Law blog post about a blogging fairness doctrine
Balkinization, a popular law blog, has an article titled, "The Fairness Doctrine and the Blogosphere." This is the first time I have ever seen another blog's article on the specific subject of blogging fairness doctrines. I have long advocated a blogging fairness doctrine that would prohibit or discourage the arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments. I have posted a comment under this Balkinization blog article -- my comment is the 18th comment in the comment thread (I tried to make a direct link to the comment but the link does not work) . For the first time, I could post such a comment on another blog without attempting to hijack the comment thread! My comment about a blogging fairness doctrine successfully hijacked a comment thread on the Volokh Conspiracy blog -- actually, it was not really a big hijacking because the original topic was broadcasting fairness doctrines and I changed the topic to blogging fairness doctrines. Also, I have discovered a law professor, Cass Sunstein, who might agree with my ideas about a blogging fairness doctrine, and I will try to contact him -- an article said,
. . . . the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/15/2008 03:49:00 AM
9 Comments:
> I have long advocated a blogging fairness doctrine that would prohibit or discourage the arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments. <
It is allright. The material that is censored you would redefine as "personal gossip".
"The Fairness Doctrine" is a bad idea, just like it was in talk radio.
Having the government decide what is fair and what is not fair actually hinders freedom of speech.
Blogs are like a piece of private property, anyone can own them or run them. If they decide to make it a "G" rated blog, they shouldn't have to allow someone who likes to blog in "R" rated language on.
It's funny how the "Fairness Doctrine" is never brought up with TV. It's was only radio and now it's the internet.
Michael said,
>>>>>> "The Fairness Doctrine" is a bad idea, just like it was in talk radio. <<<<<<<
The Fairness Doctrine was not just about talk radio -- it was about broadcasting in general.
I agree that it is a bad idea. I don't even see how it can be implemented -- for example, it is often impossible to define what is "conservative" and what is "liberal." IMO it would also be an unreasonable burden on broadcasters because of limited broadcast time. However, I am in favor of the following: (1) a requirement that all or some call-ins to talk shows not be pre-screened and (2) reinstatement of the "personal attack" and "political editorial" rules, which provide free airtime for rebuttals by individuals and organizations that are directly attacked.
>>>>>> Blogs are like a piece of private property, anyone can own them or run them. <<<<<<<
There is no such thing as "private" property. You can go to jail for storing kiddie-porn in the "privacy" of your own home. Environmental laws and regulations can virtually confiscate "private" land. Blogs are already heavily regulated -- see this article.
>>>>>> If they decide to make it a "G" rated blog, they shouldn't have to allow someone who likes to blog in "R" rated language on. <<<<<<<
The issue here is not profanity -- the issue here is the arbitrary censorship of ideas.
One of my comments on the Balkinization blog says,
Some blogs do not accept any comments from visitors. However, if a blog posts some proper comments from visitors, then it should post all proper comments from visitors, and if the blog won't do that, then the blog should be required to have a prominent notice stating that some comments from visitors are arbitrarily censored. A blog should not be allowed to give a false impression that no comments from visitors are arbitrarily censored, especially considering that blogs are authoritatively cited by scholarly journal articles, court opinions, the established news media, etc.. I think that's fair, don't you? And even if we don't have laws, regulations, or policies that prohibit or discourage arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments, we should at least have an Internet culture that severely frowns upon such censorship. That's not the Internet culture we have now.
Of course, I have long noted that there are hypocritical trolls here (example above) who falsely accuse me of arbitrary censorship for censoring such things as (1)gossip about my private affairs and (2) outright lies about objective facts (e.g., ViU's repeated claim that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision), while these same trolls heartily approve the genuine arbitrary censorship that goes on at other blogs.
I am surprised that there are so many TV talk shows. Radio lends itself more to talk shows than TV -- you need only audio, not video, for a talk show and you can listen to a radio talk show while doing something else, like driving a car. Maybe the reason why the Fairness Doctrine is not brought up with TV is that there might not be an ideological dominance -- conservative or liberal -- on TV talk shows. Also, I think call-ins are probably less common on TV talk shows than on radio talk shows, so there is less of an issue of pre-screening of call-ins.
>>>>>> It's was only radio and now it's the internet. <<<<<<<
IMO it has not been a big issue with the Internet, with the exception of Wikipedia -- see post labels about Wikipedia in the side bar (though the term "Fairness Doctrine" is not used when talking about Wikipedia). The original post here describes the first time that I have seen others raise the idea of a Fairness Doctrine for blogs.
One more thing, ViU, Hector, and assorted other disgusting trolls, your claims that you haven't seen arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments is of course just a big lie. It is not possible to spend very much time visiting blogs without seeing such censorship. I should have pointed that out a long time ago.
> (2) outright lies about objective facts (e.g., ViU's repeated claim that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision) <
In other words, Judge Jones indicated that he would follow the law, which precludes him taking into account the school board election results. You are lying about an objective fact, as usual.
> while these same trolls heartily approve the genuine arbitrary censorship that goes on at other blogs. <
Which you have been unable to give us an example of.
> It is not possible to spend very much time visiting blogs without seeing such censorship. <
Yet you have failed to give an example. In all cases that you have pointed out, you were blocked for cause.
Hectoring Hector barfed,
>>>>>> In other words, Judge Jones indicated that he would follow the law, which precludes him taking into account the school board election results. <<<<<<
ViU never said that Judge Jones "indicated" that he would follow the law, doofus, ViU just said that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law. And why would Judge Jones "indicate" that he was going to follow the law? Everyone -- except those who know better -- just assumed that he was going to follow the law, so there would be no point in his "indicating" that he was going to follow the law.
You missed the whole point of why ViU said that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law, you stupid nincompoop -- ViU was just trying to duck the question of whether Jones' statement that the school board election results would not affect his decision implied that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision and thus would be giving improper implicit legal advice to the new school board.
>>>>>> Which you have been unable to give us an example of. <<<<<<<
I am blocked on several blogs, doofus -- that is plenty proof that I am arbitrarily censored even before I can post anything.
And I suppose that since you haven't witnessed a murder, then murders don't happen and we should not have laws against murder.
And you are a lousy hypocrite who ridicules my opposition to arbitrary censorship of visitors' blog comments while you take advantage of my no-censorship policy.
Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be euthanized to protect you and others from the consequences of your stupidity.
> ViU never said that Judge Jones "indicated" that he would follow the law, doofus, ViU just said that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law. <
Lies and misrepresentation as usual, Larry. I said "In other words, he would follow the law." What part of this do you not understand?
> You missed the whole point of why ViU said that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law <
Wrong again, dunghill. You are the only one who misses the point. Judge Jones was not giving legal advice by any stretch of the imagination of the sane. Your mileage may differ.
> ViU was just trying to duck the question of whether Jones' statement that the school board election results would not affect his decision implied that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision and thus would be giving improper implicit legal advice to the new school board. <
Not at all, cretin. You are still trying to twist Judge Jones' statement into giving legal advice, which it clearly was not.
> I am blocked on several blogs <
For cause, doofus.
> that is plenty proof that I am arbitrarily censored even before I can post anything. <
You had already posted. You had violated the blogs rules as you often violate your own. In contrast, you excuse your arbitrary censorship by claiming things are "personal gossip" when they have nothing about you at all. You also claim that someone who does not share your misinterpretations is "lying about objective facts". I have never seen anyone but you lie about objective facts on this blog. An example follows:
> And you are a lousy hypocrite who ridicules my opposition to arbitrary censorship of visitors' blog comments while you take advantage of my no-censorship policy. <
"you would be euthanized to protect you"
Um, how does that work?
You don't want to find out.
Post a Comment
<< Home