Freedom of speech, rumors, the media and the internet…
Throughout history, governments and religions have and in some places still, rule through fear, suppressing thoughts true or rumored by creating an environment where one knows to speak out would mean death or imprisonment. Here in the US we have more freedom, yet there is a growing pattern of those who feel if you speak something that they feel is wrong or they disagree with that allows them to publicly call people out, contact you and/or blog about you. Recently we saw this here in Toledo with the situation of Michael Coon who sought out people who wrote letters to the Editor in the Blade and who wrote for the Blade and harrassed them by phone and by email according to the victims, according to Coon, he was exercising his right to free speech.
While Tom Troy has written two articles about the Washington Post piece, In Flag City USA, False Obama Rumors Are Flying what’s not mentioned is the Blade had this story in their paper too, on the front page of July 1st, The Blade titled it, “Rumors About Obama Flying High in Flag City” and the Blade had an editorial on it yesterday, the ending of which stated:
Mr. McCain is not a communist collaborator. Mr. Obama is not a gay Muslim racist. The people of Findlay are not narrow-minded bigots.
Any questions?
My first question would be why would the Blade run the Washington Post story as a front page article, then never mention in any of the articles afterwards that they covered this story as well. The respose was immediate in the Findlay press, as Courier in “National story giving Findlay ‘a bad name’.” Some in the blogosphere at first jumped on the diss Findlay bandwagon, assuming that the Washington Post article had to be correct despite what some of the Findlay residents that were quoted in the article and others stated.
Residents told the Findlay newspaper that they were misquoted, taken out of context, the basic premise of the Washington Post article was that people do believe some of the rumors about Barack Obama. This is not some isolated incident involving the few residents of Findlay that Eli Saslow spoke with, if it was, the creation of a campaign website by the Barack Obama campaign to address these internet rumors would not exist. These men were honest enough to share that they had heard rumors about Barack Obama; the precise rumors appears to be debateable according to the Courier and I don’t think they expected the response:
Jim Peterman and his neighbors were having an ordinary Monday — that is, until the calls started.
Several representatives from the media called Peterman at his College Street home; and a couple of people from different parts of the United States called to denigrate his political beliefs or try to sway his vote in the general election.
Ohio blogger Tim Russo has contacted/blogged about people who state in the media any of the smears/rumors/misconceptions about Barack Obama. He listed the phone numbers of two of the men and he’s also confronted a woman who was interviewed on a local television news station who expressed she thought Barack Obama had ‘arab tendencies’ among other anti-Obama talking points. He’s done two videos of talking with her and has posted her email address online. This week he pointed out that the one video has gotten over 12,000 views.
When Crystal Dixon was fired from her position at the University of Toledo for stating her beliefs on homosexuals there was quite a bit of discussion as to free speech and what consequences can follow if you do state your beliefs in public. What type of a community consequence of where the line is drawn between someone ending up like Michael Coon who is now facing criminal charges and others can be a muddy issue as to where sharing information on why you disagree with that person crosses into intimidation.
Which takes us back to the underlying issue, does this type of action work to change people’s minds? Does this really stop people from still thinking the same way as before or does it only make them afraid to voice it? Does this end the rumors/opposing views or merely drive them back underground? Where do our rights to personal privacy begin and end? Which way is the right way to fight rumors? Which way is the right way to convince others your opinion is the right one? Where does one person’s right to free speech end and harrassment begin? Where does the media’s responsibility in this begin and end? Do they have a responsibility to correct people that are interviewed or is their job just to report what is being stated, and if we expect them to correct people, where is that line drawn between sharing what is fact and what is opinion?
Those are some of the questions that I am left wondering about.
Then if you want to take this to a whole deeper level, who do we trust for our information? Who do we turn to in deciding what is credible and what is not? We can’t completely trust the media, we can’t completely trust the internet, we can’t completely trust candidates, their supporters or their detractors…Then we wonder why so many people are confused…
“Where does one person’s right to free speech end and harrassment begin?”
Well, from the cited points about Coon, it seems pretty clear. We can say this or that and when the other party lodges a complaint and there is some action taken, we see how far we can gone
The rest about presidential candidates is just comments or opinions and whom do we decide to trust with information should rest with each of us, but for some it is some media person or media outlet that decides for us and some just follow along.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pmI think the Blade knew exactly what they were doing when they ran the Findlay story and what the outcome would be. They will do anything to get their guy Obama elected. They know Ohio has to be won by the democrats, that Findlay is a strong Republican city, and this was a way to make the city seem racist – put a chink in their armor. Now Findlay will fall all over itsef proving the story wrong. Findlay has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Ohio, if not the lowest. Findlay will benefit greatly from the Intermodal Hub being built in North Baltimore, Oh. These are things Toledo will never achieve, and I think one of the reasons is because of The Blade and their ever-increasing editorial staff bias. The whole story comes across as devious.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:08 pmRunner, I can’t disagree with you that the Blade is pro-Obama, that’s been made very clear. I did notice and NC pointed out earlier in another thread this article by Jack Kelly that was not pro-Obama.
Interestingly enough it’s being stated that Obama does not need Ohio to win, many pundits are considering Ohio to be in the “red state” column and believing that the old standard of “As Ohio Goes So goes the Nation” is no longer true.
I’ve noticed the Blade is increasingly using articles from other papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times instead of relying on their own reporters. If they are going to do this then they should also take responsibility for the content when questions/concerns come up.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm“I did notice and NC pointed out earlier in another thread this article by Jack Kelly that was not pro-Obama.”
I have serious doubts that NC would make such an observation.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:27 amIt’s one thing to not agree with another person’s opinion, it’s a completely different animal to contact those who do not agree with you and threaten them. That’s harassment.
It’s one thing to be a homophobic psuedo-Christian and practice those beliefs in private, it’s completely different to use a public medium to share your beliefs, while managing a department that has to maintain unbiasness for the department to maintain credibility.
It’s one thing to disagree with a person about how they feel, how they vote, or how they live their lives, it’s completely different to denounce those opinions and provide contact information about these people without authorization on your blogsite only because their beliefs differ from your own.
It’s one thing to have a newspaper publish material from another publication and utilize it for their own use, but it completely different to defer consequence to the publication because the responsibility and accountability one took in using another’s material falls straight on the shoulder of the newspaper.
So, is it wrong to copy a newspaper article and post it on your own blogsite when one personally knows the identity of the annonymous poster that has a history of harassment by posting misleading and sometimes blatently wrong information while trying to provoke, intimidate and harass with malicious intent another poster because their own lives are limited without the victim actually typing out the annonymous posters true name and personal information?
Lisa, this was done towards you on Swampbubbles when you provided information concerning ownership of a web page, which is public information. Is it different to publish personal information to spite someone or to “protect one’s interest” compared to being harassed regularly to stifle one’s voice or to attempt to tarnish credibility?
July 6th, 2008 at 7:43 amRemarks have been made against Muslims and Middle Eastern people in general – some even calling for violence against them. When found, (as in Coon’s case) are charged with ‘Ethnic Intimidation’, yet there are many Muslim factions in the U.S. that call for a ‘jihad against infidels’ – openly calling for the death of anyone not following the teachings of Mohammed and the Quran!
Are they charged with ‘Ethnic Intimidation’?
If I can’t call my neighbor a sheet head (they’re not towels) and throw pig blood on his driveway, how can he rally for my death?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I’m at a bit of a loss here where the ‘equal justice’ is.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:48 amHave you ever heard of a black person bring charged with a hate crime. I think it is reserve for whitey.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:03 am“Black man charged with hate crime in threats to TV news crew
SEAN ROBINSON; The News Tribune
Published: May 21st, 2005 12:01 AM
Darnell Colquitt thought the TV reporters didn’t belong in the Tillicum ’hood and told them so.
People tote heat around here, he warned. He started to pedal away on a bicycle, then stopped, turned, and told the reporters what would happen if they were still there when he came back.
“You’re dead where you stand,” he said.
That, and a hail of racial slurs, earned him a trip to jail Thursday, along with a rare charge from Pierce County prosecutors: a black-on-white hate crime.”
http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/news/crime/story/4883332p-4477868c.html
Still fishing around for black vs. white?
July 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am“yet there are many Muslim factions in the U.S. that call for a ‘jihad against infidels’”
You do realize that an infidel can be and is also a Sunni, if the person making the comment is Shia and the other way round and yet they are still Muslims.
And the vast majority of the Muslim faith do not call for Jihad.
The same thing goes for the varied Nazi tinged groups calling for a White World and removal of or destruction of non white races.
These groups are speaking in general terms and have taken a stance against one person, if and when they do the person has a claim to make a hate crime complaint.
Until the person does the groups are free to say what they want, free speech and all.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:54 amYes thanks, you did my research for me. Characterization of as crime a black on white hate crime is very rare indeed (as stated in your link). And the most recent one you can dredge up was from 2005.
“That, and a hail of racial slurs, earned him a trip to jail Thursday, along with a rare charge from Pierce County prosecutors: a black-on-white hate crime.”
July 6th, 2008 at 8:57 amNo dredging, just use google
Here’s one from this year;
“The Intimidation charge is a so-called “hate crime,” meaning the other crimes were committed because of the victim’s race, color, religion, sexual orientation or national origin. it is a Class C Felony punishable by a maximum of five years in prison and a $125,000 fine.”
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300
You just seem to be obsessed with people of color or just like to make a fuss about other races.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am“The Intimidation charge is a so-called “hate crime,”
I wonder if the media every called a white on black crime a “so-called” hate crime? Can you find a case where the media called a white on black crime, “so-called”?
I betcha you can’t!
July 6th, 2008 at 9:09 amWith regards to Kelly’s article, let us have a look across the pond for a Guide to Flip Flopping.
US candidates practise their U-turns
In order to pass their political driving test, successful politicians need to be masters of one tricky manoeuvre in particular – the U-turn.
Barack Obama (L) and John McCain (R), both pictured from behind
The candidates have shifted their positions on a number of policies
The contenders in this year’s US presidential election are no exceptions – both John McCain and Barack Obama have engaged in some nifty repositioning.
Mr McCain’s U-turns have mostly increased his appeal to the Republican Party’s base, placing him on a rightward trajectory.
Barack Obama has been performing a more traditional manoeuvre: running to the left during the primaries, when party activists need to be wooed, then shifting to the centre once the nomination is clinched.
Flip-flopping politicians will always attract charges of hypocrisy and opportunism: it may be worth it if it helps them win over undecided voters in the middle, but when the goal is to shore up their political base, the benefits are much less clear.
Here are some examples.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474558.stm
July 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am“Can you find a case where the media called a white on black crime, “so-called”?”
You need try a bit harder, but sharing information that educates is fun.
WHITE THUG’S ‘BLOOD’Y DEFENSE IN BLACK ATTACK
November 4, 2006 — When cops questioned Joseph Jirovec about his alleged role in an attack on four black youths in Brooklyn’s mostly white Gerritsen Beach neighborhood last summer, he offered a highly unusual defense: membership in the Bloods gang.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11042006/news/regionalnews/white_thugs_bloody_defense_in_black_attack_regionalnews_alex_ginsberg.htm
July 6th, 2008 at 9:17 amThe Blade throws in a few columnists like Jack Kelly now & then just as a token to present both sides. Maybe a few political cartoons from out of town cartoonists other than the odd stuff Kirk offers. Flip-flopping does not bother me. Both sides will do anything to get elected. An obvious one is Obama’s commercial showing him with his white mother and white grand parents. Why not the black father? Maybe he is deceased, I don’t know, but it comes across to me as another missing father figure. I saw an electoral college forecast and Obama is up by ~50+ votes. And that was with Ohio undecided.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:37 amalleged does not equal “so-called” NC. You are grasping at straws.
Your support of democracy belies your desire for socialism, to appease your lack of desire to find a job. So that you can live forever, on the public dole.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am“Your support of democracy belies your desire for socialism, to appease your lack of desire to find a job. So that you can live forever, on the public dole.”
What the heck are you talking or writing about?
Public dole?
I have two jobs.
Your personal attacks expose your true nature and personality.
You simply do not like people, on a personal level, then take a point of view, or appear to, that is different than yours.
Can take the low road and stoop to personal commentary, because you cannot defend what you write any other way.
Every one who disagrees is a Socialist or Nazi or some other ill chosen and mis used term, because you have nothing else to throw at them, except personal attacks.
It is so 70’s to use the terms you do, and they are as tired and out of place in today’s world, but I guess evolution does not apply to us all.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:02 amI feel like I’m at Toledo Raceway Park!
July 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pmAnd, they’re off ……
Not Again, NC is like I am when it comes to researching/googling, if someone states something and he can provide a link to confirm/refute he does. He’s mentioned his employment prospects related to the economy and the frustration that he’s experiencing. As any of us would, just as I’ve mentioned those in my family who have lost their jobs or are currently laid off, which is not related to this thread and I would hope that the larger issues could be focused on rather than it going off topic into personalities.
Graphics, I don’t disagree at times there is a selective nature that comes into play when we are dealing with harrassment. Some of those Coon contacted were white but it is true just like the Imus situation that it becomes even more cloudy as to who is allowed to say or write what to who without it being deemed offensive/harrassment.
Brian, yes my public information has been put out there a few times in the past to create a scenario where I’d be contacted. My 13 year old is not allowed to answer the phone if it’s a number she does not recognize because of some of the incidents we’ve had happen. I probably could have/should have contacted the police, I have had to do that in the past but I’ve managed to a) ignore most of it and b) deal with it in a way that stops it. I’ve discovered in most cases when the harrasser realizes that it’s not upsetting you that it seems to diminish their desire. I thought about mentioning that, since I know what it’s like to have someone blog about you in a less than complimentary manner as well as to be on the receiving end of phone calls, emails but I didn’t want to make the post about me.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm# 19 LisaRenee Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Not Again, NC is like I am when it comes to researching/googling, if someone states something and he can provide a link to confirm/refute he does.”
Right and NC made may case when he found this one. Rarely is a black person charged with a hate crime against a white.
“That, and a hail of racial slurs, earned him a trip to jail Thursday, along with a rare charge from Pierce County prosecutors: a black-on-white hate crime.”
I provided a link a case in MI from a few weeks back where a gang of blacks was taped brutally beating a white who was getting gas at a store. Funny how it was not considered a hate crime. Also funny how NC ignores the obvious.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pmI don’t disagree that the legal determination of what a hate crime is has not been consistent. Most times the issue comes down to one of not being able to prove that the particular crime was motivated by hate for a race, gender, religion, etc. When you dig deeper into the Michigan case it appears under Michigan law as stated by the Sheriff in Macomb County that whites are not considered to be a part of the “protected class” that would constitute a hate crime.
one link, but that does not seem to be the case everywhere as shown in this case. Which brings us back to there seems to be a lack of consistency/clarity as to what really constitutes a hate crime.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pmThank you. Whites are being discriminated against and are free game for race hate attacks, and NC is in denial.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pmI don’t think NC is in denial, I think what he was pointing out is that blacks have been charged with hate crimes against whites to demonstrate that it can happen. If I would have been up earlier, I would have done the same thing, I would have provided links to show that blacks have been charged with hate crimes.
Which would not mean that I did not still feel it was selective, but that in some parts of the country they do consider black on white crimes can meet the legal definition of a hate crime.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pmThe latest statistics the FBI has on their website is from 2006 It gives you a good idea as to the race/religion factor in reported hate crimes.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pmDenial about what?
That some people want to make an issue about the color of some one’s skin?
I have not taken sides in anything.
I am not writing the problems, some problems are related to the other race.
I am not taking a stance that one group has more done to them then the other.
No, quite the contrary I offer up information on both sides.
People from all walks of life, have conflicts and wack each other with bats and shoot each other with guns.
We have poster(s) that make the claim that whitey is being taken advantage by the people of color.
Right, and in the 50’s it was quite socially acceptable to on your go to meeting clothes and have a barbecue and a lynching.
But, there I go being a socialist.
“I think what he was pointing out is that blacks have been charged with hate crimes against whites to demonstrate that it can happen. If I would have been up earlier, I would have done the same thing, I would have provided links to show that blacks have been charged with hate crimes.”
Yes, that is what I did.
But, that does not fit with the personal agenda’s shown.
Some want the people of color to stay in the back of the bus.
The problem is the bus have left the station, times have changed and people are apt to discuss the past and what we as a society have done to our citizens and what we continue to do to some.
“Whites are being discriminated against and are free game for race hate attacks,”
Well, sure are discriminated against, so, so what?
There are other poeple, the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, and so on that are discriminated against, so what?
Name calling and personal attacks, do what to help the problem?
“Also funny how NC ignores the obvious.”
Funny how the obsession with a persons postings cause so much turmoil in one mind, no matter how small it may be.
Ignoring the obvious? No, not at all. I participate in different forums under different screen names.
I grew up in a household with parents that tended to say the same things that some post on here.
They too objected to, at the time Hispanics and Blacks.
I grew up rejecting the speak they used.
I grew up rejecting the ideas they had.
I grew and continue to grow by meeting and visiting with different people of different skin colors and different cultures.
Write what ya want, it is a free country.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pmAnd just for the record.
My son was born with Glaucoma. Had an eye removed at young age. Has prosthetic eye.
Never once was any federal or state monies used for his treatment.
He could drive if he wants, but he made the choice not too.
So, if anyone, one in particular, feels it necessary to doing any dredging, think about the statements first.
My son takes the bus because he can, being socialist and all that crapola.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm# 26 neighborhood concerns Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“My son takes the bus because he can, being socialist and all that crapola.”
Well it took a few weeks for you to respond on that one.
I don’t mind that you are a socialist, on the contrary, I very much respect your honesty in admitting it. Happy 4th!
July 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pmAnd some day you will come to terms with people of color and other races.
Maybe.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pmOne of my best friends is a black person NC. So, I wonder why you imply I am a racist. Is it because I question why blacks, for the most part, are immune from prosecution for hate crimes. Is that why you accuse me of being a racist?
July 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pmNC. You appear to have a grudge against me for questioning your desire for TARTA to establish a route to take your son to and from work each day. I would have hoped you wouldn’t be this selfish.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:57 pmJack Kelley works for JRB out of Pittsburg….maybe everone knows that? The P-burg paper is just as “middle of the road” as our Daily Local. s/
July 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pmYes, they are both far left liberal rags. I think Kelly is allowed to dissent on occasion.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pmUnless I missed something, that discussion from March did not seem to focus on NC or his son for that to have become a grudge, I’d suggest that it’s more of a difference in a starting point on the discussion.
It’s also not really related to the original topic, which is unfortunate since I felt there were some discussion items of interest raised just in that alone without venturing off into the racial aspect of hate crimes.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pmHow about a little something on Freedom and on The Pledge Of Allegiance from Red Skelton. It’s a good pause for reflection.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm“I’d suggest that it’s more of a difference in a starting point on the discussion.”
I’d suggest that my son taking the bus has nothing to do with anything.
“NC. You appear to have a grudge against me for questioning your desire for TARTA to establish a route to take your son to and from work each day.”
Establish a route? Really? Got a post where the statement or sentiment is posted?
He takes the bus because he needs to and will not drive because of no sight in one eye. He could walk to a job if there was one in the city close by, but there is not, so to do his part as a good citizen he needs to take advantage of the bus system to earn a wage and go to Owens and then move to a larger city to complete his dream of being a graphic artist.
My son is 28 and does as he wishes.
What’s the point? Is there any?
“Unless I missed something, that discussion from March did not seem to focus on NC or his son for that to have become a grudge, ”
It’s the same mindless personal comments on people that have different points of views.
Soon the kettle will boil over and I will be called stupid or something else, just wait for it.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pmDear NC,
You’re stupid! And something else.
The end. s/off.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pmEl Guapo: Are Gringos falling from the sky?!
July 6th, 2008 at 9:43 pmJefe: Yes, El Guapo.
“El Guapo: Are Gringos falling from the sky?!”
AAAhahahah
Personally I am fond of;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY
July 6th, 2008 at 9:53 pm“…he needs to take advantage of the bus system to earn a wage and go to Owens and then move to a larger city to complete his dream of being a graphic artist.”
Just what Toledo needs,…more brain drain.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:50 amholy cow…after reading all the comments i have completely forgotten what the orignial post was about. was it about NC and Not Again’s on-going insult fest? no wait…i think it had something to do with race….
man, now i have to go back to the beginning and try to remember what i was going to say.
i hate it when people go off topic.
this thread has, i think, contributed to some brain drain.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pm“on-going insult fest”
There was no insulting, from me, towards anyone.
I make comments and points.
The insults are in the readers eyes and not my thoughts or comments.
I responded to comments made.
Ms. Ward can contact me and share with me her thoughts about the comments or she can as she has said before, intervene and mediate.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pmI did try to do a mini-intervene to explain/attempt to get things back on topic. As always I try not to have to do that unless things get very out of control and NC is right that I would try to do that by email rather than on the blog if necessary.
It is disappointing when a post such as this one that took a great deal of thought and some research effort goes off the intent of the original post. That’s not to say the hate crime aspect is not worthy of discussion but that was not my original focus. That’s the way it goes though and evidently that is where the majority of those who commented responded to.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pmAnd I’m disappointed no one commented on my attempt at humor – “If I can’t call my neighbor a sheet head (they’re not towels)…”
I’m turning in my size 19 shoes, red nose and green wig! It’s a hard crowd!
July 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pmI am glad you cleared that up, I was thinking you were some kind of a racist.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pmIf it’s any consolation Graphics, I got the reference and yeah it can be a tough crowd at times.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pmYes, Lisa, I am consoled, thank you.
Sheetheads. Boy, I do crack myself up!
(And yes, I would consider myself racist – only not towards the peoples that you might think. Being 1/3 Ani-Yun-Wiya, you might be able to guess who I consider the enemy)
July 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pmLisa Renee said: It is disappointing when a post such as this one that took a great deal of thought and some research effort goes off the intent of the original post.
and that was my point. I would have much rather read 39 comments about the Washington Post article and freedom of speech.
but alas….that was not to be.
maybe next time LR…
July 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm“I would have much rather read 39 comments about the Washington Post article and freedom of speech. ”
Well, here’s one.
It is a campaign season, campaigns and their operatives say what ever they can and then get called on it and the backtracking begins, as in some one mis spoke, mis quoted, the media distorted it, etc.
It is like the rain, it comes and goes and when it is gone we wonder where it went and why, and when it comes back we bemoan the fact it is back.
Free speech is alive and well within recognized norms and with recognized consequences.
“It is disappointing when a post such as this one that took a great deal of thought and some research effort goes off the intent of the original post.”
Just a thought/comment made with complete respect to the time and effort, but is what the campaigns doing all that new or note worthy?
We had Swift Boating, we had character assassination by a whole host of political players from decades ago, come back with the same bag of dirty tricks.
Maybe people are turned on by talk about job creation, the bear market we are in, or some other real news.
I think the answer to your questions in the post are self evident, people make their minds up, when the same phrases and statements are repeated over and over and over again, regardless the truth or foundation of the comments.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pmPart of the point was I don’t think people recognize the consequences now with the way things have changed. Disagree with someone now and you’ll find your name, address and phone number on the internet as well as the possibility of someone showing up where they know you are to video tape you, then put that online with or without your consent.
We acknowledge the media is not credible, yet many react to what is quoted by someone without giving them the benefit of the doubt that it might not be exactly what they stated and if it was exactly what they stated? Where does their right to free speech end and our ability to try to change their minds/insult them begin?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm“Disagree with someone now and you’ll find your name, address and phone number on the internet as well as the possibility of someone showing up where they know you are to video tape you, then put that online with or without your consent.”
Right, which is some use privacy services or do not disclose personal information.
Not disclosing personal information, lest one wants to be in the public eye, is the same type of advise given on Myspace, Facebook, etc., especially so on Usenet postings.
We had people in city government here releasing personnel information to the media.
“We acknowledge the media is not credible…”
Some is not. Some do not vet information. To say all media is not credible, takes into those that blog, etc., as that is part of the media, isn’t?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:14 pmAll media is not credible, that’s a fact and it includes blogs. Whenever you read anything, no matter who it’s written by unless you personally hear the exact words being said yourself there is always a chance it will be wrong. Sometimes it is wrong, and when it is wrong the correction when made rarely gets the same attention as the original article.
That was one of the other issues raised here, who can you trust to provide you information?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm“who can you trust to provide you information?”
Many trust you.
I personally read and listen and then look at other sources, the old trust but verify.
If the topic of news was a car crash on Cherry Street, the media would report the crash and that would be accepted.
“Whenever you read anything, no matter who it’s written by unless you personally hear the exact words being said yourself there is always a chance it will be wrong.”
Chance.
Not intended.
The whole intent issue comes back around.
An outlet that intends to influence people is not really a media source as much as it is a proxy for the other party.
35 posts to go.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pmFunny this article just was posted on a Usenet group about privacy;
” NEW YORK (AP) — Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won’t eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you’ll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that’s controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services – from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video – become more central to public discourse around the world. It’s a fallout of the Internet’s market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.”
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TEC_DISAPPEARING_FREEDOMS?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-07-06-14-17-49
July 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pmthats it, bro
October 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm