The Conservative Reader

Bithead August 14th, 2008

From the Business and Media institute:

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

If there’s anything that’s at all shocking about this, it’s that this particular red flag has not been raised before. The leftards figure that the government will silence the right and leave them to do their thing.

As VodkaPundit observes…

Not that any sane person needs a scare tactic to despise the “fairness” doctrine. And, let’s be honest, a web-controlling FD would hurt the Netroots far more than the libertarian-right where I make my home.

Snce when, however did sanity per se have anytthing to do with the left?  Silly little minions; they actually trust government not to grow into THEIR territory.

Time to raise the black flag, folks. Actually, as someone who still has some roots in the broadcast industry, I’ll say it past time, rather.

Parting shot: Does anyone doubt that if the Democrats maintain their hold on Congress, and/or if Obama gets to the White House, this thing will not become law before the echo dies?

Tags: BitsBlog, Blogging, Civil Rights, Commissioner Robert McDowell, conservative talk radio hosts, Current Events, Democrats, Elections, Fairness Doctrine, fcc commissioner, fcc vote, government regulation, Heritage Foundation, internet networks, internet practices, net neutrality, new media, News and analysis, President Bush, scare tactic, speech limits, Swamp Stompers, Swamp Stompers Ring Traffic, VodkaPundit, Washington

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , BitsBlog , Democrats , Fairness Doctrine , Featured , First Amendment , Rights , Swamp Stompers , US Congress
• Comments(0)

Art Smith August 10th, 2008

Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu wrote an interesting piece for today’s paper on the foibles of unrestrained and anonymous commenting on newspaper web sites, such as that hosted by the Des Moines Register.

It was a very informative piece and I think can help give some people perspective into the issue of unmoderated and anonymous commenting, the impacts it can have on people when those who abuse the forum attack others, and the opinions of those that in particular are vitriolic in their content.  The piece touches briefly on some of the driving issues behind how a newspaper determines its approach to filtering content.  It was very effective in providing significant information, an excellent job of reporting from the various stakeholders.

The piece fails, however, in providing much in the way of opinion or depth in the discussion of first amendment rights, the responsibility that newspapers have to promote a safe community for those it serves, and the rights of the newspaper to control the content that it presents to the world.  This was very surprising as I consider Basu to be very articulate at sharing her opinion (even though I often disagree with her),and yet today you got the feeling that she didn’t like the behavior, and that something should be done about it.  And indeed she does offer an opinion near the end of the column about which of the options she sees available would best serve everyone.

Reka, to her credit, alluded to the fact that newspapers have to think in terms of income generated by internet traffic.  And to a number of the intersecting concerns that should frame up the content for such a discussion.  But we’re left with little in the way of thoughtful discussion to this end.  It would have been interesting to hear some thoughts about how the First Amendment impacts the issue, how the traditional responsibilities of a community newspaper reflect on the electronic face of that organization, and finally a foundational statement of right or wrong with regard to the behavior in question.  One of the key reasons I read Basu’s column is that I want to know what she thinks.

Basu offers the following as her view on what can be done:

As I see it, these are newspapers’ alternatives:

1. Do nothing. Continue to block posts that break the rules and let the process regulate itself, so people either become less sensitive or speak out more. The danger is that the civil ones get driven away.

2. Add staff to screen all posts in advance and monitor or moderate discussions - not likely given economic realities.

3. Get rid of newspaper-sponsored chats altogether - a drastic and undesirable move, since they do provide a valuable public forum.

4. Pass new laws to prosecute cyber bullies, like one proposed by Rep. Linda Sanchez of California, making it a federal crime to send a communication with intent to cause substantial emotional distress. That could be hard to determine, and enforce.

5. In my view, the best, most realistic approach, and the one most in keeping with journalistic standards, is to gradually start requiring people to provide their names, and begin matching those to e-mail addresses. It’s a safe bet many would stop lobbing missiles in stealth and start being more civil, and the conversations would improve.

It’s sad to see that a valid option, filtering software, is ignored.  I’m sure that the Register uses some basic type of electronic filtering that looks for words that are just not permitted.  What can also be done with the right kind of software is to further analyze the content to determine if it is providing offensive or threatening statements.  This is not rocket science, and ignoring this as an alternative to number 2 in her list is unfortunate because conveys to many that this is an unworkable situation because of the current economic situation (understandable that adding staff for this work will be untenable when other staff are being released due to budget tightening).

We’ve discussed this topic before and we are pleased that Rekha has taken the time to present the current situation and its impacts and potential solutions as she sees it.  This seems to also be a good time to talk through all of the real philisophical issues the drive into the behavior, society’s tollerance or lack thereof toward this behavior, the real implications of a society that has a new outlet for agressive behavior after 60 years of liberal conditioning to avoid conflict and agression, the real classification of rights assigned to those involved in conducting the behavior and those who are recipients (read “victims”) of this behavior, and the long term affects all of this can have on our society.

I will state what should be obvious and a possible start for this conversion.  The Second Amendment provides us the right to bear arms, that is, to own weapons (guns, mostly), but does not give us the right to use those weapons to kill without cause.  The First Amendment gives us the right to express ourselves freely, but not to the point of slander, libel, or physical or emotional harm (you cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater unless there is one).  What then should be our response to those that believe they have the right to threaten or engage in abusive language toward another person in a public forum?  What are the rights and responsibilities of an organization like the Des Moines Register to monitor and control the publishing of such content?

Rekha, thanks for looking at this topic.  I think it’s time we had a serious discussion about where to go from here.

Tags: Abusive, Des Moines Register, Newspaper Web Sites, Offensive, Online Discourse, Rekha Basu, Rights, Threatening

• Civil Discourse , Des Moines Register , First Amendment , Second Amendment
• Comments(0)

Art Smith July 25th, 2008

About four months ago (I know, I’m a little behind catching up with some general topics), DavidL at BitsBlog shared an item from Edward Wasserman at the Miami Herald.  Wasserman’s thought was that there is a need for rules to constrain course, offensive, and threatening language on the internet, or at least the news and blogosphere.

David’s response to Ed’s commentary was not unexpected, nor inappropriate.  I agree that those who wish to maintain open content and uncensored invectives is a right that should be available to those who wish to interact in that manner.  And David is correct, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.

That doesn’t change the fact that some of us see a need for rules that exist within a somewhat protected space.

While there are those that cannot engage in some form of discourse without a degree of content that others may find offensive, there are others who are easily intimidated, or who have standards and sensibilities that are more restrained, or who wish to ensure their children have a place to engage in such discourse without having to be exposed to course or venomous commentary.

My contention is that there is not a topic that I can think of that requires course or intimidating language to communicate your ideas.  As Wasserman stated, a set of rules that restricts this kind of language is not elitist, and frankly helps to promote civility.

But people do have the right to use such language.  Any rules that are created toward civil discourse on the Internet would have to be either constrained to sites that wish to maintain that level of civility, or would merely be a guide for people who wish to maintain a more civil discourse as a community and simply use the guide for self-regulation.

Although Wasserman was speaking more or less toward the issues of managing open commentary on publication web sites such as the Miami Herald, this discussion certainly extends beyond that domain.  The challenge that an organization such MH has when addressing this is that any censorship will (as Wasserman stated) impact site visits and comments… the more you limit free expression, the fewer people who will engage… for MH, that can mean real money (lost).  Money tends to come out ahead.

Those that operate more of a non-profit  model have more room to place controls since they are not concerned about income, but they should still be concerned about market penetration even if they aren’t making money from the visits directly.

We have our own set of rules here at The Conservative Reader.  They might not be perfect, but part of our goal is to make this a place where families can come to learn, interact, and share ideas without having to be concerned about intimidation, reprisal, or content that is just not appropriate for children.

I think the ideal solution is to go ahead and create the rules, treat them as open-source content for discussion and use.  Create a certificate badge for sites that want to enforce the rules (and maybe a similar one for sites that want to be wide open) so people know what they are getting into when they visit.

Worth noting is the recent study that shows course and offensive language is actually declining.  I don’t have the link (I know I read about in the last week or so somewhere), but as soon as I find it, I’ll update this post.

Nice to think that somehow things are improving even if in little ways.

Tags: Censorship, Civil Discourse, First Amendment, Rules

• Blogging , Civil Discourse , First Amendment
• Comments(0)

Art Smith June 29th, 2008

Wow!  I totally missed the Lieberman confrontation with YouTube (owned by Google) until it was mentioned in an email exchange I had today.

From CNN:

In a Monday [May 19, 2008] letter to Eric Schmidt, chief executive officer of Google, Lieberman asked that YouTube “implement its own policy against this offensive material,” by removing the videos. Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also wants YouTube staffers to have a system that will prevent the video from reappearing.

I am a bit amazed, as I did not think he would advocate this kind of censorship.  If I understand his position, I think he’s wrong.  I like Lieberman mostly because of his willingness to stand up to his party and be his own man.  I suspect he is trying to get on conservatives’ good side with this approach, but I think he will find he’s barking up the wrong tree.  I’m glad that YouTube reacted the way they did.

Again from CNN:

YouTube said Monday on its blog that it had removed a “number of videos” from its site after examining several videos that Lieberman’s staff said “violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”

The videos that were removed “depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech,” YouTube said.

However, “Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.”

It deeply saddens me to see such horrific violence or gratuitous sexual content so readily available to children and adults in our world.  I do believe that the easy availability of this kind of content will have a deteriorating impact on our society.  However, I don’t think the answer is to use the government to control it.  As a society, we can choose to manage it in ways that are not destructive, convince adults of the undesirable personal and societal impacts of the content,  and train our children to be discerning about what they consume.

This is not the government’s responsibility.  Quite the opposite.  The minute we allow the government to decide what is appropriate content to view, we slide down the path of political censorship and government media management.

Probably the one distinct exception is Child Pornography.  Only because in order to produce it, you need to be exposing a child to abuse.

That said, we at The Conservative Reader reserve the right (as others do as well) to censor our web site to ensure it is suitable for visitors of all ages.  That means we watch for the use of offensive words, we don’t intentionally link to a site with pornography or gratuitous violence or the kind of language we restrict on our site.   This is not censorship… it is our own right under the First Amendment to exert this type of control over the content we provide here.

And YouTube has the same right.  Take that away and you might as well chuck the whole Bill of Rights.

My thanks to Richard Perlman for pointing this story out to me.

Tags: Bill of Rights, Censorship, First Amendment, Google, Government, Gratuitous, Joe Lieberman, Pornography, Terrorism, Violence, Youtube

• Bill of Rights , Child Pornography , First Amendment , Joe Lieberman , Liberty , Terrorism , US Congress
• Comments(0)