An interesting blog article I read this morning while moving them around the site. Talks about people making nasty comments online and how they might very well be prosecuted. Some interesting thoughts on what would happen if you are socially networked around the web and did something like that.

Further proof that your words on the internet make up the bulk of your online reputation...

it.toolbox.com/blogs/managing-infosec/talk-hate-speech-as-a-comment-troll-and-get-outted-26302

Now, if only this could lead to YouTube commenters being deported or something, right?

It's the blessing and curse of the web really.

The printed word is and always will be the most dangerous form of "speech" out there because it relies almost entirely on the reader's interpretation of what was put out there. As a result, it can be easily mistaken or even manipulated. It can be a tricky thing...

...unless you have a major and very public presence. And that, to a degree, is what social networking sites translate to. It's information that's publicly available, ergo it's a public situation and by posting there, you make yourself into a somewhat-public figure...

...but that also brings up the debate of whether or not the net is "public" since not everyone has ready access to it. Public is just that, public. Walk out the door and you're in public (well, outside of your "private property" boundaries, such as they are). The internet? Not so much. You have to find some way to access it. It's not like you open up your eyes and there's the Intarwebs. That, of course, is changing.. especially in light of projects like the one that just died here in Portland: public wifi.

All-in-all it's a tricky subject that has a single conclusion: information must be free. The flow of information is critical to any society's survival and that includes both good and bad info. Sure, there are obvious kinds of information that should be sought out and destroyed.. thing like child pornography and the like. The determining factors need to be exceptionally limited and that's going to take time to figure out. The internet's current incarnation is still in it's relative infancy and is something that the scientists of the 1960's (or the 40's, depending on your perspective) never would have envisioned. Although, I dare say it exceeds their wildest dreams.

So if someone feels that trying to prosecute based on blog comments is appropriate, that is certainly their right. However, I would argue that such actions are entirely counter to the truest nature of information, which is to spread. What we choose to do with that information shows who we are as a people. To paraphrase George Carlin... "BANME! BANME! fag slope.. these are words, just words. it's the fat, ignorant, racist bastard behind the words that makes all the difference."

And, of course, it also comes down to a quote that I've long forgotten where I got it from...

"I'm gonna kick that guy's ass cause he called my momma a whore..."

"Well.. is she?"



*** and we can see from the "Ban Me"'s above, the idea of what constitutes "bad" speech is entirely relative. all four words are harmless words that have harmless meanings, but misuse has given them all an extended, "hateful" angle. Two of them were banned and two were not... all based on the DC Forum folks' idea of what should be in a banned words file. Or based on Dino's own personal standards, I'm not sure which. I'm not complaining at all, just merely illustrating a point about the recipient of a message being the final arbiter of what that message really is.

I'm pretty much ignoring the Wiki

That's a very good point.

I suppose the real question that comes to my mind is "Can a social network the with the size, and more importantly the diversity, of the United states, let alone the world, actually propose to have any kind of standard for what is acceptable.

I don't even agree with a third of the people that live within 50 miles of me as to what constitutes an appropriate lifestyle, let alone appropriate speech. It seems to me that there are too many factors that contribute to such standards (such as religion, ethics, social status, gender, sexuality, nationality, or other cultural attributes) that create the core values that a person uses to deem what they find appropriate for a social network of that vastness to come to an acceptable consensus. Further more, it's usually people who have more extreme views that lobby for legal action, meaning their voices are more often heard than people who stand in the middle ground. This is because their voices tend to polarize the issue in the media, giving the appearance that complicated issues are in fact black and white; "The squeeky wheel gets the oil."

I'm not trying to say that it is ok to post vulgar content on the internet, but to introduce the issue to the legal system is a complicated matter. On one hand you have people conducting blatently unacceptable behavior. On the other hand, punishing those people through the legal system opens up the doors to expand upon what is unacceptable, and more importantly legally reprehensable. I'm not saying that just because it's a person is legally liable for making violent threats on the internet that it will automatically be illegal for a person to discuss their religious beliefs online, but it does set a presedent to control what is allowed on the internet. Who knows, today its not ok to threaten someone, maybe tomorrow its not ok to talk about things that might make them threaten you. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I prefer to be careful when I consider giving up some of my rights, even if they're ones I don't exercise regularly. I've never threatened anyone on the internet, or even flamed anyone, that's just stupid. But getting sued for it? Does that really seem any more rational?

Bottom line, it's a tough call, do we allow that kind of behavior, or do we "ban" it, and effectively try to convert an entire nation to a "politically correct" internet.

Personally I'd rather see their names released online so that everyone knows who they are and what they said than to see it go to the courts. That way they can never escape what they did, but the rest of us don't have to worry about having our right to free speech being further limited in the future. For that matter, I'd rather see them receive the same threats and emotional abuse from others that they made, so that they can know what they put people through.

Sorry if this is long, or if it doesn't make much sense (It's dificult to get a message accross over the internet sometimes), I just wanted to add my opinion.

My build: verttuner.com (hosted on my blog)