cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
People that want to bash Bush, and dems too...use "anonamous" sources |
cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
then...have the source as "anonamous"...then you talk to the author and he reveals off the record it came from CuTePiNkBuNnIeS on so-and-so's blog. lol. |
cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
I don't believe the media should be able to use anonamous sources, because they could make up their own story, post it anonamously on a blog, then site it in their book, show etc. Ok...you can put "anonamous source" in your book or report, but if I decide to hoist up the BS flag and we go to court, it should be revealeable and a reliable source. |
cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
George Bush molested monkeys on a trip to Russia" - Fictious Propiganda labeled "Anonamous" but somehow ends up on BBC or CBS (which wouldn't suprise me) (not ok) |
Quote: |
The problem is the media...because they can site "anonamous" sources, exploit it. They don't have rational judgement when deciding what is true and what isn't...especially when it comes to killing the character of someone they despise. |
cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
I think that's messed up for the govt to come in and try to regulate the internet. I mean squashing kiddie porn, monitoring for anti-terrorism efforts, killing spammers etc is cool...but that's borderline stomping on freedom of speech. |
Freenet FAQ wrote: |
The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. |
cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
I think someone really needs to draw a line here on the internet. Either it has the freedom of speech, or the US has the freedom of speech.
[... bunch of stuff about the US government and US organizations ...] |
Quote: |
Before you're arrested by police for kiddy porn, that all has to run through a court to approve a warrant for arrest after presenting enough evidence. On the internet, there doesn't have to be any evidence to virtually "convict" someone. |
cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote: |
If the US has the freedom of speech, than the internet should be able to be used as a RECONNAISSANCE asset in criminal activity (kiddie porn, terrorism, etc), but not a REGULATED or MONITORED asset. |
capi wrote: |
I'm sorry, Jon, but where exactly did that "choice" come from, between the worldwide international network of computers which is the Internet and one single nation which is the US? I don't see how the US should be "having" anything here over any other country in particular. |
capi wrote: |
The media never needed any evidence to convict anyone, before the Internet or after. All that is needed is the mere mention of a judicial investigation that involves the name of a prominent figure and that person's reputation is forever destroyed, regardless of the outcome of said investigation. |
capi wrote: |
No, the problem here aren't anonymous sources. The problem is the media, period. Anonimity is very much something to preserve and to guard with everything we have. |
Quote: |
I believe the person who made those documents (Bush docs) should be held accountable...by having anonamity...justice will never be served. This act was fraudulant, and piped through some legal loopholes...which was terribly wrong. Remember, critisize = ok, create fraudulant documents = wrong...we're not talking about someone critisizing the gov't here, we're talking about a crime. |
Quote: |
fraudulant documents = wrong |
Quote: |
If that was really true BBC, Fox, CNN, CBS etc would be all over it in a heartbeat. As was mentioned earlier, its about sorting through the filth. |
Quote: |
I was speaking of criminal activity through the internet and when the government siezes it through hacking etc its somehow not admissable. I was talking about using the internet as a resource for reconnaissance rather than trying to restrict it, govern it, or do such to its users.
|
http://www.schneier.com/blog wrote: |
EDITED TO ADD (1/9) Some commenters to BoingBoing clarify the legal issues. This is from an anonymous attorney:
The anonymous harassment provision ( Link ) is the old telephone-annoyance statute that has been on the books for decades. It was updated in the widely (and in many respects deservedly) ridiculed Communications Decency Act to include new technologies, and the cases make clear its applicability to Internet communications. See, e.g., ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (text here), aff'd, 521 U.S. 824 (1997). Unlike the indecency provisions of the CDA, this scope update was not invalidated in the courts and remains fully effective. In other words, the latest amendment, which supposedly adds Internet communications devices to the scope of the law, is meaningless surplusage. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod, All times are GMT + 2 Hours