Thoughts on Free Speech: 2007
It's 2007 and while personal conversations are still the preferred way of communication, the internet is how we 'chat'. Think about how many emails, text messages and IM chats you have in a day, week or year.
In the Era of the Patriot Act there seems to be a fervent clampdown on any information that moral or corporate entities deem as dangerous. Doesn't matter if it's truth, lies, facts, opinions or CONSPIRACY. If someone with enough money or political power doesn't like a particular opinon, any red blooded American can seemingly squash any person's voice that they personally deem as unsightly or immoral.
There is an individual threatening Nebraska Independent Film Projects with legal action.
Trust me, I love a good Scooby Doo mystery as much as the next person, but sometimes the journalist and optimist in me wonders if most divorces, fistfights and crusades could be avoided with a little flat-out honesty. Words are powerful things, but ideas can't be erased with a court order or presidential decree.
What is the real story here?
Is this all just a misunderstanding or a truly newsworthy bit of journalism?
Is this an occasion to push the envelope when giving in and CENSORING OURSELVES could make a difference in people's lives? Or in this case, is dignified retreat a sane and rational calculation as a casual nonprofit organization?
My gut says: YOU CAN NEVER CENSOR ME!
My brain says: Free Speech exists on the Internet here in 2007.
My journalistic side says: None of this adds up. Need more info.
Fuck the Patriot Act. What is the REAL STORY?
NIFP QUESTIONS:
Posted by:
Rhett McClure, Moderate,
American Taxpaying Citizen
4-3-2007 7:29PM Lincoln, Nebraska, United States of America
WHAT DO YOU THINK? POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW!
This is great original work,
This is great original work, soed hardy
ed hardy clothing
ralph lauren polo
juicy couture please keep us posted.
We are the sum of our actions.
What can people expect when the only public record of them is 'negative pr' on google? It seems their lawers should be going after those people instead of someone referencing those sources. Don't kill the messenger.
Don't fall for their empty threats
Libel - a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person
Rhett made no false or malicious claims, he stated that he could not confirm anything and offered that individuals do their own homework and make a decision. The advice to do your research before getting into a business deal with anyone is sound general advice.
Conclusion - In business we throw out lawyers names and legal babble all the time in an effort to intimidate others into doing what we want, especially when we know we don't really have a foot to stand on in court. There is no validity in their claims so don't fall for it.
PS. For $100 I too can get a lawyer to sign this post but that doesn't make it any more or less legitimate, it just means that Steve is $100 richer.