Freedom of Speech vs. Right to Privacy

Here's an article that sheds some light on European values as they pertain to racism and hate crimes vs. freedom of speech.

Hans-Gertz Lange said of the United States, "Their concept of freedom of speech is tied up with their history; our laws against incitement to racial hatred are tied up with ours." And so in Germany, hate laws trump freedom of speech and Neo-Nazi propaganda is illegal.

What's right?

How do you pose the question of freedom of speech vs. the right to privacy? Because those are two hot topics tied into the fabric of American society that are at odds with one another.

If Freedom of Speech were to battle Right to Privacy in a Celebrity Deathmatch, who would win?

In the United States, contrary to popular belief, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say anything you goddamn want to. Because behind every word there are potential repercussions. In the case of libel for example.

Or, in the case where there is an invasion of privacy.

Do you have the right to expose hundreds of people's contact information? Or worse yet, should you be able to post credit card information on the Web?

On one hand, I am all for private communication, and I think Greg Knaus is probably right in assuming that Carnivore, the FBI's wiretap on the Net, will end up providing the impetus for high-quality encryption (finally), effectively rendering Carnivore useless.

On the other hand, how much is too much? Do we really want our military secrets posted to the Net without any way to take them down? DeCSS proved that creative people can sidestep the ruling passed by the courts, but you wouldn't have to have the creativity of a slug to use a system like Freenet.

Freenet is P2P. Freenet is free. Freenet's encryption and the inability of a node to know what it's storing means content, once posted, cannot be taken down. Not without taking down the Internet.

It sounds cool. It sounds like a huge win for Freedom of Speech advocates. It sounds like a few brave, dedicated individuals are battling against the slow loss of our rights online. It also sounds like a privacy problem.

Where is the accountability? Because without accountability, people's actions will less likely be tempered with the thoughtfulness (the Golden Rule) necessary for us, the citizens of the Web, to all get along.

Nobody takes their freedom of speech more seriously...

than I.

I would like to say freely that, danchan, I'm impressed with all the fantastic work you've done on danchan.com (where u get all those cool fonts?). Now that I have a computer freely at my disposal again, I shall now reign once more in the supreme realm of endless retarded comments that could only serve its noble purpose right here, right now, on danchan.com!

A Shetland sheep dog on amphetamines...

...is what the National Association of Broadcasters would be if politics and culture were prize winning mutton.

Ok, ok, so this comment doesn't directly apply to the main story, but it does concern freedom of speech and I just had to rant about it somewhere!

Has anyone else been following the FCC's low-power FM radio station project? If you haven't heard about it, the FCC was planning to issue affordable licenses for low-powered FM broadcasting to churches, schools, and other small community organizations (read: Real people. Not millionaires.) Thousands of people applied, and apparently that's when the trouble started. The National Association of Broadcasters (the big boys of the broadcasting world) didn't take kindly to the idea of all the potential competition that they would be facing if the project succeeded and promptly flexed their political muscle to get a ridiculous provision passed by Congress that will basically force these tiny stations to live up to the same technical standards and regulations as the huge multi-million dollar goliaths do. What this means is that maybe - just maybe - a few upstarts in uncharted cow towns with populations of 15 just might see the light of day. And even that's a long shot. (No offense intended to anyone who lives in a small rural community, but the point I'm trying to make is that the only reason these stations might be allowed is that they would not be seen as a threat to ratings in any major market!)

The argument that was used to mask the truth and get the provision passed? Signal interference!<?B> That's right, even though the FCC has conducted numerous engineering tests proving that the low-power stations would be at the very worst a negligible threat to any major stations' signal AND even though any low-power stations causing an interference issue would be contractually obligated to either remedy it or stop broadcasting, Congress still granted the provision!

The influence of big business on the media is disgustingly omnipresent. As a fan of - let's just call it predominately non "Top 40" music - it saddens me to see such a blow to freedom of expression. Maybe I'm a music snob, but somehow I don't think I'm alone in that given a choice I'd rather not hear the same 5 songs all day long on the radio for weeks on end until eventually, against my will, I feel myself starting to sort of like them because they're not that bad.

I have some friends who were very excited about going "legit" since they have run underground stations in the past that have been shut down by authorities, and to many people like them this whole thing is a huge blow to everything that they've worked for.

Futhermore, when you look at the political aspect of all this, it's downright terrifying! The mass media already has the power to control elections (as we've witnessed) and now it appears that they will also be able to decide in the future which opinions get to be heard! Another part of the aforementioned provision that I haven't even touched upon is that it will make it easier for organizations such as National Public Radio to deny free air time to candidates that they don't support with no penalty at all. If that doesn't bother you, then congratulations, you're even more nihilistic than me!

If it does bother you, then you can read more about it here (you may have to log in to the site to get to the article...)

Whoops!

Sorry about all that bold...I put a "?" where I needed a "/"!! Doh!

There isn't a way to edit comments is there?

How much would a bionicroach cost?

If the bionicman is 3 million?

Why not put your little radio station on the web and be freed from regulations? Then people who wish to get rid of big business influences can all buy IBM modems and log onto Microsoft network for their daily dose of freedom media.

Don't Cheat Steve Austin!!

Are you an auto insurance claims adjustor? ;) I believe that Col. Steve Austin (aka Lee Majors) originally cost $6 Million! Of course, after all these years, his Kelly Blue Book value has no doubt depreciated considerably, but since he is one of a kind and looks to be in excellent condition, surely he hasn't lost 50%!

The bionic roach, on the other hand, is cheaply manufactured from Kathie Lee sweat shop byproducts and although technically "handcrafted" its design focus is firmly on quantity, not quality and thus can be had for only 59¢! (Ages 4 and up. Batteries not included. Local sales taxes may be applicable.)

Seriously, though, streaming music on the web is certainly a viable option and (pertaining to my interest) there are some very cool music sites out there - the problem is, though, as widespread as the internet is, there is still a huge chunk of the population that either doesn't like computers or can't afford a computer and would be left out. (By left out, I don't mean that this subset of people would necessarily like or dislike the programming that small organizations had to offer, but they wouldn't freely have the choice to decide if they did or not.) For example, I don't know many elderly folks who enjoy surfing the net, but there are tons of seniors who listen to talk radio. Maybe somebody has some great ideas for radio programs that seniors might appreciate, but no way to air them. Another ironic thing where I live is that high-speed internet service is readily available in many of the low income parts of town, where most people don't use it since they have higher financial priorities but in the affluent suburbs clustered around the business parks that house most of the "tech" jobs, no one can get DSL because all the phone lines are fiber optic. The bottom line is that the internet is still not as readily available as radio and TV, and to bar the public from the right to broadcast over the air waves seems to be somewhat of a violation of freedom of speech. Sure anyone can say whatever they want, but why should only certain people be allowed to say it louder?

And to clarify, I'm certainly not a person who wishes to get rid of big business. I wouldn't have a job (or at least, probably not as good a job) without Microsoft. I just think it's a little scary when big business and politics start to intertwine...

I'm gonna start saving up...

for my own bionicroach, maybe I'll save up for two in case I accidentally step on one. Does it fly like the roaches of my childhood memory?

They say on TV the bionicman costs $6 million but that's retail including labor. The hard cost of a bionicman excluding the man can be had for $3 million. Still way out of poor people's price range to keep him safe from them, just as high-speed internet access will continue to be expensive so we can keep the pyramid intact by feeding low income citizens news and music that will instill the right kind of fear and consumption into them.

Aren't big businesses always tied to politics anyway? The Opium War didn't exactly start because people couldn't get along politically. It's not neccessary a bad thing, big businesses are big because they have proven to be an asset to human progression and they are thus handsomely rewarded for it. Whether or not it's a positive node to biped evolution, you only have the general population to blame for that.