I respectfully disagree with the "free speech" argument. When the
Constitution was written, there was no internet. The idea was for a
citizen to speak his or her mind in a public space, where in a public
square or in a newspaper without prosecution. In these realms, the speaker
was easily recognized.
Why should the advances in technology not reflect this same accountability?
Whistleblowers can still be sources for reporters. This would protect the
identidy of sources while offering accountability for the information.
Why should a death threat, hate speech, or sexual predators be offered
protection in a nameless world of websites? I have taken many reports of
aggravated harassment via e-mail and chat rooms and it can be mentally
hurtful for the victims. Personally, I received threats via a Craigslist
ad for a bartender for a party who got worse when I blocked his e-mail
address and he attacked stronger via a different e-mail address.
Due to AOL's responsible accounting, the gentleman was found and arrested.
So, I believe that everyone should be man or woman enough to sign their
opinions. Whistleblowers have avenues to spread their information
responsibily and should use those avenues instead of anonymous postings.
TOM WOLFE
...... Original Message .......
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:52:24 -0500 Lighty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 3/18/06 8:35 AM, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't think enforcement problems is a reason to kill the bill.
>> Laws against murder come with extreme enforcement problems but I
>> wouldn't want to make it legal because of that.
>>
>> I don't mind anonymous posters, but I do think the website should be
>> responsible for saving IP addresses so that if someone crosses the
>> line on libel then they can be found and held accountable.
>
>Do you believe this is an effort to remove libel from message boards or a
>thinly veiled effort to remove "whistleblowers" from having another outlet?
>
>That is probably the biggest question I have. In a perfect world, everyone
>would post under their own name; however, there are plenty of advantages in
>giving someone a little protection. A good message board would have
>someone moderating and watching out for personal attacks anyway. But to
>force that message board owner under law is a bit too far. I'm not sure
>what website provoked this from him, but anyone in the public eye needs to
>be ready for slander and libel. Your friend at TCN knows all about that.
>He could probably be sued a dozen times a year if people didn't just let
him
>blow his stack and let it pass.
>
>I'm not saying people should be allowed to slander others online, but there
>is a point where it is truly a free speech issue. I think once you try
>restricting the free speech (interesting to me how it's always the
political
>party who supposedly loves the Constitution which comes out in favor of
>limiting our Constitutional rights...) it sets you down a very dangerous
>road.
>
>In the end, politicians are simply scared of technology and things they
>cannot control. The Internet probably scares them to death...
>
>
>
>SPONSORED LINKS
>Asbury park home Asbury park nj Asbury park hotel
>Asbury park foreclosure Asbury park real estate Asbury park
>
>---------------
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "AsburyPark" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>---------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
