[PLUG-TALK] Fadeley vs. Free Speech

Michael M. nixlists at writemoore.net
Wed Jun 21 11:28:53 UTC 2006


Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> Letter to the Oregonian:
>
> Free speech is wild, not tame.  For the first time in history,
> the worldwide web permits individuals with limited resources
> to reach a global audience, and the rest of us to amplify or
> ignore them.  Judge Fadeley ("The Wild, Wild Web", June 18)
> would use the courts to restrict online expression and protect
> institutions from harm, yet does not mention the harm these
> institutions can do to individuals with legitimate grievances. 
>
> The cure for damaging speech is more speech; if you don't like
> what someone says on the web, you can use the web to rebut
> them.  In time, the better argument will prevail, regardless of
> the wealth or the institutional credentials of the opponents. 
> In an era of open discussion, some organizations will fail and
> others will prosper.  We should not prop up the losers.
>
> Keith Lofstrom
> Beaverton
>
>   

That's a better response than the editorial deserved.  It's not clear 
from Fadeley's rant what laws he wants to strengthen or exactly where he 
sees problems (beyond just "blogs") because he conflates cases relating 
to libel and trade secrets.  How exactly has the "law stifled the 
courts' rights to recover damages for unauthorized, negligent or 
dishonest use of Internet sites"?  He never says.  What law did Congress 
pass, ten years ago, "requiring blog operators to protect the public by 
self-regulation"?"  I don't think the term "blog" had been coined ten 
years ago, so it's unclear how Congress could've passed any law relating 
to the conduct of blog operators.  I'm not aware even of any attempt, by 
the courts or Congress, to establish a legal definition of what 
constitutes a blog.

The Apple case he cites hinged on whether the publishers of the 
information on-line were entitled to the same protections accorded print 
publishers.  There was no special dispensation for the web publishers.  
If the data itself had been found to violate Apple's trade secrets, then 
it would've been found to do so wherever it appeared.  It didn't, so it 
wasn't.  Why should the same data be subject to different legal 
standards because it appears on-line vs. in a print publication?

-- 
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list