Do we need an internet gatekeeper?

[Modelworks]

The beauty (and beast) of the internet is that you can have a forum of open discussion without having to worry about if you are being PC enough or if your employer is going to disagree with a view you have enough to fire you.

I am not advocating you give your personal details on everything you do online. Requiring people to have something that could determine who they are in the real world if a court order is provided hurts who ?

In the end, people LIKE being able to come to the one place where there is still some semblance of freedom and express their views/ideas/rants/etc. The accountability is held in the communities online just like they are in different towns and communities everywhere.

How can you hold anyone accountable if they are anonymous ?
Freedom of speech does not apply when your intent is to do harm to someone.

The entire reason that the internet is so popular is because it is what you make it. Tearing that down and rebuilding it in the vision of the people who want more control over others is the epitome of destroying freedoms.

You do not have to tear anything down. The internet was never intended to be anonymous. You want a wild west internet , where whatever anyone wants to do they can do ? Really think hard about that because as more and more people learn how to go online and start to use it you are going to have one hell of a time sorting through the noise if everyone has the freedom to do anything they want without any consequences.

 

[boomerang]

Since failing newspapers has come up, what if the government announced that something needed to be done about the situation. That newspapers, being a cornerstone of our free society, etc., etc., were too big to fail. Who would support bailing out the newspapers? Would there be any conflict of interest there? Could this be construed as a government takeover of newspapers?

Let's say a major cable news network were in dire straits. CNN perhaps. Should they be bailed out? Any potential pitfalls to that?

I ask because newspapers are on the ropes and it appears that one or more cable news organizations may be shortly too if they don't change their business model. Change their model to one adopted by more mainstream Americans.

If the FCC came out next week and recommended that in keeping with the interests of the public, that they intended to increase FNC's license to broadcast fees a hundredfold with the understanding that those monies would be used to prop up failing networks, would this be a good thing?

Could any of this really happen?

 

[Rainsford]

Since failing newspapers has come up, what if the government announced that something needed to be done about the situation. That newspapers, being a cornerstone of our free society, etc., etc., were too big to fail. Who would support bailing out the newspapers? Would there be any conflict of interest there? Could this be construed as a government takeover of newspapers?

Let's say a major cable news network were in dire straits. CNN perhaps. Should they be bailed out? Any potential pitfalls to that?

I ask because newspapers are on the ropes and it appears that one or more cable news organizations may be shortly too if they don't change their business model. Change their model to one adopted by more mainstream Americans.

If the FCC came out next week and recommended that in keeping with the interests of the public, that they intended to increase FNC's license to broadcast fees a hundredfold with the understanding that those monies would be used to prop up failing networks, would this be a good thing?

Could any of this really happen?

I'm not sure government funding is the answer, but I am troubled by the idea that journalism should succeed or fail based only on its ability to turn a profit. Mostly because the standards that people apply to judging whether or not news outlets get their money often seem to have nothing to do with journalistic quality.

Actual news gathered and presented by people who went to journalism school and try to maintain some concept of unbiased coverage are critical to a free society...even if many consumers would rather have Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman.

I'm not sure what the solution is, unless we can figure out a way to make people as a whole start using their brains when it comes to the media. As much as people love to bitch about the media, we are getting EXACTLY the media we deserve. People voted with their dollars, and told the media that we don't want unbiased news presented by Edward R. Murrow, we want opinion masquerading as news, presented by Glenn Beck shouting into a camera and random idiots on the Internet.

 

[Kappo]

I am not advocating you give your personal details on everything you do online. Requiring people to have something that could determine who they are in the real world if a court order is provided hurts who ?

Once the infrastructure for "only needing to track people down when we need it" is in place, it will be regulated and more and more information will be required. It's the way our government works. Short of giving up your personal details, how would they track you? How long before they start selling targeted ads to be able to administer this (you can turn cookies off, it's a choice)? How long before the information will just be collected automatically and what information will be there for "law enforcement"? How it is currently, if it is truly illegal, someone with a mild background in computer security can track down just about anything that is illegal. How do you deal with a keylogger that steals your ID and you can't go online while they "investigate"? How do you handle the absolute SHITTONS of man hours required to police the entire world?

The things I do for my job are vastly different than what I do for my personal life. I don't want them tied together in any shape, form or fashion.

How can you hold anyone accountable if they are anonymous ?
Freedom of speech does not apply when your intent is to do harm to someone.

Freedom of speech also does not apply when you have a single entity that is deciding what is "harm". Freedom of speech also does not apply when politics rule and someone has the ability to shut down what the other person is saying. "Yeah, I was wrong in turning off their ID, but now that the court battle has finished 4 years later it really doesn't matter anymore".

You do not have to tear anything down. The internet was never intended to be anonymous. You want a wild west internet , where whatever anyone wants to do they can do ? Really think hard about that because as more and more people learn how to go online and start to use it you are going to have one hell of a time sorting through the noise if everyone has the freedom to do anything they want without any consequences.

There are consequences. You just don't like them. I have an idea. How about the people who do not like the consequences just stay off the internet and let the government stay the fuck out of ONE aspect of my life? Mkay?

 

[yllus]

If it's really critical to track down an anonymous blogger's identity, it can be done in a matter of days by the professionals.

There's an amusing hypocrisy to CNN talking heads trashing anonymous bloggers on their lack of professionalism because of their lack of proper research or bias. You're a talking head. You don't do shit to research the words that come out of your own mouth.

I consider society to be vastly enhanced by the organized chaos that is online "citizen journalism". Aside from the G20 weekend when my city was sort of under siege, I haven't watched television news in a decade. It's trash. I'd read a decent blog over CNN any day.

 

[Jaskalas]

So North Korea shouldn't be allowed to ban free speech, because their bad and their people need it.

We should be allowed to ban free speech, because our government is good and our people do NOT need it?

Thank you CNN, for showing your true colors.

 

[xj0hnx]

I could care less about internet blogs since there coverage is minimal. It's when an organization like Fox News, MSNBC or CNN is basically a propaganda orgasn for the DNC and RNC that's the real problem. How many times when a Republican or Democrat does something bad that they are labeled with a R or D respectively by there name that you need to be convinced that it is nothing other than a mis-information organization. It' no accident.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[boomerang]

I'm not sure government funding is the answer, but I am troubled by the idea that journalism should succeed or fail based only on its ability to turn a profit. Mostly because the standards that people apply to judging whether or not news outlets get their money often seem to have nothing to do with journalistic quality.

Actual news gathered and presented by people who went to journalism school and try to maintain some concept of unbiased coverage are critical to a free society...even if many consumers would rather have Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman.

I'm not sure what the solution is, unless we can figure out a way to make people as a whole start using their brains when it comes to the media. As much as people love to bitch about the media, we are getting EXACTLY the media we deserve. People voted with their dollars, and told the media that we don't want unbiased news presented by Edward R. Murrow, we want opinion masquerading as news, presented by Glenn Beck shouting into a camera and random idiots on the Internet.

Cable news is a business as is your evening broadcast news. Under our current system, it should succeed or fail on its own merits. I will stand for no further government intervention in the media in any form. Which BTW, is what my whole thread here is about. So far there is one person I know for sure that got it, maybe two.

I think the only journalists capable of being free and unbiased are those fresh out of school. I highly doubt many of them even embrace those ideals and I base that on our educational system. Educators, like journalists, learned a long time ago that they had the power to sway minds to their way of thinking.

I think that the majority of people that are concerned with current events and our political system as a whole are fully capable of distinguishing between news reporting that goes on during the day and programming based on commentary that goes on in the evening. They understand when smoke is being blown up their ass. Those with minds that are easily swayed have always existed and more than likely will always exist. This is nothing new.

One has only to watch any given news conference conducted by Robert Gibbs to see the state of modern journalism. There are only a very few willing to ask a hard question and only recently at that. I'm encouraged to see some fresh young faces asking some of those questions. I hope it's a trend that both continues and intensifies. Those that dare are typically subjected to ridicule, feigned ignorance of the issue, or are just ignored by means of no answer given Mr. Gibbs. Those that do get an answer get the treatment I just outlined on follow up questions. Mr. Gibbs will not stand for being backed into a corner. True, hard-hitting unbiased journalism may be on the return, but there are roadblocks in the way and IMO, there are more to come.

As I stated earlier, I am vehemently opposed to government control of the media. I'm going to risk being called a loon and say that I think we'll see a big push towards the goal of media control in the coming months. It will be wrapped up in a manner such that it will appear as a logical solution to a crisis. I know the views of all of us here are sometimes in extreme opposition to each other. As flawed as it may be, we right now have a media from which we can garner opposing points of view. I hope we can come together if the need arises and work towards ensuring that system lives on. There will be no 'winner' if the government gets control of our media. Anyone who thinks they have won will find that victory short lived.

 

[hal2kilo]

Fixed for accuracy.

Keep dream'n third partier.

I know it sucks, but one day you'll learn that we have and will only have two parties, so instead of standing on the outside and bitching, go to your local Republican or Democratic party headquarters and change it from the inside. Slowly the Dems are purging the DLC from itsr ranks. I know politics suck, but you libertarian and tea partiers think it's going to be different when you "get in charge". You'll suck like everybody else does.

If you don't like what's going on then vote the guy out.

The system as it is really sucks because there's no porportionality in the Senate. You get all these unpollulated states that keep voting the same fool in term after term and rule over the majority of this country.

 

[xj0hnx]

Keep dream'n third partier.

I know it sucks, but one day you'll learn that we have and will only have two parties, so instead of standing on the outside and bitching, go to your local Republican or Democratic party headquarters and change it from the inside. Slowly the Dems are purging the DLC from itsr ranks. I know politics suck, but you libertarian and tea partiers think it's going to be different when you "get in charge". You'll suck like everybody else does.

If you don't like what's going on then vote the guy out.

The system as it is really sucks because there's no porportionality in the Senate. You get all these unpollulated states that keep voting the same fool in term after term and rule over the majority of this country.

I hear the bleating of sheep. There is no difference between the two parties, social welfare, corporate welfare, the only difference is how they split up other peoples money to stay in power, and they depend on mindless sheep like you to tow their line.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The problem is basically what PC Surgeon suggested. It's not the anonymity or freedom to say whatever they want that allows bloggers to disseminate false information, it's that people treat blogs and other opinion outlets as a substitute for actual journalism.

For some reason we as a society have decided that qualifications and standards are no longer important, that everyone's voice should be equally important not only on matters of opinion, but on matters of fact. Fox News or CNN might not be your favorite news outlets, but at least they are accountable for what they claim to be true...some random idiot posting on a blog is not.

And that's fine, we don't need a "gatekeeper" to watch over random idiots on the Internet...we just need to stop treating those random idiots like they are actual journalists. The problem with this latest situation wasn't that the video was edited to distort what was said, it was that action was taken without verifying the facts first.

I agree to a point. If people are forgetting the difference between a journalist that has done the research and a blogger venting his opinion, then the people are to blame. But what happens when more then on one occasion journalists also failed to verify their sources ? It once again is an issue of cross reference. Do not accept anything blindly. Confirm it. If it cannot be confirmed, it can be doubt and more sources to establish credibility are needed. But never must their be censorship.
Being proper and decent is understandable. But removing information is not good.

 

[1prophet]

http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity

Constitutional Underpinning

It is well-settled that the First Amendment shelters the right to speak anonymously. See Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=525&invol=182), 200 (1999) (invalidating, on First Amendment grounds, state statute requiring initiative petitioners to wear identification badges); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=362&invol=60), 65 (1960) (holding anonymity protected under the First Amendment because forced “identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance”). These cases celebrate the important role played by anonymous or pseudonymous writings through history, from the literary efforts of Shakespeare and Mark Twain through the explicitly political advocacy of the Federalist Papers.
As the Supreme Court has held, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” that “exemplifies the purpose” of the First Amendment: “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation...at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=514&invol=334), 357 (1995) (holding that an “author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment”).
Therefore, courts must “be vigilant... [and] guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and the exchange of ideas.” Buckley, 525 U.S. at 192. This vigilant review “must be undertaken and analyzed on a case-by-case basis,” where the court’s “guiding principle is a result based on a meaningful analysis and a proper balancing of the equities and rights at issue.” Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 760-761 (N.J. App. Div. 2001). Moreover, that review must take place whether the speech in question takes the form of political pamphlets or Internet postings. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=521&invol=844), 870 (1997) (there is “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment protection that should be applied to” the Internet).
[edit]
Right to Speak Anonymously on the Internet

“Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns." Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Accordingly, "the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.” Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).
Each of the courts to consider the issue has found that the First Amendment requires a heightened evidentiary showing from the subpoenaing party before enforcement of subpoenas to identify anonymous Internet speakers. See, e.g., Dendrite, 775 A.2d at 771 (strict procedural safeguards must be imposed “as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet").
“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Otherwise, “f Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.” 2theMart.com at 1093.

How about some practical real world examples of the benefits of anonymity.

http://www.newsroomlawblog.com/2009...igh-court-protects-anonymous-internet-speech/
Criticize a restaurant on its appearance and instead of cleaning up its act the owner decides to sue for defamation. ( Big corporations would love to silence critics using their vast legal resources good thing this ruling didn't go that way)

In a case we first reported upon in December, Maryland’s highest court ruled recently that anonymous posters to an Internet news web site were protected by the First Amendment from having their identities disclosed to a civil litigant.
Following on the heels of the Enterline case in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted the five-part test articulated by a New Jersey appellate court in Dendrite Int'l v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2001) to balance the posters' First Amendment rights to speak anonymously and the right of the plaintiff to recover for a valid defamation claim.
This case, like so many in this arena, involved a defamation claim by the plaintiff against various anonymous posters to an Internet news web site (in this case a site run run by Independent Newspapers, Inc). Plaintiff Zebulon Brodie asserted that the posters had defamed the restaurant run by Brodie, calling it, among other things, “dirty and unsanitary” and had defamed him personally by asserting that he had “deliberately burn[ed]” down a pre-Civil War home to develop news homes.

Remember when Blizzard wanted to remove anonymity on its forums?
Good thing they finally came to their senses and backtracked.

Yet one wonders what it would be like if every poster on the Internet had to use their real name or provide easy access to it, for one it would probably stifle the majority of trolls but what about the repercussions of a poster using their real identity and the chilling effects on free speech?

Enter Face book and My space where ones real identity and seemingly benign actions can offend someone and cause significant harm to the respected user.


Woman loses her teaching certificate due to legal photo on my space.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0426072pirate1.html

A university official told her that the photo was "unprofessional" and could have offended her students if they accessed her MySpace page. At the time the "Drunken Pirate" photo was taken, Snyder was of legal age to drink, though her lawsuit notes that the photo "does not show the cup's contents."

Employee fired for face book comment.
http://racetalkblog.com/2008/06/30/employee-fired-for-facebook-comment/

“At the end of the day what I wrote was private. You would never get sacked for saying something like that in the pub. I was sacked from Waitrose for something I said on Facebook in my own time. The bosses only saw it because one of my colleagues grassed me up. They printed out a copy of the Facebook page to use as evidence against me. It is an infringement of my privacy.”

Delta employee fired for blogging - Sues airline

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13337

A former Delta Air Lines flight attendant who says she was fired weeks after she posted photos of herself in uniform on her Internet blog has filed a sexual discrimination lawsuit against the airline.

Simonetti's pose in the attached photo was deemed "inappropriate" by Delta.

Ellen Simonetti, whose job was based in Atlanta but lives in Austin, filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, saying that male colleagues with potentially insensitive material on their blogs have gone unpunished.

The case could plow fresh legal ground on whether a company can take action against an employee for operating a blog. Simonetti was featured in a recent People magazine article that mentioned workers who were fired for blog content.

Workers fired over Internet postings

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/01/17/3394584-sun.html

The employees were dismissed from Farm Boy locations across the city after posting comments in the "I Got Farm Boy'd" group on the Facebook website.
The group has 186 members and is described as "for current and past employees of Farmboy Inc. to share experiences, discuss topics and even have a place to express their opinion as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Facebook is also home to groups called "Farm Boy's Farm Hands" and "I Have Been Terminated From Farm Boy." Both these groups feature the corporate logo. Members of all the groups frequently use their full names.
On Friday, Devon Bourgeois was called into his store manger's office at the Kanata Farm Boy and shown copies of posts he had written Nov. 13.
"I particularly was confronted for, and terminated for, admission of theft, which, based on the posts I had written, was under a hypothetical topic known as 'Only at Farm Boy' had these situations occurred," he said.
NOT A 'CONFESSION'
"My post was taken to be literal and as a confession, which it never was."
During more than two years with the company, Bourgeois was promoted to supervisor and given three raises.
"I was not a bad employee, I did not break rules," he said. "That's why I didn't understand why I was terminated so quickly."

Employee Fired When Her Sex Blog Is Discovered by Her Boss


http://www.delawareemploymentlawblog.com/2010/05/employee_fired_when_her_sex_bl.html

Inc.com reported the story about a single mother in St. Louis who, during the day, worked for a non-profit. At night, though, she wrote an anonymous “sex blog” called “The Beautiful Kind.” She’d managed to keep her online identity a secret until Twitter came along.
When she created her Twitter profile, she used her real name, thinking that only her handle would be visible. When she realized that her name actually appeared in her profile, she immediately removed it and adjusted the name field of her handle accordingly. Immediately, however, was not quickly enough.
Thanks to Topsy, a Twitter search engine, her original profile was cached and her real name was displayed next to her user handle. According to the blogger, senior management suggested that supervisors search the web for information about their employees. When the blogger reported to work, she was fired by her boss, who had found out about her extracurricular “activities” on Topsy. The nonprofit claimed that it could not justify the risk to its public image caused by an employee’s racy blog.
The interesting point to this story, aside from the idea of supervisors being encouraged by senior management to spend time surfing the web, is that the employee was terminated as a result of conduct that did not involve her job. She was blogging during nonworking time on a computer not owned by her employer or connected to her employer’s network. In some states, where off-duty conduct is protected to varying degrees, the termination may be unlawful. But, in Missouri, which does not have any laws offering such protection to employees, it would appear that the termination is entirely lawful.

Waitress gets fired after Facebook rant about bad tipper

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/0...facebook-rant-about-bad-tipper/#ixzz0udJEbavJ

A waitress at a pizza joint in Charlotte, N.C., was fired from her job after she ranted on her Facebook page about a couple of bad tippers, the Charlotte Observer reports.
Ashley Johnson, 22, was working at Brixx Pizza when a couple came in for lunch and stayed for three hours, which forced her to stay long past her shift’s end. The couple left only a $5 tip, which Ms. Johnson thought was a measly amount:

Ms. Johnson did what most folks who need a good rant do nowadays. When she got home, she went on Facebook. “Thanks for eating at Brixx,” she wrote, “you cheap piece of s— camper.”
​

Two days after, her manager called her in, showed her a copy of her Facebook comments and told her she was being fired because she broke company policy against criticizing customers. Brixx Pizza also has a policy against casting the restaurant in a negative light on social networks.

​

To summarize, as bad as an anonymous blog or poster may appear to be it is preferable to censorship and the stifling effects to free speech that will come if posters had to reveal their identities because of the fear of what some boss, corporation, government official, or other person with power and influence can do to the person.



​

 

[dmcowen674]

I hope Sherod wins millions suing the shit out of Brietbart and Fox

That will cut down a lot of the bullshit Republicans have been posting.

 

[shiner]

I hope Sherod wins millions suing the shit out of Brietbart and Fox

That will cut down a lot of the bullshit Republicans have been posting.

I hope you finally take me up on my offer of a way way ticket for you to Somalia.

 

[Modelworks]

Once the infrastructure for "only needing to track people down when we need it" is in place, it will be regulated and more and more information will be required. It's the way our government works. Short of giving up your personal details, how would they track you?

Does the government have your password for your email ? Do they have your ATM card pin number ? That is the same way public and private keys work. The only personal information attached is a name that someone would be required to prove is theirs. Ever use paypal ? Something similar to the way paypal verifies people could be used.

How long before they start selling targeted ads to be able to administer this (you can turn cookies off, it's a choice)? How long before the information will just be collected automatically and what information will be there for "law enforcement"?

Who starts selling ads ? Does your bank sell your information for ads ?

How it is currently, if it is truly illegal, someone with a mild background in computer security can track down just about anything that is illegal.

Nope doesn't work that way. The problem is proxies. There are thousands of proxy sites that change IP every day and very few of them keep records. To make it even harder try to track down an ip that goes through a proxy in Russia from the USA. So I could steal your banking account information, ruin your credit and there is nothing the bank can do. They could trace back to the proxy server , but guess what , it was run by someone who just runs one for a couple hours a day then turns off the box and never bothers keeping track of who uses it.

I'm well versed on the tricks of hiding connections. I have tracked down and had prosecuted 3 malware creators in 2 different countries. When I find malware in something, I don't just delete it. I track it back to who distributed it. I have failed at finding the source probably over 100 times. Almost always it is because of proxies.

How do you deal with a keylogger that steals your ID and you can't go online while they "investigate"? How do you handle the absolute SHITTONS of man hours required to police the entire world?

How can they steal your ID ? Read up on Public and private key sharing. How many police hours do you think they spend tracking down people and trying to get records from ISP ? ISP should not even have to deal with who was using an ip at a certain time and what the content might have been.

The things I do for my job are vastly different than what I do for my personal life. I don't want them tied together in any shape, form or fashion.

Unless you give your public key to your employer it wouldn't tie them together

Freedom of speech also does not apply when you have a single entity that is deciding what is "harm". Freedom of speech also does not apply when politics rule and someone has the ability to shut down what the other person is saying. "Yeah, I was wrong in turning off their ID, but now that the court battle has finished 4 years later it really doesn't matter anymore".

Nobody is talking about controlling content or any entity deciding on harm. It would be the same laws we already have.

There are consequences. You just don't like them. I have an idea. How about the people who do not like the consequences just stay off the internet and let the government stay the fuck out of ONE aspect of my life? Mkay?

Sorry but when you start infringing on my rights then you are the one that doesn't like the consequences. Why should I have to pay more for software, movies and music and put up with things like DRM because people think it is okay to steal the content ? Why should people be committing suicide because people can go online and do anything they want without concern ? Someone running for office loses because his opponent starts a smear campaign online ? People infecting computers with malware costing billions each year should be allowed ?



I don't want the government involved and they are not necessary to fix the problem . What I want is a way that if someone has to be found they can be found and ip addresses were never meant to provide that function.

 

[Modelworks]

Woman loses her teaching certificate due to legal photo on my space.
Employee fired for face book comment.

Things like this happened long before the internet. The difference is people didn't stand on a street corner and yell what they thought of their employer.

People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law.

The problem is there can be no enforcement at all with the current system. There has to be a balance between no laws at all and laws that protect people . Currently anyone can act anonymously online and there is zero repercussions regardless of any laws they break.

Employee Fired When Her Sex Blog Is Discovered by Her Boss

You don't see the bigger problem with this ? She has a sex blog online where she post things for all the world to see and then has a problem with her boss finding out ? Use some common sense people the internet is not your own little private room where only people you want to see the pictures can see it. If you are afraid someone will see it don't put it online.

To summarize, as bad as an anonymous blog or poster may appear to be it is preferable to censorship and the stifling effects to free speech that will come if posters had to reveal their identities because of the fear of what some boss, corporation, government official, or other person with power and influence can do to the person.

Not suggesting revealing identities. Only requiring that there be another system other than IP to prove the person doing the damage is the person who owns that account.

 

[waggy]

I have no sympathy for idiots that post something on blog, myspace, facebook or such and get in trouble for it.

next time don't post that shit and you won't get fired.

 

[shortylickens]

I have no sympathy for idiots that post something on blog, myspace, facebook or such and get in trouble for it.

next time don't post that shit and you won't get fired.

This.
I do NOT want Big Brother taking charge of every little detail of my life because some idiot cant manage theirs. Treating people like children only leads them to acting more immature and dependent. When people are allowed to suffer for their stupidity they get smarter.

 

[piasabird]

The Bloggers on the Internet are more honest than the Media in the USA.

The networks are large and powerful in the USA and have proven that they can influence the voting process in an illegal manner and get away with it. They want to step on bloggers and get rid of them. It is their way to get rid of their competition. This is the same kind of think they say about conservative talk radio. Network thugs want to run this country, but they are losing the battle. Now is not the time to start limiting free speech. Since the time of the American Revolution, this country has had to be vigilant and discern what the truth is and what rumors are. On the news every night the media takes the bits of media they have recorded and then only air what they want. The networks always use this edited selective reporting method to make the point that backs their bias and their point of view. The media in the USA is not interested in the truth at all. The media is upset that an amature made a liberal and them look bad. Maybe the USA Media needs to install ethics before they call the kettle black!

 

[Rainsford]

Cable news is a business as is your evening broadcast news. Under our current system, it should succeed or fail on its own merits. I will stand for no further government intervention in the media in any form. Which BTW, is what my whole thread here is about. So far there is one person I know for sure that got it, maybe two.

I think the only journalists capable of being free and unbiased are those fresh out of school. I highly doubt many of them even embrace those ideals and I base that on our educational system. Educators, like journalists, learned a long time ago that they had the power to sway minds to their way of thinking.

I think that the majority of people that are concerned with current events and our political system as a whole are fully capable of distinguishing between news reporting that goes on during the day and programming based on commentary that goes on in the evening. They understand when smoke is being blown up their ass. Those with minds that are easily swayed have always existed and more than likely will always exist. This is nothing new.

One has only to watch any given news conference conducted by Robert Gibbs to see the state of modern journalism. There are only a very few willing to ask a hard question and only recently at that. I'm encouraged to see some fresh young faces asking some of those questions. I hope it's a trend that both continues and intensifies. Those that dare are typically subjected to ridicule, feigned ignorance of the issue, or are just ignored by means of no answer given Mr. Gibbs. Those that do get an answer get the treatment I just outlined on follow up questions. Mr. Gibbs will not stand for being backed into a corner. True, hard-hitting unbiased journalism may be on the return, but there are roadblocks in the way and IMO, there are more to come.

As I stated earlier, I am vehemently opposed to government control of the media. I'm going to risk being called a loon and say that I think we'll see a big push towards the goal of media control in the coming months. It will be wrapped up in a manner such that it will appear as a logical solution to a crisis. I know the views of all of us here are sometimes in extreme opposition to each other. As flawed as it may be, we right now have a media from which we can garner opposing points of view. I hope we can come together if the need arises and work towards ensuring that system lives on. There will be no 'winner' if the government gets control of our media. Anyone who thinks they have won will find that victory short lived.

News (TV news at least) used to NOT be run as a profit making enterprise, until corporate owners of TV stations decided that they might as well make money on the news since they are legally mandated to provide it as part of using public airwaves. I'm not sure we're better off with trying to run the news as a business...

Modern journalism may have problems, but it's miles ahead of the alternative...Internet bloggers with no scruples or journalism abilities and TV blowhards that don't even pretend to be unbiased.

And the real problem is that I think you give people too much credit. Sure, with a good source of information, many people can tell when someone is blowing smoke up their ass. But if the smoke blowers are the only thing out there, how can you tell the difference? And even now, a disturbingly high percentage of people treat opinion sources like blogs and Bill O'Reilly style commentary as a replacement for actual news.

Like I said, I'm not sure the government is the answer...but I'm also not sure the threat of government intervention is more scary than the threat of a population lobotomized by "new media".

 

[piasabird]

Dont bite the hand that feeds you!

 

[piasabird]

It is a sad state of affairs when someone like Dr Micheal Savage has more credibility than any network news media. When the people that dont claim to be journalists, are more ethical than those who claim to be journalists, then that means there are no more journalists.

 

[gingermeggs]

CNN news anchor asks if something needs to be done 'legally' about 'anonymous bloggers'.



Some discussion ensues. Read the article and watch the video if you desire.



Too much freedom here? Is this reasonable? Should it apply to just the internet? Should print media and visual media have a gatekeeper too? If you think so, who should those gatekeepers be?

Would you support the shutdown of our Forums here under the premise that someone could say something wrong? That's the heart of their discussion.

Is this just news anchors caught up in themselves spouting nonsense or the pulse of the nation beginning to be expressed? Perhaps the pulse of the government?

Your master is trying it out over here now to iron out the bugs, so it can be implemented there seemlessly....like everything else he does.

 

[MotF Bane]

We need a federal Department of Truth.

:awe:

 

[Double Trouble]

Een the idea of some sort of government or entity regulating the internet is frighting to anyone who enjoys any kind of freedom.

Anonymity is very much necessary for a free society, yet there is precious little left. The internet offers a tiny little sliver of it.

Idiots like those talking heads on CNN just don't like the fact that people no longer have to accept their drivel, that they have lots of options now.

A 'reputable' outlet can be right/wrong just like some blogger can. When you read some internet source, you know what you're reading should be taken with a grain of salt.

As far as needing to remove anonymity to prevent defamation and slander, that's bull. There are already laws available for that, and people know to take statements/postings on the internet with a grain of salt precisely because you don't know the source of the comments. A comment from some anonymous stranger on the internet is not likely to mean much of anything to anyone.