[BC] Watch your blogging- folks

[Mike McCarthy]

I think there <should> be some limits on what people can say and how they 
shield their identity on blogs to prevent them from being found in the 
event they libel someone in the process.  To use a BLOG's site rule to 
avoid discovery where there is patently libelous/harmful text or stalking 
is abuse should be outlawed. I see no difference in how the message is 
conveyed between blogging and brick/mortar print and media which should 
differentiate between the two mediums.  if it's wrong in one place, it's 
wrong....period.

OTOH, there are very good reasons to shield one's identity and I see no 
reason that aspect under certain conditions should not remain intact. It's 
covered under the Whistle Blower Act. Especially if there is a criminal act 
being reported as having occured.

None the less, someone hopping on a blog and calling another person 
something they are clearly not is certainly outside the protection afforded 
under the 1st Amendment. The same can be said about harassment and stalking.

This gets all the more complicated if the blog site and/or the author is 
overseas.

Bottom line, this country is sorely lacking civics classes to teach 
students of our future they need to be/are responsible for THEIR actions 
and that they can't hide all the time behind a thin veil of 
anonymity.  Just like print, radio and TV has over the years using 
confidential sources where the source has been called into question.

While I agree the term "annoying" will certainly make the clause 
unconstitutional, much the same as how does one define obscene or 
offensive, I think there is room for some middle crafting of the law to 
make sure that people don't falsely hide behind a law which can be easily 
circumvented by a court order directing the blog site to reveal the 
identity of the person.  This is something kids don't get, nor do most of 
their parents until after the suit filed and summons arrives.

MM



At 10:32 AM 1/9/2006 -0500, Jerry Mathis wrote
>Just the latest example of why we cannot trust politicians. Like the words 
>on the masthead of the Capitol Hill Blue website: "Because nobody's life, 
>liberty, or property are safe while Congress is in session, or the White 
>House is occupied."
>
>The first time this is challenged in court, it will in all likelihood be 
>declared unconstitutional.
>
>
>
>Jerry Mathis
>Clear Channel Radio, Tupelo & Meridian MS
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: "cldube" <cld at admin.umass.edu>
>>Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>>To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>>Subject: [BC] Watch your blogging- folks
>>Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:51:38 -0500
>>
>>
>>Annoying + anonymity = jail time.
>>
>>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
>>
>>Perhaps this will extend to callers expressing opinions on talk shows 
>>having to give their full identity- something more
>>than "Bill on his cellphone, hello!".
>>
>>While children collect old cellphones to raise money to buy phone cards 
>>so soldiers can afford to call home, our congress
>>obviously is grappling with more important issues.
>>
>>Chuck (legally "Charles") Dube
>>Amherst, MA
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/