Posted by jane d on January 8, 2011, at 9:30:39
This is a reply to Scott's post which is here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/976075.html
Since Scott indicated a desire to have a discussion separate from the attacks on an individual I thought I'd reply to his post in a new thread. I really hope it does not get consolidated back into the original thread.
Scott. I appreciate the thought you put into your post. But I don't understand it all and I'd like to.
>Does anyone have the right to collect and publish information about another individual using any material found publicly on the Internet? No. However, this isn't about libel or kiddie porn. There is some serious debate over the Internet and its use as being subject to law. Is anything appearing on the Internet automatically copyrighted? These are interesting and materially important issues.Morally or legally? Legally the answer is almost certainly yes. Morally? That's harder. And on a practical level you can't really prevent information from being repeated once it's been made public in the first place.
>On Psycho-Babble, issues of privacy and anonymity predominate over those of legalities. For one to feel safe disclosing that they are mentally ill often depends on anonymity. I don't know whether or not there is a legal precedent to proscribe collecting words without publishing them. Let us assume for the moment that doing so is legal.
It is.
>Let us also assume that publishing this information is legal. Would it be desirable to discourage such behaviors when they arise on Psycho-Babble? Are acts of peer pressure desirable? Perhaps a more gentle general reminder of sorts can be issued by moderators from time to time within threads. It might even be included in the FAQs that privacy and anonymity is encouraged. I don't think it is imprudent to emphasize to the posting community the importance of privacy and why.
Are we talking here about posters choosing to identify themselves or to identify others? I don't think the latter has really been a problem. And while I respect the courage of those few posters who choose to post under their own names I do always worry about whether they have adequately considered the implications. It might be a good idea to emphasize it more strongly. I'd hate to see it go to the extremes of some boards where names, off board communication, and exchange of contact information is all prohibited. That may protect people's privacy more strongly but at too high a cost.
>I have a few questions that I feel are important to answer. I offered suggestions based upon my current judgments. I doubt they are written on stone tablets somewhere.
>1. Is it legal to collect and publish words that compromise the privacy and anonymity of an individual aside from libel?
I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean saving emails that are sent to you? Saving copies of posts you find particularly interesting? Reposting things on babble? Posting things on your blog? We have rules about posting babblemail I believe. Those are internal babble remedies not legal ones. I don't believe you have legal remedies and even if you did I doubt they'd be enforceable. If the US government can't shut down wikileaks what chance would an individual have?
>2. Is it desirable to discourage such behavior using the written word as a means aside from libel?
>3. Is it desirable to discourage such behavior using peer pressure as a means?
I think this already exists. But peer pressure is limited in effectiveness.
>4. Is it desirable that moderators sanction an individual with posting blocks for such behavior?
Do you mean should a poster who posts another posters real name on the board get blocked? If thats what you mean then I think they absolutely should! I have mixed feelings about some of the reasons for blocks but that's one reason I would have no problem with at all. (Of course I personally would probably have no problem with flogging as a response either.)
>5. Are posting blocks on a private website legal without sufficient due process?
>Libel and due process are genuine concerns when a poster or moderator accuses an individual of a behavior whether it be legal or illegal.
I don't understand what you mean here. Due process is a very specific set of rights protecting you from government action. You can have similar processes set out in contracts. You don't have a legal right to due process here. You might have a moral right but moral rights are determined by the person granting them. For instance if we were friends and I was accustomed to visiting your home regularly and I somehow offended you and was banned from your home as a result I might feel I had a moral right to be warned ahead of time and then to have an explanation of why you kicked me out. But if you don't feel I have that moral right I'm out of luck. My beliefs about my rights wouldn't matter. Even if all my friends agreed that I was right. Your view of my moral rights is the only one that would count.
>I think the bottom line is that it is desirable to suggest to the community that privacy and anonymity are important to maintain in order to maintain the health and safety of Psycho-Babble. Moderators should not suggest that, or accuse any individual of a particular act, even when the words submitted by the poster are clearly libelous. This isn't a court of law.
I don't understand this. You seem to be suggesting that moderators should act without any explanation. I don't see how that can work.
>The above suppositions indicate that posting blocks are undesirable, if not illegal.
Definitely not illegal. Always undesirable? No matter what? What about spammers? Posters who identify other posters by name? Extreme abuse focused on a specific poster? (To keep this general I'll stipulate that I'm not currently thinking of any post within the last year but we have had that kind of post.)
Jane
poster:jane d
thread:976183
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/976183.html