Comments on: The Bystander Effect, Part IV

By: mike

mike — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:11:13 +0000

You see Jerz’s right to free speech. I saw pattraw’s right to privacy. The law is on his side not hers. That’s the more troubling precident in my opinion. What is the difference now between Ryans blog and his email?

-m

By: bconrad

bconrad — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:06:30 +0000

Moreover, your point about the time and expertise needed to form an adequate judgment is horse shit. None of that didn’t stop you at the time from posting on Ryan’s blog your disagreement with his posting of a personal email from Terri Patraw. THAT wasn’t okay, but Terri’s harassment was?

Here’s your post, in case you forgot:

“Wolfy, Apr 30, 07:38 AM #:
“Dude,
“I don’t think you need a confidentiality note at the bottom of your email to expect that it’s private. Email is private, and if you post it w/o permission, you get the shaft, and you deserve it. If she’d wanted to comment publicly she could have. It’s not your call. I use email to quote people all the time. But I ask permission and give people a chance to reiterate for the record. Might not be legally required, but it seems like the decent thing to do.
“-M”

By: Wolfy

Wolfy — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:04:25 +0000

this is why it’s impossible to have a blog conversation with you guys. It’s like talking to a [sick]wall[sick].

-M

By: bconrad

bconrad — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:52:14 +0000

Wolfy: ...your assertion that local bloggers left Jerz high and dry is [sic] buggs [sic] me.

As it should. If anyone decides they don't like what you post enough to threaten you with legal action, I would hope friends and foes alike would stand up for you. To me it's an error to take free speech privileges for granted, regardless of the level of speech is assumed to be protected. Boundary pushers such as yourself appear to forget what it is that allows you to post such content in the first place. You in fact benefit from the precedent of others whether or not you appreciate it -- or can even see it in the first place.

By: Wolfy

Wolfy — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:22:35 +0000

The other thing you miss by indicting local bloggers is the wide criticism that bloggers post speciously and spuriously on such things. If bloggers felt their grasp of the issue and circumstance was insufficient to make a useful post on the matter I say it’s a good thing.

I don’t want to get into the debate about who was right or wrong, but your assertion that local bloggers left Jerz high and dry is buggs me. Jerz had to hire a lawyer to figure out what to do and what his rights were. The rest of us didn’t, and don’t have the ability to retain legal council to advise us on our reporting if we aren’t already experts. Between the two of you you’re linking to hundreds of hours of reading and research. That’s a lot to lay on a guy who posts about douche.

-M

By: links for 2009-05-13 | The Computer Vet Weblog

links for 2009-05-13 | The Computer Vet Weblog — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:00:40 +0000

[...] The Bystander Effect, Part IV | The Good, The Bad, The Spin [...]

By: bconrad

bconrad — Wed, 13 May 2009 04:47:52 +0000

It’s fairly common for people to assume free speech is meant for the kind of speech that they agree with. Champions of free speech — those addressed in this post — should especially defend against speech being attacked even if it not what they may personally believe in. That is actually a principle this country was founded upon and continues to be reinforced in formal rulings, despite how the DCMA is being abused.

Bloggers and journalists like to latch onto easily dissected free speech cases, but when they get mildly less black and white, suddenly it’s easy to back away from forming an opinion. The potential viral attraction dissipates. In other words, on principle there could’ve been outcry about this situation, but since it wasn’t as apparent who the villain was — Jake Highton chose to side against the University and thereby gave non-critical support to Terri Patraw — people remained silent.

I encourage the reading of Nat Hentoff’s book, Free Speech for Me–But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, which addresses this issue in depth — the too-common, convenient stance of selectively choosing which speech is worth defending; again, usually the speech we agree with.

My fault is my idealism of assuming free speech champions would actually pay attention to this situation — the fact that anyone who can’t afford an attorney to counter a take-down notice or threats of lawsuits in other states, apparently does not have guaranteed First Amendment rights. And the fact that it’s taking place in their own town. And countless people know it.

So, you are correct: I was dead wrong, and I continue to be.

By: Wolfy

Wolfy — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:37:02 +0000

You assume that bloggers actually supported his position. That’s a faulty assumption as a basis for your unilateral criticism.

-m

By: bconrad

bconrad — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:58:50 +0000

Thanks, Mike. Perhaps you could encourage Ryan to reinstate all of his posts about the Terri Patraw ordeal, so you can see exactly how it went down.

By: Mike McDowell

Mike McDowell — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:56:21 +0000

I actually didn’t know about all of that hoopla going on until well after the fact. It’s, of course, easy for me to now say that I would have advocated for Jerz if I had known. So, I won’t say that. But I will say that you raise a valid point, and I hope that the “blogger community” has been growing closer lately (thanks to some in-person events in the past months) and will rise to defend the freedoms of a fellow blogger in the future.