« Examining Stephen Cherniske | Main | Investigating Oasis LifeSciences - Cure.All »
December 5, 2005
Monday Reader Mail: 64
By QBlog in Reader Mail
I love thought-provoking emails and today's Reader Mail doesn't disappoint.
name: Mat
date: December 2, 2005
message: If you truely support the first amendment show others this site
Obviously I support the First Amendment. My love of Free Speech is one of reasons I publish this blog. However, I also understand that one of the realities of Free Speech is the need to embrace all types of rhetoric — including acrimonious and offensive comments.
Attack Blogs
The Forbes article, "Attack of the Blogs," that Mat referenced examines some of the more unsavory characters in the Blogosphere. Reporter Daniel Lyons details the case of Gregory Halpern, CEO of Circle Group Holdings, and describes how his business suffered after being attacked by a masquerading blogger.
Then the bloggers attacked. A supposed crusading journalist launched an online campaign long on invective and wobbly on facts, posting articles on his Web log (blog) calling Halpern "deceitful," "unethical," "incredibly stupid" and "a pathological liar" who had misled investors. The author claimed to be Nick Tracy, a London writer who started his one-man "watchdog" Web site, our-street.com, to expose corporate fraud.
It turns out that Nick Tracy was really an Oregon man named Timothy Miles who is facing SEC charges. Halpern and his business appears to be the victim of an old-fashioned smear campaign of the worst kind.
Lyons goes on to explain how many bloggers routinely victimize corporations like CBS, Microsoft and IBM. He also points out that sites like Google (with their Blogger.com service) allow people to post blogs with virtually total anonymity, encouraging vitriolic content.
Google and other services operate with government-sanctioned impunity, protected from any liability for anything posted on the blogs they host. Thus they serve up vitriolic "content" without bearing any legal responsibility for ensuring it is fair or accurate; at times they even sell ads alongside the diatribes.
Are All Blogs Vitriolic?
But is the picture really as bleak as Lyons paints? He admits that "attack blogs are but a sliver of the rapidly expanding blogosphere" and he's absolutely right. Bloggers do a lot of good, investigative work (remember Dan Rather?) and blogs provide a valuable publication tool to those living in oppressive regimes (Iranian bloggers).
And consider "attack blogs" that share the truth. They're not all partisan muckrakers out to destroy (Wal-Mart Watch blog) but many are simply consumer advocates supporting change in business, government or industry. And there's this to consider, blogs that libel or lie aren't protected by the First Amendment. It may be difficult to track down the author of an anonymous blog but even Gregory Halpern tracked down Timothy Miles.
Don't Break The Law
Bloggers need to follow the law while exercising their First Amendment rights. The EFF provides some guidelines for bloggers who may not understand defamation. Blogging is quite possibly the most powerful publication method in history so don't abuse that power, especially when covering controversial topics.
Obviously there will always be a few bad apples but you don't have to be one of them. Be responsible. Be accountable. Don't break the law.
Comments
Blogs should most certainly NOT be regulated by the mafia, err I mean government (it smears the good name of the mafia to compare them to the government). I'm sure some overzealous power monger on capitol hill would love to use the example cited above to "enforce responsible discourse" on the internet which is doublespeak for "crack down on anything we don't like." Politicians like to use willing businesses to micromanage society, in exchange they offer the business or industry protection (tarrifs, regulations that cripple smaller more nimble competitors) and you can bet that if a blog rubs a protected business the wrong way jackbooted thugs will show up at the blogger's house.
Blogs are a necessity, the entire mainstream media whether "conservative" or "liberal" shares the same bias, they are pro-state, if there's a problem they say that the government is the answer, goodbye freedom, goodbye tax dollars. If some slown is out there spreading misinformation, he will not be listened to for long, he will have no credibility and the problem will solve itself. If he knowingly makes misleading statements, perhaps standards of civil liability could evolve, but for the sake of everything good and decent keep the government out!! Sorry for the paranoia, but when you've studied the history of the twentieth century and the terrors unleashed by empowered governments you will see that it is justified.
My upline used same logic. "There are lots of websites which criticize Islam. Would you quit Islam as well?".
And that’s faulty logic. No one does or quit any thing based on blogs or sites. Its the content that may give some information. Also, just like us human beings, every blog / website is different. With a different agenda, motive and message. Every thing on blogs does not become right or wrong just because it is on website.
With any free speech, you have to take the good with the bad. Otherwise, it isn't "free."
The one thing people must remember when it comes to free speech is, "The truth shall set you free." If you say/publish facts and or what you believe to be facts to the best of your knowledge, you can say whatever you want. However, if you say/publish out and out lies, you could and should be held libel (slander). And if what you say hurts somebody, don't be surprised if you get sued.
And I would challenge anyone here to find something that is a blatant lie. If you can't, then QBlog and everyone else posting here have nothing to worry about.
So is Mat insinuating that this is an attack blog?
I find it troubling when lies cause losses to people who are forthright and honest in legitimate businesses.
I find it to be advantageous to the everyday Joe to research and evaluate potential opportunities.
If you lie, or misrepresent, you should be held accountable, despite the fact that certain businesses (ahem) have yet to be truly held accountable for their practices, such as blatant googlebombing, non-disclosure of important facts, and unrealistic income claims.
In any event, a great post. One that everyone should pay attention to.
Posted by: rocket | December 6, 2005 2:22 AM