Comments on: Bloggers Freedom of Speech http://jessewarden.com/2005/03/bloggers-freedom-of-speech.html A blog on software development, technology, games & movies. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:05:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: JesterXL http://jessewarden.com/2005/03/bloggers-freedom-of-speech.html#comment-2382 JesterXL Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:32:43 +0000 http://jessewarden.com/?p=744#comment-2382 Bottom line, I'm not seeing these degenerates getting lynched, and therefore I am not being satiated in my belief that these people are in fact being held accountable. Publicly humliated? Sure, but not legal action, just bloggers banding together to make someone look stupid. I want to see my tax dollars spearhead one of these mofos! Bottom line, I’m not seeing these degenerates getting lynched, and therefore I am not being satiated in my belief that these people are in fact being held accountable.

Publicly humliated? Sure, but not legal action, just bloggers banding together to make someone look stupid. I want to see my tax dollars spearhead one of these mofos!

]]> By: JesterXL http://jessewarden.com/2005/03/bloggers-freedom-of-speech.html#comment-2381 JesterXL Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:28:58 +0000 http://jessewarden.com/?p=744#comment-2381 Good to see you online, Anne! Thanks, Brandy and I are doing well, although, I'm getting my tail worked off.. bleh! To me, it's a catch 22. If jouranlists are being held accountable, I'm not reading about it. I am not that devout of a follower of the news as her majesty is, but I do catch the big ones every so often, and I rarely hear of jouranlists being held accountable for their actions. As such, if I were in journalism, the media, what have you, the only reason I'd cover such a story would be if it gave my business ratings/ROI, or discredited a rival. My guess those opportunities don't present themselves, so if in fact journalists are being held accountable somewhere, it's out of sight, out of mind, and the only way I'd hear about it is from some other dude with a vendetta to ensure that statement isn't full of bs. Who is holding these people accountable, and if so, what is their punishment? ...I don't know, accountability to me is more enforcable for the bs detector vs. an actual slander issue. Like, if a journalist over hypes something for a story, it drives me up the wall to no end, but it's still legal. Yet, their readership holds more power to sway than the truth, and it's frustrating to see them get away with that unethical bs. Good to see you online, Anne!

Thanks, Brandy and I are doing well, although, I’m getting my tail worked off.. bleh!

To me, it’s a catch 22. If jouranlists are being held accountable, I’m not reading about it. I am not that devout of a follower of the news as her majesty is, but I do catch the big ones every so often, and I rarely hear of jouranlists being held accountable for their actions.

As such, if I were in journalism, the media, what have you, the only reason I’d cover such a story would be if it gave my business ratings/ROI, or discredited a rival.

My guess those opportunities don’t present themselves, so if in fact journalists are being held accountable somewhere, it’s out of sight, out of mind, and the only way I’d hear about it is from some other dude with a vendetta to ensure that statement isn’t full of bs. Who is holding these people accountable, and if so, what is their punishment?

…I don’t know, accountability to me is more enforcable for the bs detector vs. an actual slander issue. Like, if a journalist over hypes something for a story, it drives me up the wall to no end, but it’s still legal. Yet, their readership holds more power to sway than the truth, and it’s frustrating to see them get away with that unethical bs.

]]> By: Anne Forkner http://jessewarden.com/2005/03/bloggers-freedom-of-speech.html#comment-2380 Anne Forkner Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:19:12 +0000 http://jessewarden.com/?p=744#comment-2380 To the extent that journalists are treated differently by the law, it is to give them more protection, not less, but mainly only in the context of writing for an established media outlet (CNN, New York Times). A journalist will be LESS, not more, liable if something he or she prints turns out not to be true. (The standard for libel or slander in journalism is a special version of actual malice--it doesn't matter if the statement isn't true, the journalist can only be held accountable if he or she knew it wasn't true or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not.) The only problem with suing a blogger for libel that wouldn't be present for a journalist is 1) finding the blogger, whose identity is not as public as the journalist's and 2) if the blogger has no money, the blogger is judgment proof. (Journalists rarely have any money, either, but the media outlets they work for are usually rolling in it.) I think people just need to learn to be media savvy, and learn on their own, without the interference of the courts, that blogs may be less reliable. The marketplace of ideas should run like any other free market--caveat emptor, buyer beware. You have got to learn buying ideas off a blog is like buying electronic equipment out of a van--the source is suspect. The main reason why the media hates bloggers is because bloggers are threatening their control over the biggest issue of all--not what is said about the news, but what IS the news. It used to be, the NYT could decide what people talked about by controlling what they printed, what people even knew about. Now, even if the Times deep-sixes a story, because they do not want it brought to the public attention, people will learn about it online, and more often than not, in a less accurate fashion than the NYT would have used to cover it. So the NYT (and similar powerful media outlets) are FORCED to cover the news in a broader (and ultimately better, in my opinion) way. Hope you & your wife are doing well, Jesse. To the extent that journalists are treated differently by the law, it is to give them more protection, not less, but mainly only in the context of writing for an established media outlet (CNN, New York Times). A journalist will be LESS, not more, liable if something he or she prints turns out not to be true. (The standard for libel or slander in journalism is a special version of actual malice–it doesn’t matter if the statement isn’t true, the journalist can only be held accountable if he or she knew it wasn’t true or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not.) The only problem with suing a blogger for libel that wouldn’t be present for a journalist is 1) finding the blogger, whose identity is not as public as the journalist’s and 2) if the blogger has no money, the blogger is judgment proof. (Journalists rarely have any money, either, but the media outlets they work for are usually rolling in it.) I think people just need to learn to be media savvy, and learn on their own, without the interference of the courts, that blogs may be less reliable. The marketplace of ideas should run like any other free market–caveat emptor, buyer beware. You have got to learn buying ideas off a blog is like buying electronic equipment out of a van–the source is suspect. The main reason why the media hates bloggers is because bloggers are threatening their control over the biggest issue of all–not what is said about the news, but what IS the news. It used to be, the NYT could decide what people talked about by controlling what they printed, what people even knew about. Now, even if the Times deep-sixes a story, because they do not want it brought to the public attention, people will learn about it online, and more often than not, in a less accurate fashion than the NYT would have used to cover it. So the NYT (and similar powerful media outlets) are FORCED to cover the news in a broader (and ultimately better, in my opinion) way.

Hope you & your wife are doing well, Jesse.

]]>