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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (52502)	10/28/2006 10:07:54 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

In the hypothetical, as well as in the DU situation, we were dealing with speech that presumably constituted threats against government officials. For that reason, free speech protections are questionable in the first instance. I'm putting that issue aside because it's not really what we're talking about. The issue posed by your observations and hypothetical is essentially whether free speech and privacy rights should be protected, or whether people should advocate such protection, in the case of insincere speech given under counterfeit circumstances. My simple answer is that if speech and privacy rights are to be respected they have to be applied across the board regardless of motive or subterfuge. First Amendment law was not made just for ideas YOU advocate. It usually comes up in contexts like flag burning or Larry Flynt. It seems that you would not hesitate to "give someone up" if you felt that they did not share your political persuasion or if you thought they deceived you as to that persuasion. If so, you regard Constitutional rights quite cheaply. I don't think they should be applied like situational ethics. But that's just me. Btw, I already answered your question in my prior post: Assuming that the posts threatened government officials, the status of the posters as "trolls" or otherwise shouldn't make a difference wrt the propriety of releasing the names. The suggestion that it does make a difference was my focus. It happens far too often that only the "correct" POV is acceptable in certain quarters. Again: If the First Amendment or privacy rights apply to a given situation, it applies whether I agree with the speaker or whether the speaker lied to me or others about his motivation.