#100854 - 08-02-01 01:11 PM
Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Old Navy
Junior Member
Registered: 05-30-01
Posts: 399
|
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010802-8299152.htm
While this article starts out with the ever-present intern case, it raises some interesting discussion issues vis a vis freedom of speech and abuse:
"Any freedom can be abused, and will be. There is more of everything on the Internet. More bad speech, more good speech, more persons with no special expertise writing on topics they know nothing about. But crafting laws that rule out abuse while allowing freedom is hard," says Harvard Law School professor John Zittrain.
Lawyer David Post, a professor at Temple University Law School, concurs and adds: "We're now seeing a complicated social phenomenon of some significance. There are differences between the Internet and other media, and we are now discovering what those differences are. The courts are wrestling with this slowly. I can't say the courts recognize the differences yet."
Thoughts, anyone?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100855 - 08-02-01 01:27 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
BeachBum
Administrator
Registered: 03-08-01
Posts: 224
|
I agree with the statement below from the article:
"But some think even that statement is malicious. The nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, for example, calls for an "open user-controlled" Internet and for the "free flow of [Internet] information." Such groups as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union are working to keep Internet users' names private."
Furthermore, with regards specifically to Gary Condit and claims of a damaged reputation, I do not see where the Defamation is. Mr. Condit did commit adultery and he did lie to the public about it. In addition, he is a public figure with less protection and rights where libel and defamation law is concerned. The internet did not cause his damaged reputation. The internet facilitated the truth and exposed the dark reality behind his facade.
I am not surprised that politicians are scared of this phenomenon. I am willing to bet that many of them have skeletons to hide.
I would hope that we as the public fight tooth and nail to preserve our freedom of speech online. I also hope that we can expose and grill many more figures in our rotting and corrupt political infrastructure.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I am a member and strong supporter of the second organization mentioned above (EFF).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100856 - 08-02-01 01:50 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"Any freedom can be abused, and will be.
Yes, freedoms are abused everyday.
This country I love so much incourages it. We have the right to wave a flag, and burn it.
We have the right to honor our president, and viciously attack him.
We have the right to practice religion, and we have the right to make statements about those who practice in some of the most demeaning ways.
We do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, nor do we have the right to lie under oath. (I guess that is debateable.)
Has there been mis-statements in regards to the Condit case? Absolutely.
the ministers daughter, the five minute phone call between Mrs. Condit and Chandra, the multiple phone calls from CL to GC on her supposed final day etc...
there is one big difference between the press reports and individual accounts of the case making the rounds on the internet.
Profit.
We scribe our thoughts the way we would in a personal conversation. There is no profit motive. ratings motive....etc...
What those on the internet do can be damaging, it can lead to misinformation....but malice?
Being one from the political world I will take my chances with the gift that has been bestowed on us by so many generations of American heroes who have fought and died for the sacred gift we call freedom.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100857 - 08-02-01 02:09 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Old Navy
Junior Member
Registered: 05-30-01
Posts: 399
|
It is kind of unfortunate that the article was wrapped around the Condit business, because regardless of his culpability or lack thereof in the intern's fate, the main issue really isn't about him--he's a poster boy for bad behavior even if he had nothing to do with the woman's disappearance. I really wasn't looking for Condit-specific comments, but for some "big picture" takes on the matter.
The issues really are about what people say on the Net, how accountable are they for their words, should they be held accountable at all, should there exist degrees of accountability, should ISPs share the load of responsibility, and what, if anything, should/can/might the courts do about it?
It is a bit of a conundrum--on the one hand, you have "freedom of speech" -- always well worth preserving -- and on the other, you have the quintessential "witch hunt" or outright cavalcade of lies that live on forever and a day in cyberspace. Who was that guy who said "What office do I go to in order to get my reputation back?" (And that was before the net! Slander isn't new, it's just gotten easier, maybe?).
I certainly don't claim to have the answers, or even a solidly-held view on this issue--I can sorta see both sides from this rather uncomfortable perch on the fence. I cringe at anything that restricts freedom of speech; on the other hand, if I were the victim of a vicious and untruthful smear campaign, I just might find myself leaning the other way. One of those "Where you stand depends on where you sit" issues, it seems like. That's why I thought I'd toss it out and get a few viewpoints from some of you web-savvy types... :p
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100858 - 08-02-01 03:25 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Censorship comes in many forms. My concern with the above is that even censoring limited aspects of cyberspace benefits a small elite and hurts the masses. Why do I say this? Censorship would do more harm than good. If libel and defamation law were used more extensively online, the corrupt politicians will use it as a weapon to cover-up corruption, large corporations will use lawsuits to silence opponents and lawyers will make lots of money from the above entities. In other words, the masses lose once again.
I can very well see where a "Condit" politician would use the law hunt down vocal protestors or people that disagree with his political agenda or personal mishaps.
I can also envision a scenario where online whistleblowers of a "firestone" type corporation would be silenced by the threat of litigation which they can ill afford.
I can imagine a scenario where ISP enter into the censorship business and ban dish and scoop sites that in turn move their business' to offshore providers.
And in all the above scenarios, I see mainstream media dishing out the same whitewashed generic content which all of you complain about.
In the "big picture", none of the other cases where the netizen is the offender scare me nearly half as much as the scenarios above. And in fairness, in the majority of the cases, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. I am of the opinion that in many cases, the agendas of normal netizens venting online are non-existant which is usually not the cases for politicians and corporations where profit and power reign supreme.
my 2 cents on that "big picture".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100859 - 08-02-01 04:24 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Old Navy
Junior Member
Registered: 05-30-01
Posts: 399
|
Zeroflux...SOLELY for the sake of argument, mind you (I haven't really heard anything from you that I really disagree with on the subject, so far--public good continues to lead the pack), what if some personal enemy of yours, using methods that made his identity difficult or impossible to trace, established a defamatory web page that insulted you or your family in a grievous manner, or instituted a smear campaign on bulletin boards or chat rooms that you frequented? What if a stalker was chasing you, your wife, or your child on the net, hacking into their computers, obtaining personal information, and using it to unduly frighten or harass? Do you think there should be limited laws to prevent this sort of "one-on-one" behavior, or do you think that there is a danger that such laws could take hold like kudzu and be applied to broader free speech issues?
I suppose being in the game, you are better able than the average guy to take countermeasures against this sort of thing. But the reason this issue could grow legs and stagger, if not walk, is because all too many "ordinary folk" have been the victims of this sort of thing, and the police departments seem either unwilling or ill-equipped to handle it.
I seem to recall a situation where a high school kid put up a web page about a girl that he eventually murdered, and the parents couldn't even get the law to take it down, because they didn't own the domain name of their own dead daughter. Then, there are the silly sites, where a jilted lover lists all of his/her former paramour's shortcomings, perhaps posting embarassing photos as well, causing delight amongst those who log in for a look and humiliation for the victim. These sorts of cases are a bit different than simple commentary on public figures, but they huddle under the same "net" umbrella. It's a gnarly issue in a lot of respects--you've got freedom of speech on one side, right to privacy on the other.
Wish we had a few lawyers here (maybe we do?). I'd love to see two opposing teams sink their legal teeth into this issue--I've never really seen it properly debated.
Edited to add this interesting and timely article:
(Link deleted, defective)
Excerpt:
Internet free speech watchdogs hailed Richman's 27-page decision, which interprets key provisions of the Communications Decency Act. "The judge did not create this out of thin air," said Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The statute specifically does give speech in interactive computer services more protection."
The court order was made against the backdrop of a bitter Internet public relations feud between alternative medicine advocates and two doctors who have campaigned against questionable medical treatments.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100860 - 01-03-02 10:30 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Thanks for the link OhMy. This definitely a victory in that it sets a new legal precedent for similar cases.
New Jersey Officials Barred From Learning Identities of Citizens Who Posted Criticisms on Web
Excerpts:
"This suit is a clear attempt to intimidate the townspeople so they stop making comments about their officials," said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen, which got involved in the case because it has a history of defending First Amendment rights. "The judge's decision protects citizens' rights to participate in anonymous debate about their public officials, without fear of being dragged into court."
"The court also ruled that no legal action could be brought against the Web master for the allegedly defamatory statements published on the bulletin board by the anonymous posters, because a federal statute, the Communications Decency Act, places responsibility for Internet speech squarely on the speakers themselves while protecting Web masters and Internet service providers from being sued for statements made by others using their facilities."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100861 - 01-03-02 11:15 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Think of it as this way, not every doctor or lawyer etc is on the same skill level, one cannot take away a lawyer or doctor's license simply because they are not the best. One cannot prevent a person from posting or writing articles because they are not on the level of top notch journalists. Freedom of speech does not mean having to measure up to a standard, and if it does who is going to set the standard, the fight over that one will never end.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100862 - 01-03-02 11:42 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"Freedom of speech does not mean having to measure up to a standard, and if it does who is going to set the standard, the fight over that one will never end."
Of course one must meet certain standards in order to have "free" speech: for example, the speech must not be threatening, defamatory or constitute harrassment! Unfortunately, what this ruling does is to allow anonymous threats, defamation and harassment on the 'Net. I think it will be a signal to every neo-Nazi that they can anonymously harrass and threaten any black person they wish and there is nothing that can be done about it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100863 - 01-03-02 12:37 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Rose of Sharon
Junior Member
Registered: 05-22-01
Posts: 1373
|
Thanks for reviving this thread, zeroflux. I recently read an article regarding the Saudi government's restrictions regarding the internet. Given the situation in that country and this administration's support of the House of Saud, this raises some real issues as to the free flow of information and a government's reasons for suppressing the internet.
The Internet in the Mideast and North Africa: Free Expression and Censorship
A standing committee has been formed and approved by the government to protect society from material on the Internet that violates Islam or encroaches on our traditions and culture. This committee will determine which sites are immoral, such as pornographic sites and others, and will bar subscribers from entering such sites. There are many bad things on Internet. That is why we have created a mechanism to prevent such things from reaching our society so that a home subscriber to this service can be reassured. We have programs, software, and hardware that prevent the entry of material that corrupts or that harms our Muslim values, tradition, and culture. We also created a "fire wall" or barrier to prevent other quarters from breaching our sites. That is why we have not rushed into providing this service. We first want to make sure we eliminate all negative aspects of the Internet.
Although official explanations of content filtering have focused on materials deemed offensive to conservative Muslim sensibilities, Saudi blocking apparently extends to political sites. In early 1999, the site of at least one exiled dissident group, the Committee against Corruption in Saudi Arabia ( , was reportedly blocked.
Users who attempt to access banned sites reportedly receive warnings on their computer screens that their access attempts are being logged. Saudi authorities have also tried to thwart user efforts to circumvent censorship. The URL of a popular web-based anti-censorship proxy server, Osiris, is blocked in the Kingdom, along with at least three "mirror" sites, according to Brian Ristuccia, who manages the site. And a web site offering anonymizing services, , is also blocked, according to the company's president, Lance Cottrell.
_________________________
In an early report card on the Bush presidency, Democrat Mark Warner won the gubernatorial election in the Republican stronghold of Virginia: the shape of things to come.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100864 - 01-03-02 12:41 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Kitten
Member
Registered: 07-10-01
Posts: 5602
|
On a story I am writing, I got an interesting email reply this morning from a guy who threatened to sue me if I dared identify him as a billionaire. Amusing what people consider grave injury.
I sent him email back asking him if he was explicitly denying to me that he is a billionaire. I hope he replies.
I always get interesting email.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100865 - 01-03-02 02:25 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hey, can someone go back and edit those extremely long links, using the url button option? Those long links make these pages harder to read because the item is wider than the screen.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100866 - 01-03-02 03:46 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"On a story I am writing, I got an interesting email reply this morning from a guy who threatened to sue me if I dared identify him as a billionaire."
There's no shield to the truth. Unless it's untrue and defamatory on its face, what reason would he have for suing you? Being called a "billionaire" - even mistakenly - hardly seems actionnable. Not that I could imagine being so defamed...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100867 - 01-03-02 05:11 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
More specifics on the ruling made recently regarding anonymous posting on the internet:
In a case closely watched by free-speech advocates, Superior Court Judge Mark M. Russello ruled that Stephen Moldow should not be held liable for allowing the sometimes-crude accusations on the "Eye on Emerson" Web site.
Russello also killed a subpoena seeking the identities of 60 anonymous posters, saying the plaintiffs failed to specify how their postings might be libelous. He also questioned whether the posters were properly notified of the legal proceedings.
The 60 anonymous "John and Jane Does" remain as defendants.
In dismissing Moldow as a defendant, Russello cited the importance of allowing free discussion about politics.
He wrote that if Web site operators "face the prospect of a lawsuit from any person who is criticized in that forum ... then this would indeed discourage the creation of Web sites."
Russello said federal law places responsibility for online speech on the speakers, not on Web site operators and Internet service providers.
The lawsuit was filed in July by four Republicans in Emerson: Borough Councilwoman Gina Calogero; her husband, Lawrence Campagna, who is the local GOP chairman; Councilman Vincent Donato; and former council candidate Eric Obernauer.
"The Web site has brought embarrassment to Emerson, and Moldow has the power to clean it up but chooses not to do so," Calogero said.
The court ruling was made Dec. 21 and released Wednesday. Jack Darakjy, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, promised an appeal.
The town officials sought damages, claiming defamation, harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They argued that free-speech protections do not apply to slander or libel.
Some anonymous and unsubstantiated messages in the site's chat room accused public officials of extramarital affairs, shady business dealings and urinating in a swimming pool. One user posted the name and phone number of a council member's employer, urging residents to call.
The officials had subpoenaed the Internet hosting company, Vantage Net Inc. of Minnesota, seeking the names of the posters. Although Russello quashed the subpoena, he left room for the plaintiffs to issue a narrower one that addresses his objections.
TBO
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100868 - 01-03-02 05:34 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
OhMy, I think this is a very interesting case, too, and thanks for keeping us focused on it. I plan to study it a bit more later. There are going to be plenty more challenges to anonymity on the I-net, I suspect.
But this one held ground, so three cheers for the First Amendment!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100869 - 01-03-02 05:59 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The judge in that case didn't rule in favor of free speech. The judge ruled in favor of due process. A subpoena to obtain the names of anonymous Internet posters requires notice. There was inadequate notice, therefore the subpoena was quashed.
The lawsuit against the 60 "John Does" is still alive and I'll bet that the plaintiffs' lawyers try it again; and that this time around, they give proper notice. Then we'll get to the merits of the free speech issue surrounding anonymous posting privileges.
Most of us are not frightened by freedom of speech, or any other constitutional freedom. But any such freedom can be abused; and it is only fair that those who abuse such freedom be held liable under the law. The Communications Decency Act allows persons who have been slandered on the Internet to recover damages.
I asked you last night, OhMy, whether you were frightened by the right to keep and bear arms. You replied with your usual venomous ridicule. But someone could point a lawfully-purchased firearm at your head and squeeze the trigger. Of course, the law would hold him liable.
The concern that any reasonable person feels about such a possibility is analogous to the concern that these New Jersey Republicans feel about freedom of speech on the Internet. Because, as the Leftie flame trolls prove every minute of every day, their presence on the Internet is characterized by pointing the verbal equivalent of a firearm at Republicans' heads and squeezing the trigger, over and over and over.
It is appropriate that the website operator in New Jersey was dismissed out of the lawsuit. Like Zeroflux, he should not be held liable for any alleged slanders by his Leftie members. Let's get to the merits of the case and see where it goes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100870 - 01-05-02 02:40 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Judge Marc Russello ruled that the plaintiffs had not met the strict tests established by New Jersey courts for a subpoena to be served to obtain the identities of anonymous Internet speakers. The court faulted the plaintiffs for not providing sufficient notice of the subpoena on the bulletin board and for not providing a sufficient basis to show that each of the allegedly defamatory statements was speech that could be the basis for a lawsuit.
My mistake. There was supposed to be a notice posted on the website, and there wasn't; either that, or the notice was posted but it provided insufficient information. Evidently there are some very strict notice requirements peculiar to New Jersey courts.
The ruling states that the ISP and the Webmaster can't be held liable for slander committed by the website's posters. That's appropriate, but if these statements are really slanderous, then the law should provide an efficient mechanism for the plaintiffs to learn the posters' identities and pursue legal action.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100871 - 01-05-02 12:07 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
NYC1, I'm not a lawyer or a linguist or into semantics, doctors and lawyers can be sued for malpractic, what you posted above I consider to fall under the rule, 'do no harm.' What I was getting at is the quality. The quality of the doctor or lawyer or poster is not up for discussion. In the case of doctor and lawyer they can have a bad result but they can't be sued for it, same as if a person posted that men from outer space is taking over our country, a person can't be barred from such post, even though the result of such post may create a group that insist we check and make sure every citizen is not a spaceman, which to say the post got a bad result - increased number of wackos so to speak.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100872 - 07-27-02 01:32 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Local_Gov_IT_Guy
Member
Registered: 08-06-01
Posts: 2019
|
This proposed legislation has some really serious implications for the future of the Internet. This one is something to think about.....
Hollywood hacking bill hits House
By Declan McCullagh (Dated July 25, 2002, 10:25 AM PT)
WASHINGTON--Copyright owners would be able to legally hack into peer-to-peer networks, according to a bill introduced in the House of
Representatives on Thursday.
Poster Notes: The bill is entitled "Peer-to-Peer Piracy Legislation";
As previously reported by CNET News.com, the measure would dramatically rewrite federal law to permit nearly unchecked electronic disruptions if a copyright holder has a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is occurring.
The link is here.
This has been a big topic on conversation among techies (see /. posts). The assumptions are that different versions of DoS (Denial of Service) will be utilized. For example, one poster from slashdot (/.) pointed out the following:
DoS attacks do not have to take the form of network flooding. One form of DoS I hear most about is offering bogus material with filenames/tags of popular movies and music, on P2P networks.
Also, there may well be ways to frustrate programs such as Kazaa by opening lots of connections, sending it invalid commands or things like that. That would not have to take up lots of bandwidth, nor would it alter any files, which is one of the provisions in this Bill.
Another thing: doesn't this bill state that they can hack or DoS in order to prevent (suspected) illicit distribution of their works? Does this mean that they can cause collateral damage and side effects, such as preventing you from using the net at all or swapping legit files? Or are they allowed only to stop you from swapping illicit files?
To me, the bill isn't clear on this (though IANAL). Of course, the RIAA and MPAA may interpret this bill in the broadest sense, so yes, they will be allowed to DoS your internet connection, and not just the P2P part.
Or as another poster points out (if this legislation gets enacted into law):
There are other ways to attack a computer than flood it with packets. The bottom line is, if this bill passes, it's open game on your computer. No search warrant is required.
I can't believe that the RIAA & MPAA are actually serious about this. If so, this is just a totally insane approach to dealing with the file sharing over P2P networks. The RIAA/MPAA go out and hose some of these P2P folks & it's going to be open warfare over the Internet in a blink.
And guaranteed, the RIAA & MPAA will lose on this deal. The techies are already starting to think up very creative ways to stick it to these people.... 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100873 - 07-29-02 04:16 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Local_Gov_IT_Guy
Member
Registered: 08-06-01
Posts: 2019
|
Here we go again.....
Senator Joseph Biden has revised the 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002' to make it a felony to bypass certain DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies. The bill has very broad Senate support and is expected to pass overwhelmingly.
Article on ZDNet about this.....
Pirate this, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh, Special to ZDNet
(Dated July 29, 2002, 5:19 AM PT)
WASHINGTON--Sen. Joseph Biden has become one of the newest field marshals in Congress' intellectual property wars.
After the 59-year old Delaware Democrat took over the Foreign Relations committee last year, the software and entertainment industries enlisted him in their anti-piracy struggles. That prompted Biden to convene a hearing where he denounced copyright thievery in stentorian tones. "Windows XP was available for illegal use on the streets of Moscow two months before it was released in the U.S. by Microsoft," Biden said. "Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."
At the hearing in February, Biden released a 52-page report written by his aides and titled: "Theft of American Intellectual Property: Fighting Crime Abroad and At Home." One section devoted to counterfeit products expressed the worry that "counterfeiters flood markets with their underpriced products and steal a great deal of revenue."
A few weeks later, Biden introduced a bill titled the "Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002." It originally targeted the kind of large-scale pirates who manufacture fake Windows holograms, but in a little-noticed move this month before being sent to the Senate floor, the proposed legislation was rewritten to encompass technology used in digital rights management (DRM).
Biden's new bill would make it a federal felony to try and trick certain types of devices into playing your music or running your computer program. Breaking this law--even if it's to share music by your own garage band--could land you in prison for up to five years. And that's not counting the civil penalties of up to $25,000 per offense.
"Say I've got an MP3 collection and I buy a new nifty player from Microsoft that only plays watermarked content, and I forge the watermark to allow my legal MP3 collection to play," says Jessica Litman, who teaches intellectual property law at Wayne State University. "It is certainly the case that if I pass that around, I could be trafficking (in violation of the law)."
Link to the full article is
here.
Imagine that all your freedoms, both in using your computer and your use of the Internet being placed totally at the mercy of a few large business organizations, and this being done with the enthusastic support and encouragement of the Congress of the United States....
But not to worry, it's more fun to bash each other over the head on D vrs. R politics than it is to worry about a real loss of our freedoms..... 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100874 - 01-20-03 08:55 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Although the "offending" post took place in an Internet forum in Germany, I think the article is a troubling reminder of the looming threat to freedom of speech online.
German faces jail for 'ironic' remark
A German man could be jailed for three years over a comment posted on the internet, in which prosecutors say he belittled the events of 11 September.
In a case which critics say has major implications for freedom of speech on the internet, Holger Voss stands accused of "glorification of a criminal act".
Mr Voss, who will appear in court in the western German town of Muenster on Wednesday, insists his comments were meant to be sarcastic.
He had written a final sentence at the foot of his remarks - posted last summer on the Telepolis message board - which he says indicates that the sentiments expressed were not to be taken seriously.
"The court will decide whether he did indeed mean them ironically, and if so, whether or not that makes any difference," court spokesman Juergen Wrobel told BBC News Online.
Anonymous tip-off
The apparently offending remarks were made in response to a message posted by another internet user - Engine_of_Aggression - who appeared to be pleased about the alleged murders of thousands of Taleban fighters by local militias during the downfall of the Afghan regime in 2001.
"Congratulations to the people, who in this over-critical time, dare to grab evil at its root and eradicate it from the face of the earth!" wrote Engine_of_Aggression.
Mr Voss, who describes himself as an anti-militarist, responded:
"Yes, Congratulations to the murderers of 11.09.01.... Good, that on 11.09 a couple of real men (!) found the courage to show the evil ones, the USA how it really is!"
An anonymous complaint to the police led to the prosecution under a German law which forbids the glorification of a criminal act.
In a statement posted on the anti-censorship site Stop1984, Mr Voss insists he was attempting to display the hypocrisy in valuing American lives over others.
The suit has also sparked controversy as the prosecution forced the owner of the discussion board to hand over details about Mr Voss
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_010803_hatespeech.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100875 - 03-01-03 02:32 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
I thought this was an interesting article. The troll must have been a real pest for the company to go to the trouble of suing.
Web site owner goes to court to force 'troll' offline
A local pest-control Web site is trying to exterminate what it believes is a specimen of one of the Internet's most bothersome creatures: The Message Board Troll.
GIE Media, a Cleveland company that runs the online pest-control portal PCT Online, is suing an Arkansas man who the company says is constantly leaving obnoxious and offensive messages on its Internet bulletin board and then, after he is banned from the site, sneaking back using fake names.
While the Internet has allowed the world to communicate, many public message boards are plagued by users - often referred to as trolls - who spew personal attacks, emit racist invectives or yell an online version of "fire" in a crowded theater.
Many companies ban users, delete posts and even change locations to avoid abusive users. But GIE's suit against Ronald Huckaby in U.S. District Court is one of the more extreme attempts yet to control chatter on Internet forums.
GIE is alleging trespassing, breach of contract and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It is seeking at least $5,000 from Huckaby. The company also wants the judge to bar him from visiting PCT Online.
Read Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100876 - 03-01-03 02:38 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
american woman
Moderator Magnifique
Registered: 11-10-01
Posts: 4484
Loc: San Diego
|
Well, their business is pest control, after all.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100877 - 03-01-03 03:06 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The fact that we argue whether freedom of speech on the internet exists is in itself damning of what is left of America.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100878 - 03-01-03 09:06 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Shocked
Member
Registered: 07-04-01
Posts: 3228
|
Oh, Good Lord......for a moment there I thought Old Navy was back.......but I guess, thanks to the Archives, he has never left us, has he?
(I still think that Old Navy's loved ones would enjoy reading his posts here at the Grill...don't know how it would ever be possible to get them to his family, but I know I would want to see them if it was my Dad who had been posting prior to his death...)
RE: The statements on the German board. We've had as bad here on CG, no? There was some guy with Middle Eastern background who was posting regularly for a while about 4-6 months after 9/11, can't remember his name, but he surely didn't think much of Americans or our culture and he wasn't shy about telling us so....wasn't overtly cheering 9/11 but I certainly got the idea that the slaughter of our citizens didn't seem to bother him much....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100879 - 11-28-03 12:45 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Given the economic disparity of the Internet, I wonder if taxes on Internet access will have a negative impact not only on business, but on speech online?
Bill to keep Internet tax-free dies
WASHINGTON -- A proposal to extend a federal ban on Internet access taxes is dead for the year, as the Senate was unable to reach an agreement, officials said Tuesday.
Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said senators were unable to reach a compromise to allow an extension of the ban that expired Nov. 1. The Senate is wrapping up business for the year and is moving toward adjournment.
The ban, first passed in 1998, prevents state and local governments from taxing Internet access services such as America Online and Earthlink. It also limits state and local governments' ability to levy taxes that target Internet commerce. It doesn't address the broader issue of simplifying sales taxes on Internet transactions.
Read Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100880 - 11-28-03 04:56 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
WalkerTom
Author
Registered: 07-10-01
Posts: 38295
Loc: Dixie
|
Nice to see an Old Navy Thread again. Thanks, Zero.  The reality is that Internet Sales, Services, and everything else will eventually be taxed. I know it, you know, it, Republicans know it, Democrats know it.
:rolleyes: What time does the Revolution Start?
_________________________
BECK / PALIN / 2012!
CUZ WE DESERVE IT!!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100881 - 11-28-03 05:49 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
WT, why just accept that it will be taxed? Why not fight the idea? The minute they can tax it, they can control it, and there goes the only voice of the people that can actually accomplish something. I would be quite willing to pay for the internet if they would leave it alone, but we all know that governments in all countries are dying to control and restrict this medium.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100882 - 11-28-03 07:09 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Taxing internet access will be met with resounding resistance.
I don't find anything wrong, though, with taxing commercial transactions based upon the state (or province or country) in the shipping address.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100883 - 07-07-04 01:22 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
This seems to be an interesting thread.
How long will it be before they find a way to tax the internet? I have already heard of schemes to charge for email in order to combat spam. Is this a tempest in the teapot?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100884 - 07-07-04 02:18 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
One of the freedoms of the Internet that I regret is that a slime like xxx can appear on a thread started by Old Navy. I never knew ON, but so many people have written good things about him that I regret his loss.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100885 - 07-07-04 03:10 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
Very interesting that triplex post flame & hate, then conveniently goes into the archives & finds this thread to post on. Justification, triplex?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100886 - 07-07-04 06:22 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Actually, I was looking for a thread that I had started titled "What is the difference". Evidently no one in this forum could give an answer to what the difference was between Bush and Kerry or the two parties, so out of their frustration they censored it.
pdc, "One of the freedoms of the Internet that I regret is that a slime like xxx can appear on a thread started by Old Navy. I never knew ON, but so many people have written good things about him that I regret his loss."
PDC, if you were sincere, you would not have started flame on this thread.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100887 - 07-07-04 06:39 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
Triplex, you are a liar. The last post on this thread, before yours, as 11/28/03. That put it 8 or 9 topic pages back. Your deleted post was current, would have most likely been on the first page yet. IF you have a problem with the deletion, email a moderator or zero instead of whing about it to us. It happens, get over it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100888 - 07-07-04 06:47 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
pdc, here are the last posts of Old Navy. You'll note that his last post was 9/9/01.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100889 - 07-07-04 06:55 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hey, I am new, I just thought maybe they just had buried my thread. Evidently, I did go that far back looking. I do not know why you have to make me out to be liar, just because you cannot debate the issues, you have to resort to name calling.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100890 - 07-07-04 07:04 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Thanks, Ark -- if you check Old Navy's last post, two days before 9/11, you'll see that he's kicking the ass of a poster with the moniker xxx.
Has to be our same boy, right?
Which means he hasn't learned anything. :rolleyes:
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100891 - 07-07-04 09:01 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
Hey, I am new, I just thought maybe they just had buried my thread.
You've been here for 5 months, long enough to see many threads sleep with the fishes. Liar. If the shoe fits, wear it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100892 - 07-07-04 09:06 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
Well gollyyyy ms pdc, it sure do look like the same feller. Triplex, from back in the days when you could post without registering.
on edit: triplex, thank you ever so much for digging out this old thread of Old Navy's. Without it we would never have realized what a jerk you really are. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100893 - 07-07-04 09:12 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
I just thought maybe they just had buried my thread
Yeah, that's right! We hide it on you.  Actually, triplex, the dog ate it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100894 - 07-07-04 09:13 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
WalkerTom
Author
Registered: 07-10-01
Posts: 38295
Loc: Dixie
|
And how much we miss the reason and wisdom of Old Navy.
_________________________
BECK / PALIN / 2012!
CUZ WE DESERVE IT!!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100895 - 07-07-04 10:17 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
firecracker too
Member
Registered: 05-20-03
Posts: 14971
|
You get a renewed sense of loss every time you read Old Navy's postings.
Trix, try the truth for a change. IOW, you're being called on your bullshit.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100896 - 07-08-04 01:06 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Is it definite that Old Navy died in 9/11, or is that just assumed? Has there been confirmation?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100897 - 07-08-04 01:39 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
firecracker too
Member
Registered: 05-20-03
Posts: 14971
|
I believe there has been from his widow, pdc. He officed at the Pentagon and there have been no further posts. He was remarkable in his knowledge and ability to impart it without compromising his ID.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100898 - 07-08-04 01:55 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
No confirmation, pdc. We knew that he had an office in the Pentagon which would have been in the area that flight 77 struck. There were several obits that could have been his, but we were never sure. Zero, rightly, has maintained the anonymity of posters.
Strangely, on Flight 77 were Vicki Yancey, a wonderful poster from TOL, and Barbara Olson, a RWN lawyer & pundit, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, who recently resigned his office. Here is another article on Vicki Yancey. Yancey & Olson were polar opposites.
edited to correct second link.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100899 - 07-08-04 02:00 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Arkham
Cosmic Muffin
Registered: 07-10-03
Posts: 3574
Loc: Wisconsin "Eat cheese or ...
|
Yes, firecracker is correct. I do remember a post from his wife, who of course remained anonymous. I think that zero validated her authenticity. Thanks for jogging my memory on this< f2.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100901 - 04-27-05 11:04 AM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
I find this brand of vigilantism disturbing on several fronts. Leaving aside the issue that Weisburd’s followers are engaging in illegal actions through their denial of service attacks, what qualifies him and his readers to be judge of what constitutes “offensive” content, or a “pro-terrorism” website? Additionally, Weisburd does not read Arabic and according to the article uses translation software to interpret the offending content.
A final note on this item is the possible damage this type disruption can cause in the event that government agencies are monitoring the sites to extract intelligence.
Bold emphasis mine.
Watchdogs Seek Out the Web's Bad Side
Some Groups Target Pro-Terrorism Sites
CARBONDALE, Ill. -- A. Aaron Weisburd slogged up to his attic at 5 a.m. to begin another day combing through tips he had received about possible pro-terrorist activity on the Internet.
It did not take long for one e-mail to catch his attention: Ekhlaas.com was offering instructions on how to steal people's personal information off their computers. It was a new development for an Islamic discussion site accustomed to announcing "martyrdom operations," or suicide bombings, against U.S. troops and others in Iraq.
Weisburd quickly listed the discovery in his daily log of offensive and dangerous sites, alerting his supporters. A few days later, Ekhlaas experienced an unusual surge in activity, the hallmark of a hacker attack, forcing the company hosting the site to take it down.
-snip-
Weisburd said he and his supporters are responsible for dismantling at least 650 and as many as 1,000 sites he regards as threatening, especially Islamic radical sites.
-snip-
The activists often operate at the boundaries of what is legal and illegal. For his part, Weisburd insists that he uses only legal means to go after his targets. A posting on his site explains that in fighting crime he does not think it proper to commit one, but he admits he cannot always control the actions of those who help him.
-snip-
But others say that he is making more trouble than he is doing good. Some U.S. officials think that they can learn more about terrorist operations by monitoring suspicious sites as they operate. Weisburd said an analyst from a federal agency recently wrote him a scathing letter calling him a "grave threat to national security" because his work was interfering with its investigations.
-snip-
Perhaps the most difficult question Weisburd faces is determining which sites qualify as promoting "jihad." Even some of his supporters are torn.
-snip-
Weisburd does not read Arabic but uses a computer translator and relies on other volunteers who are fluent in other languages to assist him with more difficult text. But he said it is often clear from just the images and a few words on sites which ones deserve to be kept up and which ones should be made to disappear from cyberspace.
Read Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100902 - 04-27-05 11:46 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
american woman
Moderator Magnifique
Registered: 11-10-01
Posts: 4484
Loc: San Diego
|
"I understand enough of what they say to know they are my enemy, and that's all I need to know." he says.
Unsettling, to say the least. But even if he's on the mark, how much actual good does this do? I'm thinking I'd rather know what these guys are up to.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100903 - 04-28-05 09:46 PM
Re: Freedom of Speech and the Internet
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I posted this on its own thread back in March 2005. I didn't know this thread existed at the time.
- Big Brother Is Watching You
]In March, FEC Chairman Bradley Smith suggested the FEC might crackdown on blogging activities as political contributions. Following Smith's comments, the FEC released a draft of their proposal that proposed that political websites that are not password protected and read by more than 500 people a month should be regulated by the FEC. Nothing creates a firestorm faster than suggesting that bloggers might lose some of their rights. CNET reports that the March proposal was radically altered because of the, "the unusual public outcry that followed a public alarm that Commissioner Bradley Smith sounded about a pending government crackdown on bloggers. After Smith's warning, an army of bloggers mobilized to oppose intrusive regulations and prominent members of Congress warned the commission not to be overly aggressive." Redstate.org's Mike Krempasky said, "If the March 10 draft had gone into effect, it would have been bloggers with pitchforks and torches storming the Federal Election Commission at 999 E St." (Click here for ACSblog's coverage of Sen. Feingold's comments on the original draft proposal).
Source
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Lei
|
|
