Skip to main content

Free Speech in the Digital Age

A comment I left on Blackfive.net in relation to the USMC caving to CAIR concerning Hadji Girl.


I think that it's time that we find a solution to the confusion between formal and informal speech caused by new technologies. Well, not so new but we still haven't adjusted.

Everything can be recorded with riddiculous ease and kept forever and distributed world wide. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Those of us who have participated on usenet news have a written history that goes back for years and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has set things to electrons that would make it difficult to win public office... in fact, I remember writing once "well, here goes my chances of ever getting elected to anything." (Though I forget what I said afterward) And while some of us were early adopters of the evils of the internets (*who* decided that was plural?) my children's generation practically lives in the electrons.

MySpace anyone?

Blogs?

The difference between informal and formal speech is no longer related to what is recorded and distributed or how widely. The speech given by a President (for instance, the President of Iran) in a formal setting is no more easily availble to every person in the world as is the song sung by an individual enlisted Marine. In an earlier time the presidential speech would be recorded by journalists and the song, even if recorded, would only be seen by a handful of people on home-movie night.

Common sense insists that the speech by whathisface in Iran and the speech by an enlisted Marine are not the same.

Are we going to figure this out or do we have to wait until my kids are adults and the absolute preponderance of damning electronic records finally forces people to adopt a social convention of ignoring what is obviously informal speech?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...