In response to Jim's post about religious speech in other nations, both
Stephen Black and Paul Smith posted news clips about the issue of an
anti-abortion site that posted names and addresses of physicians willing
to perform abortions, with the intent of encouraging others to harass,
intimidate, and/or publicly identify these men and women.
While the case is an important one Constitutionally, it really doesn't
address the same issues as those dealing with religious speech. In
particular, a very real argument can be made that any censorship of the
site would not be to stifle the speech of the web site owner, but rather
to protect the privacy and safety of the named physicians. If the names
and photos were eliminated, despite the deliberately shocking photos and
inflammatory text, there is nothing else on the site that would justify
actually closing it down legally.
In some ways it may remain a free-speech issue, but in many ways it
addresses a much more contemporary problem, that of the right of privacy
versus the information technology that allows very wide dissemination of
private information. Given the way the Internet "harvests" marketing data
(and other information most people aren't aware is even available), that's
a very real and difficult issue in our society, but one having relatively
little to do with freedom of speech. Simply put; you have the right to say
what you wish about my ideas, words, or values--that's freedom of speech.
You do NOT, however, have the right to invade my privacy by posting my
address, name, phone number or any other identifying information about me
in a public place ("For a good time call Rick at . . . ")--that isn't the
exercise of free speech, it's an invasion of my privacy. Public figures
(i.e., congresscritters, etc.) may be named and identified--they have
_voluntarily_ agreed to such identification by entering the public
arena--but private citizens (and certainly physicians are private
citizens, not public figures) have not done so. While the court case may
be important, it won't be because it places unfair limitations on free
speech as much of the media would argue, but rather because it places
limits on the material that can be legally disseminated on the Internet,
something of more concern to businesses than to libertarians.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
