Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (47186)	5/13/2002 11:40:20 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

”First of all, we have to recognize that we are dealing here purely with words. There have been no actions. That means this matter falls squarely within the protections of the First Amendment. “ I would agree with this in regards to most of the examples you provided. ”The reasonable man standard usually applies when there are actions involved. Did the person ACT as a reasonably prudent person would?” This is a good question. You don’t take the side of Poet in presenting the prudent actions that were undertaken. I think we could engage in some list making here but I’d rather move on. ”If I had been physically going to Poet's home, or following her on the street, that would be a very different situation. But we are dealing with words only” Surely you know that merely words are sanctionable. One example that is fairly common is the person who repeatedly calls someone on the telephone even though they don’t say threatening things and the call receiver hangs up each time. Just words, not at the persons home and not on their street. Are you suggesting that nothing said via the internet could bring charges? ”And yes, SI is a private organization and so not subject to the First Amendment. But when the courts impose a penalty or remedy, that is state action and subject to the first amendment. Yes, and the question we are addressing is whether or not it is an issue of free expression or whether it is something personal. You have positioned the issue as one of a personal relationship. I think that might move it into more of a grey area than cut and dry free expression. ”There are several aspects involved. First, to and about are two different things, though they tend to get lumped together. And second, there could be either a remedy for past writings or a restraint on future writings, or both. “ To and about are different things that could be handled differently, but they haven’t been in this case. A remedy for past writings? I am not sure what you mean. Some reconsiliation over the complaints? Future writings …I think all the cards are on the table for the future. Are you suggesting something new? ”A restraint on future writings would involve prior restraint, which is done only in very rare instances. I believe it is very unlikely that a court would impose a prior restraint on pure speech in this situation. “ A restraint is what I would expect at a minimum, baring any unforeseen changes. I think you need to define pure speech here. There is speech that is intended to be personal and speech that is intended to present ideas, as well as combinations. Where speech is intended to engage a specific person in relationship, the court definitely has a role in arbitrating disputes. Speech made under the circumstances you described (bridge parties etc) regardless of how crude or offensive it may sound to observers, is free speech until it violates a specific individual. At such a time, it is still incumbent on the individual to take a position against it, for it to become a legal issue. There is no blanket protection afforded by the first amendment in all cases. Yes, in some cases persons can be held legally liable for malicious spreading of gossip. ”First, are postings addressed to an alias really to a person?” Maybe some of the posters who frequent SI are just playing a role. Can you really violate an imaginary persona. Probably not. However, step back and take an objective look at this. You are aware of the real person in this case to the extent of having claimed a long term relationship. Clearly the SI community sees it this way as well. Do you really suppose others would not? ”Second, and perhaps more important, SI provides an ignore function. All Poet has to do, if she really doesn't want to read anything from me, is put me on ignore. Then she has to take a positive action in order to be aware of anything I'm saying. I doubt, frankly, that any court would consider that harassment. This is a public forum -- like writing letters to the newspaper or posting notices on the bulletin board at the grocery store. “ Yes, I think this is the real testing point. There are some differences here vs the newspaper however. These threads are interactive like a virtual community. Once you take one of the actions you proposed, your ability to participate in general is compromised. Still, I agree that the ignore function and other activities are useful and should be used when the situation calls for it. At the point where a person’s ability to participate is compromised to the extent that they don’t feel they can visit SI without having feelings of putting themselves in harms way, I think we should consider other perspectives. ”I would LOVE it if there were a law that said I could tell a spammer that I didn't want to receive any more emails from them, and they had to stop. “ The only reason this still occurs is that the justice system hasn’t caught up with the technology. ” I would LOVE it if…. Do you think that consciousness is never going to rise to some level of common sense among us? This obvious example should ring a bell for you. Spammers will be stopped eventually. Currently they have us captive. Its not like radio advertising. The program runs on a radio at the sponsorship of the advertisers. We all feel it is a fair system to get a message across that we otherwise would not be willing to accommodate. Spamming is invasive, we all know it, we simply haven’t figured out how to deal with it effectively. When we do spamming will be gone. ” And of course, public posts made ostensibly to a person on a public board are really made to a wider community. “ Not necessarily any more than at other types of social gatherings. ” One thing I'm quite sure of is that if a case of harassment over SI were brought by anybody against anybody, the ACLU and the EFF would be very interested. They have a strong bias toward a free and open internet, and would, I believe, strongly oppose any attempt by a court to restrain or penalize such postings.” Two sides to every issue. That’s why we have courts.