Is there NOT ONE AGENDA the Zionist controllers won't use the gays for?
"Time for a muzzle; The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it time to rethink free speech?" by Drake Bennett | February 15, 2009
If you want to get rid of lies and rumors, well, then the newspapers will have to be banished
..... Last month, someone posted a map showing the names, home locations, and occupations of thousands of people who gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage in California. A number of these Proposition 8 supporters have since reported threatening e-mails and phone calls.
Related: Hate-Mongering Homosexuals
Speech now travels farther faster than the Founding Fathers - or the judges who created much of modern free speech law - could have dreamed.
They cared about CONTENT and ABILITY not speed, shitter! The ESSENCE of the THOUGHT DOESN'T CHANGE because technology does, you agenda-pushing piece of crap!
The Web has brought a new reach to the things we say about others, and created a vast potential audience for arguments that would once have unfolded in a single room or between two telephones. It has eaten away at the buffer that once separated public and private, making it possible to expose someone else's intimate information to the world with a few keystrokes, or to take information that would formerly have been filed away in obscure public records and present it digestibly as a goad to collective political action.
One of the results has been the advent of a new culture of online heckling and shaming, and the rise of enormous cyber-posses motivated by social or political causes - or simple sadism.
Now, some legal scholars are beginning to argue that new technologies have changed the balance of power between the right to speak and the right to be left alone. At conferences, in law review articles, and, increasingly, in the courts, some lawyers are suggesting that the time has come to rethink some of the hallowed protections that the law gives speech in this country, especially if that speech is online. The proposals vary: Some focus on restricting material that can be posted online or how long it can stay there, others on whether we should be less willing to protect online anonymity. More ambitious schemes would have courts treat a person's reputation as a form of property - something to be protected, traded, and even sold like any other property - or create a legally enforceable duty of confidentiality between friends like that which exists between doctors and their patients.
At stake is the basic question of what we will allow people to say and do online, whether it's on a message board, a Craigslist ad, or a YouTube video - and who gets to set the rules governing what's OK and what's not. As the Web grows increasingly interactive, the system of informal and formal rules that determines appropriate behavior is only beginning to emerge, and thinkers on both sides of the debate agree that courts can go a long way toward shaping it. The argument over what to do about online speech, in other words, is an argument over whether the Web's unruly nature is something to be celebrated or tamed.
"Right now, it's pretty much like the Wild West, and we need to do something to combat that norm," says Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University and leading advocate of reining in online speech.
Yeah? FUCK YOU, shitter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you KNOW WHY I USE SUCH VULGAR TERMS, AmeriKa!!!
Fuck the FASCISTAS!!!!!! Maybe if you AGENDA-PUSHING SHITTERS started TELLING the TRUTH I wouldn't be so damn angry all the time! Then agan, that's my fault; I need to get away from the newspapers, and I am!!!!
NO PURCHASE tommorrow, shit fucks -- and I'm your most loyal and faithful patron!! Ah, what's ONE MORE SALE LOST, 'eh, floundering fucks?
Free speech advocates caution that these sorts of measures, no matter how carefully drawn up, are likely to backfire, creating a snarl of lawsuits. For all the pain of being exposed or attacked online, the far greater threat, these thinkers believe, is that the Web becomes a place where the rules are set by the most litigious and the thinnest-skinned, stifling the free flow of ideas and opinions that today define it.
Relaxing the protections for online speech, argues Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group, "would relegate comment on the Internet to only that provided by large and powerful and very cautious media."
Proponents of the new privacy protections, however, insist that all they are doing is helping to level the playing field between private citizens and those who, for whatever reason, are using the Web to expose others' secrets to the wider world....
************************
According to concerned legal scholars like Solove, the power and pervasiveness of the Web have now unsettled the privacy law regime that the Kodak helped create. Not only does the Web allow for anonymous, immediate posting of information, but search engines make that information retrievable for curious people everywhere. And whether it's an address, a lewd photograph or video, or a written insult, it remains on the Web until someone actively removes it, and even then copies can survive elsewhere....
Yeah, and that is the REAL PROBLEM, isn't it?
This is about CENSORSHIP, not bad language or insults!
Speech-friendly scholars see the potential for abuse. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University who has written on privacy law, points out that in countries where websites can be held liable for user-generated content the law has been used to limit political speech: In Thailand, for example, YouTube was forced to block videos critical of the king....You mean JewTube, don't you?
Solove, for his part, argues that describing the debate simply as one about freedom of speech leaves out an important part of the equation.
"We have to be able to go about most of our lives with the assumption that no one's going to be recording everything we do and broadcasting it on the Web," he says....Why? GOVERNMENT and TELEOMS are ALREADY WATCHING.
--more--"
Keep that in mind that the preceding article that is from an agenda-pushing globalist scitte sheet that said a depression would be a good idea; being poor is your fault; the financial crisis is the fault of American consumer; Boston business benefits from financial failings; financial failures are a good thing; that endless work and insecurity are a good thing; that these are the best of times; that this bear market is just like any other; that hunger is good business; that a shit pit is a good idea; has already told us what the Grand Depression of 2009 will look like; and thinks a nuclear war would be a good idea!
You know where to the idea (flush), right, readers?
