Hulver's site || Extremely Tedious

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Why Political Bloggers Should Think Before Posting

By wiredog (Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:41:39 AM EST) (all tags)

about the intarweb.

From Andrew Sullivan, whose work I usually ~~agree with~~ like, the strong implication that he thinks Tim O'Reilly is irrelevant to the internet. [editor's note, by wiredog]

Yeah, that Tim O'Reilly. The one who started using the internet in 1975 or so. Has a small publishing house you may have heard of. Published books on the internet in 1992.

Irrelevant.

< The scrimping and scrambling continues | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Poll

Votes: 2
Results	\|	Other Polls

Comment Controls

Why Political Bloggers Should Think Before Posting | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Hmmm it seems to me by Orion Blastar (4.00 / 2) #1 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:18:38 AM EST

that Mr. O'Reilly wants to remove comments that are threatening or libelous, but allow the rest of them.

No relation to Bill O'Reilly, but I think Tim O'Reilly has a point. If you allow threats or libel on your blog or web site from anonymous contributors it opens up your website or blog to lawsuits.

Free Speech does not give one the right to threaten others or speak lies about them. In real life cases people who make threats end up in jail, and people who spread lies end up getting sued for libel or slander. This is not responsible behavior and it is just as bad as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and then getting upset that one gets arrested for a false fire alarm for yelling "fire" and there was no fire.

It is just asking for a code of conduct, of decency, of responsibility which is not too much to ask of. One can still have free speech but they have to avoid making threats and avoid telling lies.

Then again this sort of thing was meant to protect those who make threats and spread lies. How about we just allow them to post whatever they want, and when someone asks who they are, we give them the information so they can sue over the threats being made and the libel being posted so that the posters are held responsible for their free speech. After all, only a true moron would think that they can make threats and spread libel and get away with it scot-free.

"I drank what?" - Socrates after drinking the Conium

No, I think that's a secondary point. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #2 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:48:39 AM EST

I think O'Reilly's main point has more to do with the blood thirsty hostility that typifies most blogs. Such talk has the pure and simple purpose of stifling view points the speaker does not like, but verbally bullying others into submission.

I have no problem with websites developing their own posting guidelines and moderation; if someone doesn't like the the rules of conduct on a site, they're always free to start their own.

--
Cur etiam hic es?
[ Parent ]

Well I would see by Orion Blastar (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:34:32 PM EST

how using bullying and stifling view points can take away other people's freedom of speech and that in itself is an abuse of freedom of speech.

I suppose the old:

"You are an idiot!"

"Go kill yourself!"

"Morons like you shouldn't be allowed to live or hold those views."

and the like are really abusive and are more personal attacks that distract the rest of us away from a debate or interesting conversation.

On that I agree, and it is more common on political blogs.

I can recall trying to hold a conversation about a Swedish man who defaced pictures of The King in Thailand. I used the argument that freedom of speech is not an issue because the pictures were not his property and he vandalized them, and that makes it a crime. While the other person kept saying that Thailand is medieval and that the man has a right for the freedom of speech to deface and destroy property that isn't his and that by his will they should change the law in Thailand. I tried to explain that vandalizing property that isn't yours is a crime in the EU and the USA, and that hiding behind the freedom of speech does not excuse one from criminal behavior. Anyway the conversation was not worth continuing as this person has no idea of how a Constitution works let alone what is a crime and what is not a crime and thinks that the freedom of speech means you are able to do whatever the hell you want with other people's property including damaging it without being responsible for it.

I tend to think that a blog or a web site is someone else's property, unless you are the one paying for it. The owner has a right to list what the rules are and evict anyone who breaks them. The Swedish man was a guest to Thailand who agreed to obey the law given to him when he showed his passport to visit Thailand. If he vandalized his own pictures there would be no crime. What he did was vandalize government property and got arrested for it. In the same way a web site or blog can be vandalized when a poster makes threats, uses bullying, stifles viewpoints, or just plan write libel. While it is not physical property, it is intangible property, and the owner of said property has rights and freedoms and is responsible for what gets listen on that property. So the owner has the right to remove comments and also users if they break the rules.

"I drank what?" - Socrates after drinking the Conium
[ Parent ]

I strongly doubt by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:37:41 PM EST

that the sentence and outrage wouldn't be nearly as harsh if he had vandalized something other than a royal image.

The two points aren't exactly the same.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Remember that this is the same part of the world by Orion Blastar (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:55:27 PM EST

that use a cane to beat a US boy for spray painting cars. Singapore and Thailand are not that much far away.

"I drank what?" - Socrates after drinking the Conium
[ Parent ]

try bribing officials in by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:05:38 AM EST

both Singapore and Thailand.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

: I've been in Thailand by Orion Blastar (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 04:18:13 AM EST

and I seen people trying to do that. It pissed them off. I guess it depends on the Police officer?
"I drank what?" - Socrates after drinking the Conium
[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:47:31 PM EST

If you agree to abide by someone else's rules, and then you break those rules, you pay the price.

As far as bloggers go, the host sets the rules and if you don't like it, leave.

--
Cur etiam hic es?
[ Parent ]

You've got an example in teh USA right now by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:50:28 PM EST

The idiots who set fire to an American flag that just happened to be hanging from some guy's porch can't understand how they could be charged with arson when all they did was make a political statement.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20557

--
Cur etiam hic es?
[ Parent ]

: Yes very much the same thing by Orion Blastar (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:01:42 PM EST

if they burned their own American flag, this would not even be arson charges. Yet because they burned a flag that was not their property, it violates the flag owner's rights and it becomes a crime.
Now if this Swedish guy is a guest in someone's house and vandalizes the family pictures of the host and his/her family, it would still be vandalism. If he vandalizes pictures of his own family that he himself owns, then it is not a crime.
Now I understand that the Thai people take their King and Respect of their King very seriously. Perhaps that is why the Thai people had an outrage. Yet it does not change the fact that the guy vandalized government property that did not belong to him.
Imagine if he vandalized pictures at the USA White House, or vandalized pictures at the UK Parliament, I'd expect he'd be charged with the crime of vandalizing just the same. He might even have a civil case filed against him to pay for the bill to restore those paintings to what they were before he vandalized them.
"I drank what?" - Socrates after drinking the Conium
[ Parent ]

This really has blown up in the past 2 or 3 months by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 04:13:53 AM EST

Articles in the Post, lots of internet talk, etc.

Might be a story here, if I had the time and wanted to work that hard.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

I see no such implication by Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:52:54 AM EST

I see an implication that O'Reilly is irrelevant to the "blogosphere"¹, but nothing about the Internet as a whole.

1 I hate that word

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.

I dont see how O'Reilly is nanny-stating by cam (4.00 / 2) #4 Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 11:07:20 AM EST

the internet or the blogs with his proposal. He is just making it easier to do a cut and paste comments guidelines. If anything it is a community aid. You are right, Sullivan has missed entirely with that criticism.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

sullivan is a by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:24:30 AM EST

worthless moron asswipe.

So what you're saying is by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #16 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:00:36 AM EST

you hate faggots.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

maybe he hates people famous for being bloggers? by garlic (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:08:45 PM EST

most of the people famous for being bloggers are worthless as far as I can tell.

Suck it
[ Parent ]

: But Sullivan was famous by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:44:57 PM EST

(for suitable definitions of famous) before he was a blogger.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

not all faggots, only the gay ones (nt) by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:30:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Not sure if I'm on the mark here by duxup (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:58:11 AM EST

Aside from my participation on a few sites such as Husi and reading a handful of other sites I don’t think I have a really great grasp of what is up with the whole “blogosphere” so this post might not be exactly on target with what they’re talking about in those blogs.

I think what comments and conduct are allowed on a site do reflect on the site itself and those who administrate it. If someone allows asshats and related conduct they can cry “free speech” all they want but I don’t think it washes the administration’s hands of it. In my experience sites that allow all but the worst of conduct don’t seem to have gained anything except a bit of an attitude about how they won’t “censor” people because they support free speech. Rather in practical terms allowing such behavior in my experience just creates more such crappy behavior. I think it is reasonable to ask folks not to host such things. Force them no (obviously) but that code of conduct seems reasonable to me.
____

it's sort like by garlic (4.00 / 1) #18 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:11:28 PM EST

k5 vs husi. k5 pretty much encourages people to be dicks through their userbase, where husi, the main rule is don't be a dick or if you're already a known dick, start off slowly.

Suck it
[ Parent ]

: Yup by duxup (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:44:20 PM EST

I was thinking of K5 and some similar sites when typing some of that.
____
[ Parent ]

Why Political Bloggers Should Think Before Posting | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

-	Meh	100%
-	Not Meh	50%


Make a new account
Username:
Password: