as an "unbiased" news site, but to make even personal and overtly editorial sites comply with this would just be silly.
If they have to do it, they should make the responder host his own comments, and at the most make the original article include a link to the response. And even then, only for certain sites. To have to post the response on your own site it too much burden and would severely stiffle freedom of expression.
And if I posted an article on how great Linux is, would I have to give space to Microsoft for a rebuttal?
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be heard, and the idea of forcing people to listen to others is downright repugnant, and EVIL.
It smacks of Totalitarianism where an elite few are allowed to decide WHO gets listened to and WHO doesn't.
The idea that a crazy bum has a right to be heard is insanity in itself. Sure, he can SAY anything he wants, but I have a RIGHT not to be forced into listening to his crazy talk. It doesn't matter if he speaks truth either.
Nothing good can come from this.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I Think what was mentioned holds true, this is about as effective as slashdot trying to make and enforce a law ... well we'd be sure the laws were redundant and there was more than one classification by duplicating the laws often ...
hehehehe
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Thats the way I would handle being forced to publish critisim.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Can I just copy and paste my comments about this article from yesterday?
http://use.perl.org
Anyway, this isn't a dupe, exactly. It covers the topic of the proposed law, but this article is an expert's response and should bring up issues that /. folk hadn't thought of yet...
--PhinMak --
One more reason to keep an eye on your money.
First, this is a dupe
Second, this puts internet media on even footing with newspapers which do not seem to have died from this. This is a standard condition under which newspapers, radio and TV in EU operate and they have established very good rules on how to do this over the years. Actually it is a good thing (TM). Saves feeding the lawyers which cannot be bad.
Third, any claims that this will put small sites out of business due to expenses on verifying repliers is complete crap. In most (if not all) EU countries you are allowed to require genuine identity documents (fency sending your real passport?) and can charge the requester a fair handling fee that covers authentication and any postage expenses. Even without that fee sorting out documents will cost the requesting side at least 50 quid so not like this will attract a lot of nuisance callers.
Fourth, if someone has smeared me all over I frankly do not see why I should be denied the right to answer as long as I have decided that the matter to be serious enough to take the risk of having my identity stolen after sending my passport (or a copy confirmed by a public notary).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Read the article and the draft. It looks like this would only apply to businesses. This would guarantee Joe Sixpack the right to respond to the European equivalent of CNN.com and have that reply posted.
I'm not concerned about this law, as I'm interested in letting people see the replies I get to anything I put online. Simply allowing comments on the article would take care of this.
I don't see it as chilling, especially since it only has to be there for 24 hours and you can just link to it.
It requires you to add a "Replies to our stories" link on your news site. Boo Hoo.
Hell, I can see this becoming a new source of revenue for geeks. Take blog software, make some cosmetic changes and market it as a "response administration system."
Authenticating the source of the replies could be handled by a login process, and news sites could automate the process of inserting a link to the "replies" section a hundred different ways.
I'm not worried. If people want to make fools of themselves by disagreeing with me, let them. Half the time the arguments against me just strengthen my point.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Is this just a sneaky way to make all web sites into a blog.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
This legislation is really silly. Even if this was ever needed in the past it was because the cost of publishing was a barrier to entry, so if a newspaper slagged you the cost to refute them would be too high to ever get your voice heard. However the beauty of internet is that the cost of entry is almost non-existent. After all, I'm spouting my opinions right here and now and it didn't cost me a penny.
However regardless of the medium I am against anything like this. Declan appropriately quotes the following from a related case tried in the US:
"the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."
Now there's a judge that's got it right. I firmly believe that in order to develop critical thinking you need to be exposed to all sides of an issue, even if many of them are biased or even just wrong. When exposed to multiple views an intelligent person will learn to be critical of what they read and make up their own mind, rather than inherit ideas from others. Thus choice leads to critical thinking and critical thinking negates the need for this type of legislation. This is also why I hold the admittedly unpopular opinion that even some writings classified as "hate" still shouldn't be regulated. These people betray their own ignorance as soon as they open their mouths, it's suppression of their opinions that lend them some sort of inexplicable "mystique." If their views were subject to logical debate in a public forum they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Anything that restricts the cacaphony of free speech is a barrier to learning, even when some of the voices are offensive or wrong.
it's in brasil's constitution since 1988. it's called "reply right" and states that everyone has the right of reply _proportional to the damage_
this means that if someone badmouths me, i have the right to defend myself.
is usual to see this right being used by politicians during campaigns. ans since the arcticle is generic, it applies to _ALL KINDS_ of media. doesn't matter if is writen, spoken or digital. you badmouth me in your blog and your blog is in brasil, i'll get a reply right. if you don't publish my reply i'll get a warrant to shovel the reply down your server's throat. simple, efficient and it's there since before internet went public.
What ? Me, worry ?
Well look at the alternative we have nowadays on the internet: you post something someone doesn't like and you have to remove it. How is that better? I'd rather link to a rebuttal that having to remove the stuff I wrote using my free speech. Removing is worse. I am opposed to hosting the rebuttal, linking to it is more than enough.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
And, to provide balanced politcal content, neither would the Dixie Chicks.
and just what would stop me from writing a bot to dig through a zone file and email every site on the net and make sure to include a link I want googlebombed? This sounds like a very strange thing indeed..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Is linking to a response sufficient?
If allowing The Opposition (whoever The Opposition may be) to write a response to your article, and then linking to that response, is enough to satisfy the "right of response", then frankly I'm all for it.
There is no such thing as unbiased media, no matter the medium, no matter the author. It's a simple consequence of the fact that as humans, we aren't omniscient, and so everything we perceive and express is subject to the limitations of our own viewpoints. Even a camera can only shoot in the direction that it is pointed, after all.
Because of that, the only way to mitigate the effects of media bias is to get one's media from multiple sources with differing biases. Can a step that promotes this by ensuring that readers can get easy access to The Other Side Of The Story really be a bad thing? The Web is not paper; links are incredibly simple to set up at basically zero cost, unlike the space needed to print a reply in a magazine. There are already systems in existence which completely automate the process, such as Trackback. What burden is placed on people by means of this?
The Europeans do not have a bill of rights. They do not have a constitution granting them freedoms like we have.
They've chosen it themselves. If laws like this are the result, then that's just what they'll have to put up with.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
With this law, if I run a blog and have harsh critisizm of a politician on MY blog, hosted on a server that I am paying for with MY money, I have to give them a right to reply? Funk that.
Seriously...that is insane. I have the freedom of speech, so does anyone else. If they want to respond to me, they are free to do it...on their own dime and with their own time.
Keep on trying to regulate your way into a socialist utopia...please keep it up. You'll make my points for me.
Yes, I am aware that news and blogs aren't supposed to be a discussion board. I am also of the opinion, however, that the right to free speech come with the responsibility of fair speech, and this, IMHO, would help to link these two online. The real shortcoming I see here is that the proposal does not affect corporations and groups like the RIAA (or the EFF, KKK, etc.). So in it current form, it puts an unfair burden on the individual. It would be a lot more acceptable if this would apply across the board.
In the meantime, if this is passed, people who don't want to be forced to bear the burden of reply can take the AC's way out and blog here.
Sometimes stories expand on a previous article... perhaps Slashdot should allow "Story Threading", allowing multiple stories to be threaded together. Perhaps almost in an Everything2 sort of way?
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
Can someone please explain to me how it is possible to mod comments redundant that concern themselves with the redundancy of the topic?
There have been whole threads in this topic bitchslapped redundant.
I don't think this will have anywhere near as chilling an effect as people seem to be afraid of.
Especially on the net.
If all you have to do is link to the response this takes almost no resources away from your site.
Someone posted that an additional part of the burden would be in verifying the identity of the respondant. But the law could easily put the onus of proof on the respondant.
The law also doesn't say that everyone can post anything on everyones web site it only says that you need to post replies to statements which are critical of someone, and then only if they come from whoever you are critical of.
...um, I think the subject says it all.
Alternatively, the admins could just keep an eye on what stories have been done on /. ;)
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
No, it is not a dupe. This story is a follow-up to a previous one. The linked article is an on-line response to that which was previously covered. Follow ups are a part of good journalism.
Not only that, but get moderated in such a way that their posts don't automatically get moderated "-1, Troll" or "+5, Orthogonal-to-Reality Funny"?
I'm in the USA(where freedom of speech is violated quite often.) I don't know if European nations have a similar freedom, but it seems to me that this is a load of crap.
I shouldn't have to pay the bandwidth costs for someone else's opinion any more than they should have to pay them for mine. It violates my right to free speech if I have to spread their ideas and their right if they have to spread mine.
If this ever comes out in the states, I'll send so many replies to M$ that it won't even be funny. Then their legal team can find the loophole and I can use that same loophole on my own sites.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
from US lawmaking is fine by me. take this and take Mr Hatchett. Evaluate. Barf.
There's a part of me that's entertained by how exploitable the system would be:
1) Goad someone in to mentioning you on their website.
2) Demand right of reply.
3) Just like politicians never reply to the actual question, nor do you.
Now you get someone else to pay all of your hosting costs for you.
Imagine Petsmart, "PetCo has described themselves as the best pet store in the country. We demand the right of redress to fill their site with advertising for our own store."
Every time Microsoft posted anything about Linux, the open source community would get granted rebuttal space on Microsoft's own web servers.
Not only that but who gets the right of reply? Linus? Every contributor to Linux? Anyone who's ever reported a Mozilla bug?
Then there're the counter exploits: Refuse until they take you to court. Continue refusing until the day before the court date. Then post the rebuttal on the same page as the now two-years out of date story.
The reality is it's totally unenforcable. Sit back, rather than get worked up over it, let them try it and watch it fall to pieces around them.
Q: In Christianity, is pooping/farting/etc. moral?
A: There are many possible ways to answer this question. However, from a Christian perspective, most scholars would agree that it is not moral to poop and/or fart. This presents an interesting dilemma, since pooping and farting are physiological requirements of being a human... there's just no way to avoid it! The thing to remember is that we all fall short of the glory of God and that we all are sinners in need of redemption. The fact that we all poop and fart is just further proof of this.
Q: Did humans always poop and fart?
A: No. It is generally agreed that before the Fall from Grace, the digestive systems of human beings were perfect machines. When we ate food and drank liquids, our bodies were able to process all of the material with perfect efficiency, leaving no waste products to be removed. However, after Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, humans lost their perfection. Part of this process included the digestive system losing its ability to process food with 100% efficiency. Shortly after the successful temptation of Eve by Satan, over 6,000 years of human pooping and farting began.
Q: What about peeing?
A: Peeing is an excretory function and is just as immoral as pooping and farting.
Q: Why are the sexual organs used to pee?
A: To reinforce the evils of sex. If we are mindful of the fact that peeing is awful and immoral, then we are also mindful of the fact that other activities that involve the same organs are also awful and immoral. The Lord does not want these organs exposed to anybody (not even to yourself) and He certainly does not want them inserted into anybody, unless it can be demonstrated that a child is the intended result. Pursuant to this, it is necessary to remind each and every one of God's children that pooping, peeing, and sex are all evil, as are the sexual organs.
Q: If I am in church and I have to poop, what should I do?
A: Hold it! The fact that some misguided denominations have installed toilets in their churches does not mean that those toilets should be used! Can you imagine how impudent it is to sit down and void your bowels in a house of the Lord? Again, we must be very clear about this: We all poop, and there is no avoiding this. However, we are not mongrels with no control over our bodily functions! If you have to poop, fart, or pee, then hold it until you are in the privacy of your own home and there are no negative moral ramifications to your excretory actions!
We believe that toilets should be removed from all churches. If a voluntary request is not enough to make this happen, then we would support federal legislation banning certain types of plumbing from within 30 cubits of a church.
Q: When should I tell my children about pooping?
A: Well, obviously, they start doing it the day that they are born. They don't have to be taught how to do it. But there does come a time when children have to be taught about the immorality of pooping, farting, and peeing. Most experts suggest that the age of 6 or 7 is a good time for this lesson. This is the time when most children are apt to start experimenting with "pull my finger" games and other forms of Satanism.
I'm not trying to troll here but: Don't tell me we have to explain this law/proposal again?!
I'm getting the feeling people are posting these skewed stories just so they can reply as AC's with comments about how great the US system is. I guess it's just hard dealing with other countries when 86% of your population has never been over the border.
Please don't bother giving advice to nation-states where governments are still elected by citizens instead of bought by special interest groups. (well ok, except Italy that is).
This new function would save everyone much time by automatically creating duplicate articles for any article with more than 1000 comments. Clearly the interest in such articles warrants a second bash, let's say 4 days later.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
I can't decide if this is a satire or what. If it isn't:
No one is "forcing people to listen to others," but being required to print responses. No one has to read it. Your rant is all about this supposed movement to "force listening." I don't know what you are talking about.
Politicians and media in the US live in a free haven from public backlash.
/. ers bash MS? Isn't that doing something about it?
Doesn't the public vote for politictians into or out of their job? How much more "public backlash" do you want?
Compagnies like Microsoft can bash linux as a file server or Java as a viable programming language and Sun and the OSS community can't do anything about it
Don't the vast majority of
With laws like these the truth can come out.
Or slanderous lies.
Not just the rich media have a voice anymore.
Its about posting something on a web site. You never had to be rich to post something on your own website. I can't see how this can be possibly be a rich/poor thing.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Imagine the chilling effect if companies can sue your for billions of dollars in damages if you say something bad about their trademark. All it might take is a single letter to scare you into taking down your entire web site. Of course, we already have that in the US.
The European proposal seems to amount to "if you are a news site (commercial or non-commercial), you have to put in a link to the person/company you write about if they ask you to". I fail to see the "chilling effect" in that. It seems to be a matter of simple journalistic ethics to do that anyway.
If we could eliminate product libel and many forms of trademark infringement lawsuits that have cropped up around web sites through such a simple requirement in the US, I think we should adopt it, too: it would seem to be a great way of ensuring that people can exercise their right to free speech without fear of being sued out of everything they own.
otherwise he woudl have ralised this story is a dupe of http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/16/13 18241&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=153&tid=95&tid=9 9
Go on, mod me down Slashdot editors, see if I care.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
I think any time someone slanders me (it happens all to often, believe you me), my response will take the form or a 100MB jpg... put that in your server and smoke it.
> Why would this have a chilling effect?
> It just ensures the powerfull and rich people
> can't bash and blaim poor people
What would happen is that the moment some little guy opened his mouth and printed even the slightest criticism of the wealthy or of a large corporation, they would receive an overwhelming ton of rebuttal that they would be 'required' to post.
Write in your blog that you hate your Ford, and you will find yourself with 100,000 words of pro-Ford verbiage -- from 100 paid Ford shills -- that you have to post. It would become nearly impossible to have an opinion about anything.
Look at it this way: The cost to the little guy of making even an extremely valid and fact-based criticism of any wealthy person or corporation would be so prohibitive that you just would say nothing.
It effectively gives every person and organization the power that Scientologists abuse all the time when they make an all-out assault on their critics. They crush them with their wealth and vastly greater resources than any individual. They then take the web site and turn it into a pro Scientology site.
In the French Revolutionary phrase "liberty, equality and fraternity", the equality means equal under the law. At the moment in most developed countries the rich, or those with media access, are a lot more equal than everybody else. Even if there are flaws in the proposed legislation, it does seek to address an inequity in free speech, which is that the rich, or the media-savvy, can make their free speech heard while the poor cannot. When the US Constitution was written, the range of most people's free speech was the size of the town square. Its drafters didn't imagine a world in which a lie could be spread everywhere in just a few minutes.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The legislation may be silly, and your first point is valid. However, it is not censorship, and thus the rest of your post is irrelevant. I think few here would disagree with these ideas, which are hardly "unpopular." It is disingeuous to submit them, however, as some sort of rebuttal to this issue. The legislation seeks to increase voices, right?
Whoah, deja vu.
What was it? What did you see?
There was this article on Slashdot, and then another just like it.
Was it the same article?
Could be, I don't know.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I think the US actually is the one not getting it (or both the US and EU).
Basically whoever controls information (media) controls the society. And if there is no regulation that would prevent someone or a small group of people to gain control over most of mass media (current situation in the US and EU), then these people can control society.
In US, people think that this is ok. But in Europe there is a limit of what you can do with this capital to influence society.
I can give another example of such law. In Slovenia, when you are publishing a comercial newspaper, the editor must not have stocks in the company that publishes the newspaper. Maybe this seems strange at first, but it is one minor thing that happens to improve media space.
There should be rules to prevent complete usurpation of media by capital. I don't know if this is the best one, but better something than nothing.
Mind something: the point in this law is not that the goverment would censor the media, but that everyone can participate somehow in mass media.
Yes, it might seem wierd, but you are _entitled_ to participate in creating mass media, if the media touches you. I think this is great.
I didn't want to pat myself in the first place. I certainly don't want to repat myself. But that's just me.
I can see it now, all the l33tâ(TM)s on /. ragging on Orrin Hatch:
53n4t0r h4tch is a fuxx0r and a l4m4!
Senator Hatchâ(TM)s right of reply response:
???????
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
I'd just like to echo two blog posts I made, an initial comment and a clarification after seeing how excited people were getting about this.
Summarizing, despite the fact I have one of the most stringent definitions of censorship I know of, this doesn't fit as long as it remains as limited in scope as it actually is. There are a lot of ways to screw this up, but the actual proposal (which should have been linked in the Slashdot article!) actually manages to avoid the traps. As such, this can qualify as a bona-fide cultural difference without destroying the world.
Now, be sure you understand that my approval is fragile and the things that people are reading into the proposal, since they didn't RTFProposal, are indeed scary and it's heartening to see people responding to that. But the limited proposal as it stands is not really a threat, until it is expanded.
(If you are against it because you feel it will inevitably expand into unethical extremes, well, I'd say the odds of that are pretty decent too so I would definately respect that view of things.)
1) The article says that the proposed law was revised to cover ALL online media: "a March 2003 draft dropped the word 'professional' and intentionally covered all 'online media' of any type." Unless there are other exclusions elsewhere in the law, this means bloggers, slashdotters, everythingians, online newspapers and magazines, websites covering history, sites hosting PDFs of scientific articles, etc.
2) If this were passed, I'd expect to see bloggers, etc., reduce the number of specific people they criticized, just to avoid the "right" of reply. Otherwise, in an article that criticized numerous people, you'd end up with an unmanageable cascade of replies, replies to replies, replies to replies to replies.
3) The article says that the reply *can* be a link. Can the original author insist that it be a link, or can the responder require that the author post it on the original site?
4) (really a combination of 2 and 3) Does this mean that the mandated "right" to reply is endless? If I criticize someone on my site, and she makes me link to something on her site, does the presence of that article *on her site* then give me the "right" to reply? In other words, does her reply automatically confer on me the right to reply? How many steps are permitted? How many links will need to be posted on the original page?
5) Do groups have the "right" of reply, or does that just apply to individuals? If I criticize Microsoft, "the Linux community," the Democrats, the Republicans, Slashdot, Scientology, whatever, must I allow them to reply on my site? If I want to avoid triggering Bill Gates's "right" to reply, can I get around this by talking about "the senior leadership at Microsoft"?
6) This isn't mandating a "right to reply" anyway. You always have the right to reply. I just don't think you have the right to force me to publish certain things on my website, be those documents or links. I think free speech does just fine without that.
Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
They only have power in as much as anyone listens to them. Don't like what they say? Don't listen. But forcing someone to publish someone else's opinion at THEIR cost is ridiculous.
Damn Funny
A requirement like this would have a huge chilling effect on any individual who owns a domain name ("company") and wants to make an unpopular comment. Said individual would be forced to publish all the replies! You could easily make it unfeasible to say unpopular things with this regulation, if you were a dirigiste Eurocrat aimed at such a thing.
Remember, the victim isn't you, who knows how to operate a blog or a slash site. It's the guy who wants to publish a rant on geocities about his view that Rumsfeld is right and Chirac and Schroder should be impeached by their respective parliaments. Posting all replies by hand is highly impractical - which is the whole point from the Eurocrat's point of view, as it means that such inconvenient views won't be published.
(BTW: I don't support the Bush administration - just using this as an example of unpopular speech in Europe today.)
sulli
RTFJ.
Hum this is great news for spammer.. Do a history on Spammer, and get spammer to send spam as a response!
The European Union will have a constitution soon though (probably this or next year). This table of contents gives you an idea of part two of the final draft:
. . . to show how incredibly stupid this is.
Find a reference to yourself somewhere in Europe, and demand your right to reply. In your reply, criticize someone else, and encourage them to reply to your criticism, and hope they criticize you. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They've turned the WWW into Usenet.
I think this is interesting, but a flawed attempt, mainly because of the sheer number of indivuals that may feel the need to 'reply' to a particular publication. Say, for example, CNN writes an article about how a group, say Hamas, should be designated as a terrorist organization (which it is). Now, what if 100000 responses come back? I don't think that's an unreasonable number. Sure when you have business A talking on their website about product B of company C this all could work. But we don't live in that ideal world, and if that was the only intent and purpose of the law it would be pretty useless. For example, what about Microsoft badmouthing Linux? If only one reply need by published, which one, and who gets to decide that? If all replys need be published, then it's obvious that this law is as worthless as it is unfeasable.
It's an interesting idea, but I just can't imagine it working.
Reinard
Isn't a nested forum thread like here a kind of application of this idea ? (To all detractors) do you believe it's so hard to offer ? Is it so "free speech" killer as some people says (or exactly contrary ?) ?
Thanks for this hilarious post :)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
He is factually wrong about Portugal, at least. This is law and custom for as long as I can remember. I think he is getting everything else wrong, but that is another matter.
These laws aren't about anonymous bloggers, but about those who really have the power to hurt a reputation: the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Bild, El Pais.
os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
There's a difference between freedom of speech and forcing someone to give you a forum for that speech.
Freedom to do something is not a guarantee. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee that you will have anything to say nor that you will have a place to say it nor that anyone will listen to you. It simply means that government will not try to stop you if you choose to make your views known (unless you attempt to violate the rights of others in the process, e.g. by forcing someone else to print your views in his publication).
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
+5 Informative
The Council of Europe should make it a legal requirement that individuals HAVE TO REPLY to criticisms on these sites.
;-)
That is part the reason why some people make (company)sucks.com sites - because sometimes these cowards in corporations will not answer justified criticism.
I have been waiting for years for the answers to some simple questions from people in the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
It is my informed opinion that they and others in ICANN are corrupt.
UN WIPO and ICANN help big business violate Trademark and Antitrust Law using the Domain Name System.
They also violate the First Amendment. As you know - people have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish. UN WIPO and ICANN seem to think they do not have this right - they abridge the words that people can use.
Please visit my site - not connected with the crooks at WIPO.org
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
May 27 1669 This morning, before I went to the office, Nick the servant of Mr. Scobell came requesting that I correct what I said of him and link to his version of events. Staid past noon so to make this correction: "Mr. Scobell says that Parliament merely misunderstood how it was writ that Parliament was dissolved and that Mr. Scobell was not in danger of being arrested and you may find his version at Desk.Mr.Scobell.KingStreetByHayMarket.London." Thence to the office. Dined with my cosin which was very good; only the venison pasty was palpable beef. Then to home and to bed.
May 28 1669 To my office till noon. Intended to meet with Mr. Harper to drink and eat, for I had not eaten earlier. But hither my cosin comes to complain and ask that I write this correction "That I shall say that my cosin does buy his meat from fyne butchers and that he would not mix venisin with beef" and you may find his writings at Diary.ThomasPepys.LeftPocket-TheGreenCoat.London. Unable to meet Mr. Harper. Drank two cups of Metheglin instead. Then to bed.
May 29 1669 Up in the morning and I was to go to King's Crossing to collect my salary so I can pay my landlord before he gets apoplectic. But Mr. Cook came angrily to correct me about what I wrote of him so let me write "Mr. Cook did not 'Rail' or otherwise speak in any but a rational way when confronting Mr. Pepys about if Mr. Pepys was after my job." and you may find his statement at MrCook.DiaryLibrary.BehindTheSwan.CrookedLane.Lond on.
Again I was to leave and hither comes the servant of my Lord Chesterfield with a note that "Lord Chesterfield wishes to correct Mr. Pepys and requests him to link to Chesterfield's account of the duel. To whit: Chesterfield did not 'flee' but merely had an important meeting the next day in Holland." I then was to go to my brothers but in comes Mr. Cook to say "You must tell them I was not angry when I spake with you this morning." And you may find his words at MrCook.DiaryLibrary.EtcEtcEtc. And then to bed.
May 30 1669 I lay in bed intending to practice my lute, but then came three servants of three men each telling me to correct what I did write of their employers. I spent until 3 O'clock fixing my writings. Then to King's Crossing but just as I started Mrs. Jewel accosted me to say I wrote badly of her in that "She was not drunk and even if she did drink she still sings better than anyone else in the Tavern" and I should link to her diary which I do not know the location but you may search at DiariesOfDrunkenLadies I am sure. Drank three cups of Metheglin and then to bed.
May 31 1669 This morning comes a pounding on my door from both my landlord and John the Tavern owner ordering that I tell you their versions of what I had writ so "the landlord is not apoplectic" and "All singers at the tavern sing like the nightingale". Spent the afternoon hiding from Mrs. Jewel. And now I shall stop the keeping of my journal, I being not able to do it any longer, having done so much corrections and additions every time I take a pen in my hand I do not have time for my own words. And so to bed.
For all that is wrong with the US, the US Constitution is one of its crowning achievements. This kind of nonsense is exactly why the first ammendment to the US Constitution is so important.
True freedom of speech includes the right not to speak on your behalf. The government cannot prevent you from issuing a rebuttal against my opinions, but it also cannot force me to be an outlet for such a rebuttal. If I make libelous statements about you then your only remedy should be to sue me and demand a retraction. Otherwise you have absolutely no right to force me to speak. None.
It's frightening that a large political body like the European Union does not have the same constitutional restrictions on its legislative powers as the United States. It keeps growing, while the member nations slowly lose their sovereignty.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Check the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified in all memberstates of the Council of Europe (which of course includes all the EU nations). The ECHR prevents any EU government to simply detain passengers on airports because they have the wrong name ("David Nellson"s held up as suspected terrorists in the USA, earlier story on the US sorting system) or we can't treat someone in an inhuman way (contrary to the Guantanamo prisoners), family life is protected, laws against discrimination (religion, race, colour,... (post 11/9 action against muslims/arabs)), right on a (free) defense in penal cases, right on privacy (including the sanctity of your home), no arbitrary death penalties in the main text and no death penalties at all in the 6th Optional Protocol (not in Turkey, Armenia and Russia, but in the 41 other countries) etc.
n tion%20co untries%20link.htm#EUROPEAN%20CONVENTION%20ON%20HU MAN%20RIGHTS
Next to that, each individual country has a heap of laws in their own Constitutions protecting a number of these and other freedoms.
If the trade-off for all these things (which individuals can enforce against their own nations, and often do) is just to allow X to respond to comments you made about him (you don't have to accept someone else's reply, just X's), then give me Europe all the way.
For info on the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the text of the European Convention on Human Rights: http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/General.htm
Text in the languages of the member states:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Convention/Conve
Why would you be required to read, listen to or watch the rebuttals? I haven't heard or read anything indicating that off-buttons would be removed from TVs or radios, or that you would be required to read every single word in the newspaper.
If anything, this forces the "elite few" who run the media to allow everyone to reply to what they say. Too costly for them? Well, maybe that will make them think twice about some of the things they print or broadcast.
To reiterate my subject, no one is forcing you to do anything, unless you own or run some form of media, which makes you one of an elite few. On the internet, less so, but I would still think there are far fewer well-read blogs & other sites than visitors.
Forcing elites to make some room, however small, for the non-elite, is one of the better functions of government.
Of course it's not censorship, I don't think I used that phrase in my post. My point is that web sites should be allowed to post opinions about people and they shouldn't have to pay the cost of bandwidth to host their critics' counter-arguments. The subjects of said opinions should be free to post anything they want in response. There are laws that cover slander and libel and they should be enough, anything you say within the law should be enough. You should not be legally bound to host critical opinions on your dime.
I read that c.net article, and was embarassed at least.
..". But only the headlines remain in the minds of the people finally.
The principle of this legislation is to provide some kind of 'physical compensation'
if someone publishes some deliberate insults, or worse things, or simple things he invented about you.
Remember that NY Times disaster that recently happened - wouldn't you be pissed of if you see
an article, or an interview with you, that completely comes out of the mind of a mad
journalist looking for a top story?
You may say: I can sue the newspaper. But the $s
you get from that may not compensate in the public. I never have seen a headline in a
news paper telling "We did tell dumbshit
Finally, this legislation usually avoid large
lawsuits, as most legislations see publishing
such a counterstatement as enough compensation in many cases, and newspapers, or tv reports usually
do this counterstatement just to get away without a law suit, that may cost a lot of money.
Yes and this new law (actually directive) dosen't apply to the U.S., it applies to EUROPE! (specifically the EU) It even says so in the title of the article. Sheesh. Nothing wrong with a different country having different laws.
That can't be. According to Slashdot, the only creator of bad products is Microsoft. OSS is never flawless. You sir, are a troll, spreading Fucked Up Disinformation. Everyone knows OSS is perfect.
Freenet is perfect if you want to avoid this sort of arbitrary rule. Freenet is uncensorable, anonymous, and almost usable! (It's made great improvements lately, and it needs your help to grow.)
Read about how freenet works (totally distributed) and why it's cool (encryption means you don't even know what's stored on your node), and then run a node! Putter around for a while then publish something. Your political speech belongs on Freenet.
Have you noticed how all proposed legislation that affects personal communications has a "chilling effect"? Sounds like a meme to me.
Given that this proposal would require rebuttals along with their requisite external link, by the principles of social network theory wouldn't that enhance communication, thus making "warming effect" a more suitable compound adjective? Perhaps the submitter of the article was referring to the fact that, although it aids overall communication, the proposed requirement would be a violation of his personal and intellectual property forcing him to personally give those, with whom he is diametrically opposed, an avenue of communication.
With that said, here is a link to a person who is in complete disagreement with this post.
Michael.
Linux : Mac
As I stated in response to the original posting on this topic, I don't see this as chilling. In fact, I see this as encouraging and supporting dialog. This is no different from the old FCC rules, no longer with us, that required TV and radio stations to air responses to editorials.
In looking at something like this we have to balance the burden of the requirement against the public benefit of it being in place.
So, what is burden? Well, you would have to have a "letters to the editor" place in your web site, blog, or ezine. From a human factors point of view, you should have an indicator that would call out that a piece has a response to it. In terms of system building and design, this would be trival to add to blogs and web sites.
What is the benefit? Well, when reading a piece, you get to see the "other side of the story" from the person, persons, or organization which are the subject of the piece.
From my point of view the minimal burden coupled with the benefit of getting a more complete picture of a situation only equals goodness.
This brings me to my final point: how, why do people see this as chilling? When has dialog ever been chilling. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is reported to have said, "Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own printing presses." Yes, the cost of entry for publishing the internet has dropped. But in some ways the cost of attention has gone up. If you write something about me, I can go and setup a blog and write a response, but I have no way to insure that your audience has the opportunity to see my response. This proposal would give me the opportunity to get my story out. If you are going to call me out by name, shouldn't I - in the sense of fairness - have the opportunity to let put out my story and for folks to know it is there? To have a chance that they will see it and chose to read it?
and imagine if slashdot did this, where anyone could reply to any topic and then be moderated by the other readers in a totally trivial fashion.....
doh!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The right to health care doesn't necessarily mean it has to be free. It just means that it has to be affordable.
It's not utopian. The current situation in most (Western) European countries is pretty good.
I am sick and tired of hearing your stupid little digs at it.I haven't said that the Second Amendment is a bad thing. I can understand it. It's some kind of do-it-yourself right to safety and security.
All I said is that (to my knowledge) no European country has such a right in its constitution and that I have no problem that.
I support this policy.
The ethical precept from which this proposal arises seems to be either an obligtion of the reader to consider an opposing account of the facts of a matter, or a right possessed by the individual or entity criticized, to have its account of the facts of a matter considered. A law to bring about the satisfaction of this obligation or the obligations arising from this right might be appropriate if it is the case that without such a law one or more of these obliations will not be sufficiently satisfied or not sufficiently satisfied sufficiently often.
Do I have an ethical obligation as a reader to consider an opposing account of the facts of a matter? If I do have such an obligation, it may arise perhaps from my status as an intellectual being, or perhaps from my status as a person and as a member of the moral community that desires just treatment of every member by every other member.
It seems that I do as a reader have such an obligation both to myself and to all other persons. Yet we might wonder whether the publisher of an account of the facts of a matter which constitutes a criticism of an individual or entity has an obligation on these grounds to provide for the satisfaction of my obligation. While it seems that the publisher does have an obligation to exercise due diligence in his or her research and does have an obligation not to knowingly decieve me, it does not seem that the publisher has an obligation to satisfy my obligation to consider an opposing account of the facts of the matter. It does not seem that the publisher is responsible for my own moral faults and shortcomings. It seems, rather, that when the publisher has satisfied the obligations of due diligence and of not knowingly deceiving me, that usually this is the extent of obligations of the publisher.
However, the publisher may yet have an obligation to publish an opposing account of the facts of a matter if the individual or entity criticized has a right to be heard and it usually befalls the publisher to satisfy the obligations arising from this right of the individual or entity criticized.
In the event that some entity or individual has been wronged by a publisher publishing a criticism of it, it does seem that in this case the individual or entity has a right to have its opposing account of the facts of the matter heard. However, if the criticism is just, then it seems that the individual or entity has no such right to be heard.
In cases where the criticism is unjust, can the obligations of the individual or entity that is wronged be satisfied sufficiently and sufficiently often by existing laws, perhaps laws pertaining to slander and libel?
I believe the answer is that existing laws are not sufficient to this task, and for just the reason that this policy or legislation is being proposed. Most private individuals and small corporate entities, 'the little guys', probably can not afford to pursue a slander or libel case against a wealthy private individual or large corporate entity in the event that the wealthy private individual or large corporate entity wrongs 'the little guy' by publishing an unjust criticism of it.
Yes, it is true that if I criticize a large corporate entity in print, I may be faced with publishing a large amount of untruthful propaganda containing claims which I do not have access to the resources necessary to research and refute.
However, I do not believe this would put me at any unfair advantage. If I do not have access to these resources because their origin is either questionable or secretive, then I have strong grounds for urging my readers to be highly suspect of the claims made about which this is true. If, alternatively, I do not have access to these resources because I do not have or am unwilling to take the amount of time that would be required to locate and study these resouces, it does not seem that I have any grounds to claim that I am wronged by being forced to publish the response to my criticism.
In fact, if the
Isn't that illegal yet?
but...are you familiar with Alberto-Laszlo Barabasi's book entitled "Linked: The New Science of Networks"? It is quite good.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
From the article:
I've not read a more blatant troll in months. Freedom of speech is in every EU country's constitution. No member of the EU country lacks private property rights. Loving your country is one thing, but posting blatant lies in a supposedly respectable news source is just disrespecting the intelligence of the readers.
"if a regulation like this one would exist, you could have the right to get you side of the story on the same site too."
How would you possibly enforce this? Perhaps NY TImes would have a "response section", but smaller web sites.
Maybe the laws says they'd have to publish your response, but what if they didn't? You'd have to take them to court again.
So how does passing another law help here? I just don't see it as anything other than a misguided attempt at thwarting free speech by mandating *fair* speech.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This is a bad attempt at FAIR speech.
FREE speech is something most Europeans don't agree with. It frightens them.
Here's what you wrote:
"What this forces people to write more..."
Even you admit, this people "forces" people to do something a way that *you* think is good.
Why not just let people publish what they want on their own web site and let them alone?
Why does the government have to be involved in every petty dispute.
You act like a child... "DAAAAAAD! Microsoft called me names! Make them stop!".
Honestly.
"As long as you keep your criticism civilized,"
What if I don't want to keep it "civilized".
What if Corporation X pissed me off and I want to write "Hey, FUCK YOU Corp X. You wives are whores and I hope you all fucking DIE of cancer!"
I think people should be able to say this on their web site without interference from the government. Its not civil, its not truthful, but its important that people have the right to get pissed off and make comments about public figures and companies without fear of reprisal.
"Microsoft can ask you to post their version of the story telling that no baby toes are involved in the production of Windows and only the best quality fertilizer on the market is used."
How does this help anyone?
Microsoft has the means already to get their story across. Today, they can simply put on the front page of their web site:
"Attention: Article saying we used baby toes is incorrect".
Trust me, that has a bigger impact than john.q.public.website.com telling their own side of the story.
I don't think you fully understand the implication of what your asking, and I think you underestimate the access large corporations already have to media.
What you propose is just a windfall to large corporations, and will not help individuals in the least.
I wouldn't rely on a fictional TV show for legal advice.
"a historical accident because the original US Constitution was deficient in a number of areas."
BZZZT. Try again.
The Bill of Rights was approved along with the original consitution, and many felt it should not exist.
Let me explain why.
Many (if not most) of the writers of the constituion felt the government had *no power*, except what was specifically stated in the constition.
Therefore, if the constition said "Government may collect taxes, and keep an Army", then the government had no right to record births, because the constition didn't allow this.
However, others did not agree and felt that without specific guarantees, inalienable rights would be chipped away.
Thus, we have habeous corpus mentioned, free speech, right to bear arms, etc etc
But read the 9th and 10th amendment; you may be shocked at what they say!
So no, the original constition was not flawed. It was simply a disagreement in philosophy.
It sounds nice, but there is no real enforcement mechanism. Russia continues to grossly abuse human rights in Chechnya and to harrass media outlets which are critical of the government.
Europaen laws didn't apply to yahoo when they had some politically incorrect memorabilia for sale? And about the few people who have been extradited to germany to face politically incorrect speech laws?
Just give it some time, any big law that can crush peoples use of the internet will be applied universally. The internet genie is out of the bottle, they can't shut it all down, but they are and will continue to pass more and more restrictions and hassles until it's a big international corporate pay per view and that's about it. NONE of the governments out there or their corporate string pullers want "the people" to have much say. they can't do it all at once, so they'll do it one or two restrictions at a time.
The commies are coming!
-
The Communist party of Craplakistan writes:
Yay capitalism!We don't appreciate being called commies, you capitalist pig!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Fred Cook was granted ROR by a court of law until Reagan stepped in to protect protect his media friends at WGCB radio station and the conservative bigot who critisized Cook.
We all know that Reagan did radio for many years (http://search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=18 719) and we all know that Reagan was conservative. Was he attempting to protect free speech or his friends?
Now if someone could please explain how exactly that ROR which promotes dialogue reduces free speech? I'd really like to know. Or does ROR only limit the amount of criticism and control the organized media has on what is said on the air?
Hey, if somebody criticizes you, and they're required to post your rebuttal, you could basically force them to host something like decss if you make it part of your response.
A solution to the problem with music today
First, remember that the proposal doesn't oblige you to post a reply to your expressions of opinion. Only purported statements of fact. Anyone who's ever been libelled by a large and powerful organization knows how hard it is to get redress: this is a step towards liberating the individual from arbitrary slander and vilification. (When a Sunday newspaper called a friend of mine "A NUTTER" in banner headlines, it took him a year of full-time work to fight the newspaper's lawyers and get compensation).
Second, the proposal doesn't oblige you to post a reply, anyway. It obliges you to post a link to a reply, and that link can be to the complainant's web site. In fact, it generally ought to be. That's hardly too onerous.
Now imagine a Web where these things happen as a matter of course. The innocent reader, stumbling on a statement that Coca-Cola have started to put the cocaine back into Coke, or that Hemos is still beating his boyfriend's wives, will see a link to Coca-Cola's or Hemos's rebuttal. And if the rebuttal says something untrue (as opposed to offensive) about the poster, then the poster can demand a link back to his own rebuttal. The lucky Web surfer gets to read a free and interesting debate, all for the price of a few hyperlinks.
Assuming that we can find a way of authenticating the source of a reply (eg. by registration and digital signatures), I'd like to see this as a standard feature of blogging software. Offended by something untrue in this entry? Click here, enter a URL, and the entry will acquire a SED CONTRA item that points to that URL. No real cost to the blogger, and a richer and more interesting blog for everyone to read.
It seem to me by looking at all the post most of you have no clue what free speech is about.
I have a website.
I publish "Bob is kissing Alice, he probably just wants to inherit her family fortune."
Bob demands that I publish his counter-statement and sends it to me.
I cut and paste it into a footnote, with a preface "counter-statement by Bob:"
Big deal. Very chilling. I'll make sure to close my website down right away.
If anything, it's more free speech for Bob, not less for me (I can still say whatever I want to say, can't I?).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It sounds very reasonable to me. If an online publication does a blatant character assassination of someone on their front page, like accusing them of being a rapist or something, they should be forced to put a link to a reply in the same prominent position! Anything less is unfair.
All this whining is just from free speech zealots who don't agree with people having to take the responsibility of facing up to the consequences of their actions. Grow up and realise that free speech is not absolute. A right of reply (with regard to factual claims) should be a basic human
The problem is not about a multiplicity of links, but about theoretically endless arguments and counter-arguments. I shouldn't be forced to post and respond to your replies (and have this go on until either one of us decides to give up!).
Oh please. Cry me a river. If you don't want to continue a conversation, simply shut the fuck up. If you do, accept that the other party has just as much right to reply to correct factual inaccuracies as you do. You can't have your cake and eat it - you can't expect to say things with no consequences.
It's an unreasonable standard to require people to entertain the unreasonable positions held by another. If I write an article criticizing John Edward (the alleged psychic who was spoofed in a South Park cartoon), why should it be my burden to provide him with a soapbox where he can issue a rebuttal that is designed to promote his own deceptive agenda?
You shouldn't have to host his comment - only provide a link to it. If you don't want to provide a soapbox for him, you can choose not to say anything. (Or, under this proposal, you could choose not to directly make any factual claims about him. Saying "I believe that his claims are false" should get you off the hook under this proposal, because, as it explicitly states, beliefs are not part of its remit.)
But God forbid that people be exposed to both sides in a dispute! People can't be allowed to do that - they're simply too stupid to read about both sides of an issue and think for themselves!
It's funny, I thought that free speech fanatics were the most in favour of "reading about both sides of an issue"... even when it comes to Nazi scum. It seems I was mistaken!
Or imagine what publishers of articles criticizing creationism would have to go through.
Nothing - unless they made specific, controversial factual claims about specific creationists. But neither creationism nor God are "natural or legal persons", for legal purposes! So that's not affected.
But if you say that Creationist X is a wife-beater, then yes, he should have that same right of reply that anyone else has.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I love the way that one group suggest something and everyones knee starts jerking.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
It's a bit rich for this bloke to say that Europeans don't understand the Internet when they invented computers, TV and the World Wide Web (SSEM, HREF="http://www.tvdawn.com/tvhist1.htm#Baird">Bai rd and Berners-Lee
, all brits)!
I stole this
"As for the contents of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is an incomplete enumeration of what is considered basic human rights by most nations these days"
No, most nations think it goes too far, and they water it down with stupid fluffy phrases like "human dignity". As if it could be measured or even described.
No other country has a first amendment. Frankly, the rest of the world considers the "Marketplace of Ideas" dangerous, because it places too great a reponsibility on people to behave rationally.
You think I'm lying?
Go to Germany and try to publish a serious piece on "Why The Nazi's weren't so bad". Or go to France and publish a peace that discusses "The depth of french collaboration with Nazi's during WWII". You can't. Because its against the law. There is no freedom of press because they feel "ordinary" people can't handle freedoms.
And you know what? They're probably right, but I'd rather take the chance on free men revolting than worry so much about oppressed men having peace.
The problem with the proposal has nothing to do with the right of reply, per se. It has to do with the burden on the publisher. If the publisher is required to also verify, edit, and publish all responses, that's a huge burden. If the responder is required to do the editing and publishing, and the original publisher has no responsibility to verify, just to link to the response, it isn't a problem.
Sure, it means that blogs will have to have a place at the bottom of each entry for response links, but the links can be no more than "response #1" and "response #2." How much of a burden is that, really? How does it suppress free speech to require linking to responders, especially when the original publisher has no obligation to verify that the responses come from any specific party?
You were looking at an OLDER draft, not a newer one
Look here to see the actual modifications made to the draft. Note that the parts limiting it to "professional media" are struck out. It now applies to ALL online media.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Have you noticed you hardly comment in /. articles? All your comments are in other's journals.
Anyway, I've got a question. In The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy TV series, do you get to see Fenchurch (The girl in the cafe) more than once? Do you get to see Arthur with her?
Hehe.. my sig looks like shit when you're not in UTF-8.
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss