John Young reports:
> The judge ruled that publication of the names and addresses of
> the cops and their families is protected by the First Amendment.
I'm really torn on this. As you no doubt know, there are numerous Network
Vigilantes who would publish my personal information instantly if they
could get their hands on it, with the intent of inciting harrassment,
illegal acts, and intimidating me into not exercising my First Amendment
right to laugh loudly at the Right Wing Sex and Censorship Nazis.
Of course I can sue. But that's a giant waste of my time, and unless I
sustain at least five figure damages as a result of their actions, it's
not really worth picking up the phone to call the lawyer.
The Internet has really changed the arena of dissemination of personal
information. First, it takes a trivial amount of effort to instantly
publish personal information to everyone in the world, along with
unsubstiantiated anonymous allegations about someone's character, in a
medium where the world's worst crackpot may have a Web page
indistinguishable in quality from that of the New York Times, and just as
likely to pop up on a Web search.
Second, the long held notion that the government may not maintain files on
how citizens choose to exercise their Constitutional rights, unless the
files are part of a legitimate criminal investigation, is being made a
mockery of when vigilante pressure groups offer LEAs electronic access to
their databases of anonymous accusations, half-truths, wishful thinking,
and personal information. Since the LEAs are not maintaining these files
on citizens themselves, no laws are violated.
When everything gets linked up, any flatfoot in any jerkwater town will be
able to look at the Echols database, the CPAC database, the PETA database,
the Eco-Terrorist Database, or any of many other sources of information
from the comfort of his copcar terminal, to see who the bored housewives
and self-loathing homosexuals of the world have this week accused of
molesting children, kicking dogs, cutting giant redwoods, or not accepting
Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
So what we really have evolved here is the Soviet-style virtual
neighborhood, with the nosey woman on every block, reporting back to the
higher-ups in the Party on everyones political leanings and loyalty, to be
added to their Party files, implemented in a distributed fashion via IP.
This aspect of the Net has now overwhelmed the "Worldwide Conversation" on
every conceivable topic which the Net originally enabled. I know few
people today who would take a politically incorrect position on any
controversial topic from a real name account, lest the Virtual Vigilantes
and other do-gooders of the world decide to screw with them, their
families, their jobs, their landlords, and their bank accounts.
With the Christian Coalition living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now, you
can bet a lot of these pressure groups are going to get mainstreamed, and
people like Ashcroft are going to happily do business with them to
identify the heretical and unsaved for "Special Processing."
I really don't want to see a world with no First Amendment, nor one in
which nothing controversial can be said without going through a big chain
of anonymous remailers. It will be interesting to see how and if
technology solves this problem of everything people say being said to
everyone in the world, and being available forever for everyone in the
world to refer to, even as political context and what people find
acceptable undergoes radical change.
"Let a thousand poppies bloom today." --Mao
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
