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."

Comments

Re:But how?

[rpozz]

The article title is very misleading - from the summary:

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.

Banning people from publishing the personal details of others is perfectly fair. This is nothing to do with 'unsuitable' content. While the article goes into more detail this appears to be more about privacy than regular censorship based on mature content. This just appears to be slashdot trying to kick off a load of censorship arguments and get more ad hits.

It's not *me* reading it I'm worried about

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I feel the same about people who read blogs as I do about people who read tabloids. If you don't want to read it, then don't look. If the information is a little too personal for you than never go back, it may be informative for somebody.

The problem isn't me reading a blog entry about me. I already know where I live, what my ID numbers are, etc. etc. The problem is that I can't stop somebody else reading that.

This issue is bigger than just personal info valuable to strangers, too. I've had a bitter ex-g/f post intimate personal e-mails on her blog from the time we were going out, and with a large dose of editing, taking out of context, and outright lies thrown in for good measure. She knew damn well that several close friends of mine also read that blog, and would think less of me after reading what she wrote (or her adapted version of what I had once written).

The real killer is that despite the blog host being a big name, they didn't give a shit. In fact, after the ex made the post "private" (which didn't stop our common friends from reading it) when I wrote to her and asked her to remove the comments, the LJ admins then claimed (in response to my formal complaint) that they couldn't access that area of the database, and therefore couldn't do anything about the post. All of which helped me and my relationships with some formerly close friends not at all.

So, what am I supposed to do? I live in the UK, so I'm hardly going to pay hundreds of $$$ to hire a US attorney and pursue a defamation suit against my ex in the US just to get LJ to take the post down, am I? But without any official, international regulation of this area of the Internet, the damage was done all the same, and it hurt a lot more than posting any credit card number would have.

Freedom of speech is a valuable thing, but it is not the only valuable thing, and it is far too powerful to be an absolute.

DOESN'T make sense to me

[cfalcon]

If you grab all the studies in the area and look at them in search of truth, all you are really doing is rewarding consensus. If all studies were your golf ball example, then looking at ten of them with that phrasing would be *less* helpful than one. As soon as this becomes the common way to do this, the guys wanting to raise golf ball taxes will simply commission more studies (months in advance, unpublicized) and they'll all come out over the course of two years, gradually swaying public opinion.

You would be a fool to believe that this is not occurring constantly.

Re:Doesn't really mean much...

[mizhi]

If they don't know what a blog is, then why is their sample point counted? I'd be more interested in the opinion of those who have actually visited a blog.

The question, as has been pointed out, is obviously designed to elicit a specific answer and should be considered in that context.

I'm more concerned about this part:

A further 72 percent favoured censorship of personal information about celebrities, and 68 percent information about elected or appointed government officials such as judges or mayors

What are we defining as "personal information"? Addresses, phone numbers, yeah. I can see that. What about history about the politician? Spouse's name, business dealings (especially for politicians)? You could make a case for all of these as being personal information.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said bloggers should have the same rights as traditional journalists, while 27 percent did not express an opinion. Free speech rights are protected under the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, which says the US Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Since when, in the United States, do traditional journalists have MORE freedom of speech than ordinary citizens? IANAL, but methinks the Australians might have a misunderstanding as to what freedom of speech for Americans means. It's not for some Americans, it's for ALL Americans.

Actually, on a tangent. Reminds me of a discussion I got into with some Canadian friends of mine a couple years ago. They simply couldn't understand why I was so against censoring "objectionable" speech. In this case, speech deemed to be "hate speech."

sigh Anyone want to help me buy an island for libertarian refugees?

Re:Doesn't really mean much...

[mikael]

The classic example is the "National Service" theme of "Yes Minister":

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes!"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."