Saturday, June 9, 2012

Blogosphering In The First Amendment Realm

I've been reading a few online posts about the attack on and harassment of a handful of conservative bloggers over candid statements they made about and concerning an individual convicted of domestic terrorism some time back.

Seems there was some sort of lawsuit for "defamation of character" filed against these bloggers on behalf of the individual-in-question due to certain character assessments they made of him, followed by numerous court orders requiring said bloggers-in-question to abstain from further mentioning this individual in any of their future blogs.
...and that they disobeyed said court orders and found themselves facing potential prosecution and possibly the dissolution of their sites altogether.

Although I find this story quite interesting I was hoping, after reading the various posts on this subject as presented on numerous "conservative" web-sites and blog-sites (including that of syndicated-columnist-turned-blogger Michelle Malkin), that I might find more on this subject
...however, after engaging in a brief search engine quest all I was able to find after typing in "free speech blogging" was mostly sites describing the terms-of-agreement blog providers require of their users as a condition of having the privilege of using their services.
I was actually hoping for other sites on this subject not only giving an alternative viewpoint on the story-in-question, but also one which would describe in more detail just what events DID transpire to lead up to the dilemma-at-hand that has these conservative journalists and bloggers so up-in-arms and concerned about the possibility of our government taking measures which would eventually result in severe restrictions of our First Amendment rights when it comes to what kind of content one's allowed to produce and post on the internet.
Not to necessarily discredit the accounts made in the online articles by Ms. Malkin or any of her like-minded brethren, but I have a "personal policy" of always trying to get two-or-more perspectives on any one subject or subject matter before drawing any conclusions of my own on it---and, in this case, trying to find a "second opinion" on this one has been a bit forbidding, at least for me anyway.

Although I myself have no kind of partisan type leanings to any specific cause or organization, either socially or politically, the idea of a proposal of any kind of legal restrictions on how one expresses themselves online, or of what they may or may not be allowed to say or state online, still leaves me a bit unsettled---even if proven to be mostly hearsay.

It's just that I often tend to make statements or express ideas that many might consider "socially incorrect" or a bit "heretical"
...and that, although I understand there'll always be prejudices and dogmas in any given society, I still like to believe the notion that what I produce on this site has a certain degree of imperviousness to whatever is going down and going on in the world around me
...that this site can "hold it's own" and retain a certain degree of sovereignty---to exist in it's own right, so to say.

The idea that I could be legally extorted into making unwanted alterations to my own site because any one person or any one group found something I wrote "offensive" or "distasteful" reeks of...
...well---it's too much like what one ALREADY is forced to do all-too-often out in the world itself
...and I'm always hoping that my blog site---and even the internet itself---might be a refuge from all those "social mandates" that have always been forced down our throats by society all our lives.

No comments:

Post a Comment