I suppose criminal prosecution is worth a shot, but I like most everyone else have serious doubts about its effectiveness. This first "wave" has apparently been carefully planned and yet nabbed only "dozens" of perpetrators, and I would imagine most of those were of the "stupid enough to get caught" variety. Now let's guess how many of those dozens will actually go to trial, much less be convicted. But while skepticism is natural and logical, I do think it's worthwhile that the government is at least attempting something, even if it is mostly lip service. Whether it means more foreign spammers (likely) or just more clever ones here (likely as well), I don't expect this to make a lot of difference and continue to pin my hopes more on technology than the legal system.
What intrigues me, though, is the question as to whether or not this approach differs from the current attack on piracy. What's the real difference, that the general masses enjoys piracy and hates spam? Identity theft and credit card fraud are clearly in another category, but I wonder if the vile nuisance of spam is really worth large fines and/or jail-time. You're bothering ordinary, ostensibly innocent people, but I'm just not convinced that is a heck of a lot more offensive than hurting faceless corporations. I'm definitely against the DMCA and for anything that cuts down on spam, but I wonder if those positions are a bit hypocritical.
Imagine you're the CEO of NBC and have a responsibility to your shareholders, or even that you're one of those shareholders whose theoretical wealth is all tied up in NBC stock. Sure, on some level you understand and agree with the idea that the media has some larger responsibility to serve society by providing it a variety of seemingly accurate information. But on a more direct level, your most immediate responsibility is to protect the company.
What would NBC gain out of being involved with Greenwald?
What would NBC stand to lose?
In a political climate where the level of hostility is unprecedented, it's no surprise that a network would want to keep itself separate from any individual's partisan rant, no matter how justified or unjustified it might be. Let's be perfectly clear that no one is denying Greenwald or the Swift Boat Veterans the right to speak out. That's where free speech ends, although few people seem to grasp that boundary. Free speech never has and hopefully never will be about being immune from consequences of that speech or legally binding others to support and disseminate your expression. Nor is NBC hiding the material. Anyone can look at a written transcript of the interview online right now, and anyone can order a video copy of it. The only thing they're doing is choosing not to surrender control of that property to a third party, one that will clearly use it to attack a very visible figure who has around half the country supporting him. How does avoiding that situation amount to anything more than the only reasonable thing to do?
I simply don't understand how hatred of an individual, be it Bush or Clinton or whoever, can be allowed to overwhelm individual rights. NBC should have the right to keep itself separate from someone else's vendettas just as you might not want articles or footage or some form of your intellectual property being used by a person or organization you don't want to support. Wasn't it wrong for Michael Moore to run roughshod over Ray Bradbury after Bradbury had specifically told Moore that he did not grant permission for the movie's title? Is that any more wrong because Bradbury is an old man and not a corporation, or are none of these things wrong because they attack Bush and not you or your mother or someone you actually like?
If NBC had never aired its interview because it wanted Bush to be re-elected, that would be a huge problem.
If NBC refused access to the material now for private viewing, that would be a problem.
NBC choosing to stay out of something that the creator clearly hopes will get vicious and ugly is not a threat to democracy or free speech or anything else. In fact, it's an expression of NBC's freedom to choose with whom it associates. Forcing them to participate would actually be the un-American thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose criminal prosecution is worth a shot, but I like most everyone else have serious doubts about its effectiveness. This first "wave" has apparently been carefully planned and yet nabbed only "dozens" of perpetrators, and I would imagine most of those were of the "stupid enough to get caught" variety. Now let's guess how many of those dozens will actually go to trial, much less be convicted. But while skepticism is natural and logical, I do think it's worthwhile that the government is at least attempting something, even if it is mostly lip service. Whether it means more foreign spammers (likely) or just more clever ones here (likely as well), I don't expect this to make a lot of difference and continue to pin my hopes more on technology than the legal system.
What intrigues me, though, is the question as to whether or not this approach differs from the current attack on piracy. What's the real difference, that the general masses enjoys piracy and hates spam? Identity theft and credit card fraud are clearly in another category, but I wonder if the vile nuisance of spam is really worth large fines and/or jail-time. You're bothering ordinary, ostensibly innocent people, but I'm just not convinced that is a heck of a lot more offensive than hurting faceless corporations. I'm definitely against the DMCA and for anything that cuts down on spam, but I wonder if those positions are a bit hypocritical.
Imagine you're the CEO of NBC and have a responsibility to your shareholders, or even that you're one of those shareholders whose theoretical wealth is all tied up in NBC stock. Sure, on some level you understand and agree with the idea that the media has some larger responsibility to serve society by providing it a variety of seemingly accurate information. But on a more direct level, your most immediate responsibility is to protect the company.
What would NBC gain out of being involved with Greenwald?
What would NBC stand to lose?
In a political climate where the level of hostility is unprecedented, it's no surprise that a network would want to keep itself separate from any individual's partisan rant, no matter how justified or unjustified it might be. Let's be perfectly clear that no one is denying Greenwald or the Swift Boat Veterans the right to speak out. That's where free speech ends, although few people seem to grasp that boundary. Free speech never has and hopefully never will be about being immune from consequences of that speech or legally binding others to support and disseminate your expression. Nor is NBC hiding the material. Anyone can look at a written transcript of the interview online right now, and anyone can order a video copy of it. The only thing they're doing is choosing not to surrender control of that property to a third party, one that will clearly use it to attack a very visible figure who has around half the country supporting him. How does avoiding that situation amount to anything more than the only reasonable thing to do?
I simply don't understand how hatred of an individual, be it Bush or Clinton or whoever, can be allowed to overwhelm individual rights. NBC should have the right to keep itself separate from someone else's vendettas just as you might not want articles or footage or some form of your intellectual property being used by a person or organization you don't want to support. Wasn't it wrong for Michael Moore to run roughshod over Ray Bradbury after Bradbury had specifically told Moore that he did not grant permission for the movie's title? Is that any more wrong because Bradbury is an old man and not a corporation, or are none of these things wrong because they attack Bush and not you or your mother or someone you actually like?
If NBC had never aired its interview because it wanted Bush to be re-elected, that would be a huge problem.
If NBC refused access to the material now for private viewing, that would be a problem.
NBC choosing to stay out of something that the creator clearly hopes will get vicious and ugly is not a threat to democracy or free speech or anything else. In fact, it's an expression of NBC's freedom to choose with whom it associates. Forcing them to participate would actually be the un-American thing.