Slashdot Mirror
Survey Reveals Americans Support Blog Censorship
renai42 writes "A new survey has revealed that Americans overwhelmingly support strong censorship for blogs, even though a substantial amount have never actually been to one. Eighty percent of the 2,500 respondents did not believe that bloggers should be allowed to publish home addresses and other personal information about private citizens. However, more than one-third of respondents had never heard of blogs before participating in the survey, and only around 30 percent of participants had actually visited a blog themselves."
Ah yes, nothing like an austrailian news organization (the writer not ZDNet), quoting a survey by some webhost (alot of people have probably never heard of) of 2500 people to tell what the 292 million Americans favor.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I think the word "censor" when it comes to blogging should be used carefully. It depends on what is being said. For example if it is secret company products being announced (ex: Apple and ThinkSecret), it might make sense to try and keep it secret, as it is a product that was bound by a non-disclosure agreement.
But if it is simply censoring for censorship sake about whatever the censor deems unreasonable, then that is a whole different ballpark. Then it is a infringment of First Ammendment rights.
Many Merkins don't know what bloggers are, but feel that they should have the same rights as mainstream journos. Many 'Merkins are also less likely to trust bloggers than other journos.
What's the problem? Why am I wasting time writing and thinking about it?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Another triumph of the American (Dis)Education System!
It's long been shown that the average American citizen, when shown a list of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights is likely to be shocked at the idea and state that many of those rights shouldn't exist.
While I'm sure the poll question biased the result, what part of "Freedom of the Press" do people not understand?
Jeez! No wonder Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidents can get away with treating the Constitution as if it doesn't exist, most of the population doesn't even understand what's in it.
Bloggers should not be censored. Period. But when they harass people, spread lies or otherwise behave in a way that is provably harmful (slander, etc.), then they should be held accountable and prosecuted with impunity. People used to understand this concept. This country used to be based on this concept.
Once upon a time, there used to be a concept that you were free to do what you want unless and until you violate someone else's rights. Now, it seems we are heading towards a country where you're only free to do what the government specifically allows you, because some people will abuse those freedoms.
The Nanny State rules! All Hail the Nanny State!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Most Americans are unaware of how much of their information is public. You address and phone number are public information and most efforts you can try do not prevent it from being accesiable to the public. The problem is most Americans think that their information is private, it isn't. You want to start a flamewar on /. Just do a whois on someone's website and post it in a /. story. Dont believe me I did it here
The replies show how other respond to items like this. This is not about bloggers rights or whether or not they are journalists. They are about the fact that most Americans continue to revel in their ignorance about what they think is their right to privacy.
This isn't about unsuitable content or privacy, it's a poll with questions designed to stir up trouble. Addresses are public information. You may not like someone posting your address on their blog, but you can't stop them, or anyone else, from figuring out what your public address is. If it's information that is private, sure this is an issue of privacy, but that's not what the article says, it says "home addresses", starting us off right away with the main bit of personal info being totally public.
The problems occur when you have sites/blogs that are encouraging others to commit violence/etc. against the people they're posting about, but current laws cover this. I remember an anti-abortion website getting in trouble because the courts found they were actively encouraging people to kill the doctors they provided info about on their site.
"Eighty percent of the 2,500 respondents..." So we have a survey comprised of less than .001% of American population, and clueless as even the post implied. Now, if i'm not mistaken, the title reads:
"The survey reveals Americans support blog censorship."
Oh, yeah. It really "reveals" the truth. Would this post have made the front page of /. if the title was really what it's about?
"An insignificant and unconfirmed survey done by a company craving attention may suggest that Americans don't support publishing their private information."
By the way, why is it linked to ZD Net Australia? Shouldn't it link to the original survey? Because I can't find it anywhere.
sorry for the bad handwriting
If you don't believe this, go to your local courthouse - who has purchased what property and how much they paid for it is a public record and anybody can access it.
"other personal information", depending on what that covers, may be worth protecting.
Personally, I would suggest a privacy amendment to the constitution. Just take a national referendum and protect what the majority wants protected. Oh, and no special provisions for corporations, politicians, law enforcement, or the wealthy - everyone gets treated equally.
If it were, then why is Ahenakew being charged under the hate speech laws? He didn't incite action. He simply went off on an anti-semitic rant. He's a jerk and his views are terrible but they didn't contain an incitement to act. And he's being charged for hate speech.
The act itself (Look at Section 319) specifies 4 elements that are necessary for a charge.
To get charged you have to:
1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, (not necessarily action) 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
In other words you can be charged if your statement is likely to cause a breach of the peace even if you had no call to action in your statement.
The only problem with the act in regards to free speech that I can see is the odd distinction between public and private statements. If someone makes a bunch of statements in public that qualify as hate speech as they're likely to cause a breach of the peace, that's a crime. But if they make the same statements at a private invitation only dinner event and the statements a breach of the peace is still the likely result that's okay? Doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
This particular thing has nothing to do with media censorship, freedom of speech, etc. etc. It is about data protection.
In the UK we have had a Data Protection Act for eleven years, and it has done much more for the rights of the private individual than it ever did for the government/spies/corporations.
The gist of it is this. If you give personal information to someone, they may only use it for the purposes you permitted them to, and after those purposes are complete, you must destroy the information. Additionally, if someone is collecting information about you and it is impossible for you to consent, they must warn you about it beforehand, and you may ask them at any time for a copy.
Here are some of the rights the DPA entitles me to:
I believe that this law also applies to the rest of the EU now, but I don't believe there's anything like this in North America yet.
No, sorry, I think people are perfectly qualified to understand that they don't want their private data on the web.
Competency is relative. Is a person competent to make a personal decision? Of course. But that doesn't mean they decide things which are in their own best interest. Given the choice, most people would decide to stay subconscious. To do what they've always been doing: not necessarily what they choose to do or what is in their best interest to do.
What the article is suggesting and what most people don't understand is that the framework of how something is worded, for most people, greatly influences their decision. It's psychology. People of course are going to be afraid someone will abuse their personal information, even if the context is wrong and that result is unlikely of ever happening. (Nobody I personally know has been subject to Identity Theft- it's simply not a likely thing to happen and thus not worth the wasted energy worrying about it.)
Basically it's "bah, I'm the important one. You don't matter."
This is true for all people. Even the smartest person in the world, who has a wide variety of choice available to them, is going to be self-centered. Because that's just how people work. There is nothing wrong with it. Where we get screwed up is when people refuse to believe that everyone has different and has different strengths and weaknesses. A smart person has more value to society then a dumb one. It doesn't mean that the dumb one is an unworthy person, but trying ignore the difference between the two extremes, when we know the difference exists, is simply disregarding facts.
Anyway, the orginal point remains. Most polls are complete crap- not because of the wording, but because there's no data as to why people are making any particular choice, what their background is, what their belief systems are, etc. It's trying to chuck down WAY too much data into a teeny-weeny space, and then making some outlandish conclusion based on that. The process itself is simply flawed for telling anyone any useful information about what people believe.