OK, blogs are "private" property. So what?
The main argument that has been presented against my proposed "fairness doctrine" for blogs (i.e., a prohibition of arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments) has been that blogs are "private" property. Until now, I have countered that argument by claiming that blogs are "public" property. I thought that my counter-argument was reasonable because some private things are quasi-public. However, I now realize that it is better to just concede that blogs are completely private, because being completely private does not mean that the government does not have the power to regulate them. The government is always telling us what we can and cannot do with private property, e.g., zoning and environmental laws -- which are often extremely burdensome -- tell people what they can do with their private land.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/24/2007 05:11:00 AM
8 Comments:
> Until now, I have countered that argument by claiming that blogs are "public" property. <
In other words, you had no logical argument so you just stated it without reason.
>>>>> Until now, I have countered that argument by claiming that blogs are "public" property. <
In other words, you had no logical argument so you just stated it without reason. <<<<<<
Talk about quoting out of context! Here is my complete statement:
Until now, I have countered that argument by claiming that blogs are "public" property. I thought that my counter-argument was reasonable because some private things are quasi-public.
What a jerk.
Thank you for proving my point.
> I thought that my counter-argument was reasonable because some private things are quasi-public. <
You thought that your apple was an orange because some fruit are oranges.
>>>>> You thought that your apple was an orange because some fruit are oranges. <<<<<
No -- I thought that I had an apple-orange fruit salad. But then I remembered that an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
"The government is always telling us what we can and cannot do with private property, e.g., zoning and environmental laws -- which are often extremely burdensome -- tell people what they can do with their private land"
- So, since the government does a poor job regulating private property, they now need to get in the business of regulating speech.
>>>>>> - So, since the government does a poor job regulating private property, <<<<<<
Many of the regulations of private property are necessary but they can do tremendous harm to property owners -- for example, an environmental regulation could cost a landowner $millions. Some of these regulations amount to virtual confiscation of the property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Sometimes the government may try to provide compensation but the compensation may be inadequate. A fairness doctrine for blogs is trivial. For blogs intended solely to promote something, e.g., a commercial product or a political candidate, I have proposed a fairness doctrine exemption for blogs where warnings of arbitrary censorship are prominently posted.
>>>>>> they now need to get in the business of regulating speech. <<<<<<
Requiring freedom of speech is not "regulating" speech -- it is preventing regulation of speech.
Anyway, the issue here is not whether the government should have a fairness doctrine for blogs, but whether the government has the power to have a fairness doctrine for blogs. I have conclusively shown that the government has such power.
> I have proposed a fairness doctrine exemption for blogs where warnings of arbitrary censorship are prominently posted. <
I don't see where you have warned people about the arbitrary censorship on this blog. Why not practice what you preach?
> I have conclusively shown that the government has such power. <
Why not provide a link to it? It definitely didn't occur on this blog.
Forcing an individual to publish the ideas of someone which are antithetical to one's is by no means a "freedom".
"For blogs intended solely to promote something, e.g., a commercial product or a political candidate"
What blog doesn't try and promote something, i.e. ones's own thoughts and ideas?
Under your silly regime, what are the consequences if someone disobeys a Larry Law?
Post a Comment
<< Home