Posted on 05/24/2014 6:54:45 AM PDT by shove_it
In the early days of the internet, there was much talk of how the web would connect us all, thereby furthering knowledge and fostering community. Yet for all its advocates’ and early adopters’ optimism about its potential to enable us to organise, think and influence one another, freed from institutional supervision or what the newcomers frequently described as “mainstream media bias”, one thing has remained consistently problematic: comments posted under articles or blogs (or “below the line” in internet-speak).
~snip~
One of the great questions for the future of the net is: to what extent this extraordinary freedom will be allowed to remain in the hands of the people, and to what extent will it be limited and regulated? If a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights is anything to go by, perhaps we should expect more of the latter...
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Again, what gives additional protection to a statement of fact published here, as opposed to, say, on a billboard, in a newspaper or book? Is there some law I have not seen that says you can say anything about anyone without recourse?
Regards your concern about social media, please get real: everything you publish or transmit should be considered public. Best not to say anything there you would not want published on the front page next day.
Oh, and by the way, I am free to deny anyone a job interview if they posted crap on DU or HuffPo. So are you
Our modern pols HATE the first amendment, and would happily do away with it at the slightest opportunity.
Now, it seems, they have that opportunity.
Perhaps I didn’t make clear that I was mocking the idea of needing certification to enjoy free speech. As far as the Constitution is concerned, while I honor your service, being human is qualification enough. Everything on top of that is what you did to ensure that being human is STILL enough.
Oops, a bit flip, eh? Please think for a moment about the First Amendment right to anonymous speech. There’s a longstanding bright line of protection for it in the courts. Something about the government keeping databases on people - you know, irrational paranoid stuff like that.
She goes by the name Ann Barnhardt.
Quite so. Thank you for the correction.
All I am saying, like the cat lady above, is keep some basic rules of civility and common sense online, as I expect you would in a coffee shop, by a water cooler or wherever. And remember, online is an enduring form of publication, like print, like TV, like radio, like books.
That's the point - a young medium needs to observe the same rules as its fading competitors.
By all means, express all the opinions you like, but if they're half-@ssed or reflect badly on you, live with the consequences.
I guess, in short, take ink-stained wretch Howie Carr's well worn advice: "don't say anything you wouldn't want to see quoted on the front page next morning".
Shut up, hypocrite.
Okay you lost me completely there.
Campaign speech can contain pretty much anything, and be considered protected by the courts.
In the 1970s, I remember a candidate who swore in an ad just to get the ad talked about on national TV.
People like Alan Grayson say despicable things in their campaign ads.
Therefore, for a nominal fee in advance of some upcoming local election, file as a candidate and flame away on the internet.
-PJ
Sure I did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.