I Love You; You Hate Me
Over the last few years it has become common to hear the Internet, and more particularly blogs, as being the twenty-first century version of the Wild West. In many cases it has turned into an outlet for rumor, gossip, libel, and even threats of violence.
…A New York Times article on the topic offers three examples of people whose lives have been affected by harassment that ranges from doctored photographs to death threats. One man has had negative comments left on his blog because he wants peace between Israel and the Palestinians. One woman has found herself with a stalker blogger who parodies her writing on another website. Another woman has been sent death threats over a dispute pertaining to the ethics of deleting vile comments from one’s blog.
…In response, conference promoter and publisher Tim O’Reilly joined Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have joined forces to develop a set of guidelines to help bolster online civility. Some of the rules include situational use of anonymous writing and others include pledging to cite sources for gossip or breaking news. O’Reilly and Wales suggest that bloggers use some kind of logo on their sites to help visitors recognize whether or not they follow the guidelines of civility.
…The concept behind these guidelines is great, but they seem to be ignoring something: If a blogger is honest and ethical from the start, they won’t need to use a superficial logo. This is one of the reasons that I make sure to offer links to sources and, whenever possible, screenshots of links to not only show where I found the information, but what the website looked like at the exact moment of my using it (being that websites have been known to change at the drop of a hat).
…If a blogger is unethical and only interested in libelous gossip, there’s a good chance that they’re also going to be so unethical as to stick a little logo on their site suggesting that they follow guidelines. They’re not going to care about the unethical use of a symbol if they’ve already proven to the world that they don’t care about ruining reputations.
…A second point that needs to be addressed is the bastardization of the terms “censorship” and “First Amendment rights.” It has becoming common to hear people use both so liberally that in many times—such as the cases in the article—both have become as commonly misunderstood as the terms “communist” and “fascist.”
…To put it succinctly, censorship and violating one’s First Amendment rights can only be done by a governmental agency, be it local, state, or federal. A blogger removing a threatening comment from his or her site is not censorship and it’s not violating any First Amendment rights. If it were a governmental body stepping in and telling the blog host (i.e., Blogger, MySpace, LiveJournal, etc.) that they must remove a particular comment or blog post as a whole, it’s then censorship.
…Other examples of this misunderstanding (I’d sooner use the term ignorance, but I’m trying to be civil for the sake of the topic at hand) have been Wal-Mart’s choosing to not carry certain genres of music, Mötley Crüe’s imbecilic 2005 lawsuit against NBC, and even an argument that the “ignore” option in Yahoo!’s instant messenger application is a form of censorship.
Always My Right; Always
Let’s look at the Wal-Mart issue first. If Wal-Mart—or any other store, for that matter—doesn’t want to carry a certain band or certain genre, it’s their choice. If I want to open a store that sells CDs (humor me here; I know quite well that CDs are a dying medium), I have every right to pick what I sell. If I don’t want to sell Yanni or John Tesh, it’s not censorship; it’s because I can’t stand Yanni and John Tesh. No matter what I like personally, however, what I sell should ultimately be based on a business decision. If it sells, I should sell it. If I don’t, there’s a good chance that I’ll go out of business. Keeping bread on my table is of the utmost importance. That isn’t violating anyone’s First Amendment rights; it’s me exercising my right to choose.
Shout at the Devil
As for Mötley Crüe, they sued NBC in 2005 after being banned from Saturday Night Live following vocalist Vince Neil’s use of “fuck” on live television. The lawsuit accused NBC of violating the band’s First Amendment rights and hurting record sales, and went so far as to suggest that NBC should be forced to have them on TV.
…If you want to argue that the Federal Communications Commission should be dissolved, I might be tempted to agree with you. That’s a separate issue, however, and the issue in this case was NBC’s right to pick and choose their musical guests. The First Amendment bans governments from silencing private citizens; it doesn’t provide for the right to increased record sales.
…This point seems to have been missed by quite a few people. For instance, the Center for Creative Voices in Media asked, “[H]ow can NBC ban a band from its airwaves for an incident that does not violate any law or FCC rule and for which few if any genuine complaints were filed?” The answer is simple: NBC has just as much freedom to pick and choose what bands are on Saturday Night Live as the Center for Creative Voices in Media has to complain about it. Both choices are being made by non-governmental parties.
ASL PLZ
A third place that has been invaded by the I-really-don’t-know-anything-about-law-but-I-want-people-to-think-that-I-do crowd has been Yahoo!’s instant messenger service and its accompanying chat room program. I don’t chat much anymore due to time constraints, but when I did I recall one evening when one user threatened to sue another user for having violated his First Amendment rights when the first chatter clicked his “ignore” button on the other. (For those who might not know, you can block comments from other individual chatters by pressing a button if they become offensive or annoying.)
…If the incident hadn’t been as amusing as it was, it would have been frightening.
●●●●●
The only way that civility becomes the norm across both the blogosphere and the Internet as a whole is to have each of us adopt a philosophy to promote and utilize civil measures. However, offensiveness and incivility have become historic characteristics of both our country and our species. I have a feeling that both will be with us for as long a time as we’ve had people who don’t understand the basics of the First Amendment.
References
▪ New York Times
▪ Yahoo!
▪ Center for Creative Voices in Media
…A New York Times article on the topic offers three examples of people whose lives have been affected by harassment that ranges from doctored photographs to death threats. One man has had negative comments left on his blog because he wants peace between Israel and the Palestinians. One woman has found herself with a stalker blogger who parodies her writing on another website. Another woman has been sent death threats over a dispute pertaining to the ethics of deleting vile comments from one’s blog.
…In response, conference promoter and publisher Tim O’Reilly joined Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have joined forces to develop a set of guidelines to help bolster online civility. Some of the rules include situational use of anonymous writing and others include pledging to cite sources for gossip or breaking news. O’Reilly and Wales suggest that bloggers use some kind of logo on their sites to help visitors recognize whether or not they follow the guidelines of civility.
…The concept behind these guidelines is great, but they seem to be ignoring something: If a blogger is honest and ethical from the start, they won’t need to use a superficial logo. This is one of the reasons that I make sure to offer links to sources and, whenever possible, screenshots of links to not only show where I found the information, but what the website looked like at the exact moment of my using it (being that websites have been known to change at the drop of a hat).
…If a blogger is unethical and only interested in libelous gossip, there’s a good chance that they’re also going to be so unethical as to stick a little logo on their site suggesting that they follow guidelines. They’re not going to care about the unethical use of a symbol if they’ve already proven to the world that they don’t care about ruining reputations.
…A second point that needs to be addressed is the bastardization of the terms “censorship” and “First Amendment rights.” It has becoming common to hear people use both so liberally that in many times—such as the cases in the article—both have become as commonly misunderstood as the terms “communist” and “fascist.”
…To put it succinctly, censorship and violating one’s First Amendment rights can only be done by a governmental agency, be it local, state, or federal. A blogger removing a threatening comment from his or her site is not censorship and it’s not violating any First Amendment rights. If it were a governmental body stepping in and telling the blog host (i.e., Blogger, MySpace, LiveJournal, etc.) that they must remove a particular comment or blog post as a whole, it’s then censorship.
…Other examples of this misunderstanding (I’d sooner use the term ignorance, but I’m trying to be civil for the sake of the topic at hand) have been Wal-Mart’s choosing to not carry certain genres of music, Mötley Crüe’s imbecilic 2005 lawsuit against NBC, and even an argument that the “ignore” option in Yahoo!’s instant messenger application is a form of censorship.
Always My Right; Always
Let’s look at the Wal-Mart issue first. If Wal-Mart—or any other store, for that matter—doesn’t want to carry a certain band or certain genre, it’s their choice. If I want to open a store that sells CDs (humor me here; I know quite well that CDs are a dying medium), I have every right to pick what I sell. If I don’t want to sell Yanni or John Tesh, it’s not censorship; it’s because I can’t stand Yanni and John Tesh. No matter what I like personally, however, what I sell should ultimately be based on a business decision. If it sells, I should sell it. If I don’t, there’s a good chance that I’ll go out of business. Keeping bread on my table is of the utmost importance. That isn’t violating anyone’s First Amendment rights; it’s me exercising my right to choose.
Shout at the Devil
As for Mötley Crüe, they sued NBC in 2005 after being banned from Saturday Night Live following vocalist Vince Neil’s use of “fuck” on live television. The lawsuit accused NBC of violating the band’s First Amendment rights and hurting record sales, and went so far as to suggest that NBC should be forced to have them on TV.
…If you want to argue that the Federal Communications Commission should be dissolved, I might be tempted to agree with you. That’s a separate issue, however, and the issue in this case was NBC’s right to pick and choose their musical guests. The First Amendment bans governments from silencing private citizens; it doesn’t provide for the right to increased record sales.
…This point seems to have been missed by quite a few people. For instance, the Center for Creative Voices in Media asked, “[H]ow can NBC ban a band from its airwaves for an incident that does not violate any law or FCC rule and for which few if any genuine complaints were filed?” The answer is simple: NBC has just as much freedom to pick and choose what bands are on Saturday Night Live as the Center for Creative Voices in Media has to complain about it. Both choices are being made by non-governmental parties.
ASL PLZ
A third place that has been invaded by the I-really-don’t-know-anything-about-law-but-I-want-people-to-think-that-I-do crowd has been Yahoo!’s instant messenger service and its accompanying chat room program. I don’t chat much anymore due to time constraints, but when I did I recall one evening when one user threatened to sue another user for having violated his First Amendment rights when the first chatter clicked his “ignore” button on the other. (For those who might not know, you can block comments from other individual chatters by pressing a button if they become offensive or annoying.)
…If the incident hadn’t been as amusing as it was, it would have been frightening.
●●●●●
The only way that civility becomes the norm across both the blogosphere and the Internet as a whole is to have each of us adopt a philosophy to promote and utilize civil measures. However, offensiveness and incivility have become historic characteristics of both our country and our species. I have a feeling that both will be with us for as long a time as we’ve had people who don’t understand the basics of the First Amendment.
References
▪ New York Times
▪ Yahoo!
▪ Center for Creative Voices in Media
