[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<usa-specific>
Yep, it is amazing how so many seemingly intelligent people here is the
U.S. confuse the fact the First Amendment right can only be abrigded by
the legislature -- Congress cannot pass even one law that in any way,
shape, or form limits the power of any person or body to speak or to
publish.
simply does not apply in this case...
To determine if someting is running against the 1st Amendment, just ask
yourself:
- did Congress make the law?
(hmmm... McCain-Feingold...)
</usa-specific>
-Rob
Joshua Allen wrote:
>>Here's a pretty good example of how it all goes wrong
>>even when humans are making the selections:
>>
>>http://www.perrspectives.com/
>>
>>
>
>Well, it's certainly a source of consternation for people who want
>clear, unambiguous guidelines.
>
>But I think it's a bit histrionic to say "chilling effect on free
>speech". Adwords are already an exclusive club, by virtue of costing
>money. And Google is a private enterprise, with no obligation to
>present "fair and balanced" at all. They aren't bound by 1st amendment
>(the same goes for newspapers). They could run "all conservative all
>the time", if they wanted. "Perrspectives" is not automatically
>*entitled* to a place in Google adwords, and they should be grateful to
>Google for even creating such a venue and giving them a berth.
>
>I also think the focus on adwords misses the point. The search engine
>itself does not discriminate against sites like the "perrspectives".
>The mere existence of Google makes the unique voice of "perrspectives"
>immensely more accessible and discoverable than it would have been
>without Google. That fact alone should negate any silly "free speech"
>complaints, since Google has been a fantastic enabler of "free speech",
>particularly for fringe or relatively unknown sites like this.
>
>Second is that Google is so engaged in the editorial process when
>complaints come up, and apparently is trying to do the right thing.
>Anyone who has ever written to newspaper ombudsman to get no response,
>should feel encouraged that Google in this case responded to even a
>small, relatively insignificant site like this with such genuine
>concern.
>
>It always annoys me when people try to imply 1st amendment to places it
>clearly doesn't apply. The whole thing seems a bit absurd, since
>"perrspectives" would fiercely defend their own right to carry a biased
>view and shut out voices that it deems too "conservative". When a
>newspaper with such overt bias is jumping up and down complaining about
>their inability to get space in a private venue which *does* attempt to
>be fair and balanced, I have little sympathy. Pot calling the kettle
>black and all of that...
>
>Having said that, I agree that the general issue is important with any
>public KR database. I personally think it's an issue if "consider the
>source", and should be standard for any thinking adult. If anyone
>believes that their sources of information *today* are unbiased, they
>need to correct their own expectations, rather than project those
>expectations onto the semantic web.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
>
|
