Political Rantings
Rights & Privileges
Friday, June 24th, 2005Yahoo has shut down their chat rooms due to complaints from some of their advertisers that they were being used for promote sex with minors. Privacy advocates have jumped all over it:
“This is a real overreaction on the part of Yahoo,” Annalee Newitz, policy analyst for the EFF, said. “To just unilaterally shut down chat rooms is really chilling to free speech.”
I wonder how, exactly, not having access to Yahoo chat rooms limits your right to free speech. Yahoo is a corporation providing a service, not a public utility. If they choose to stop offering that service (for whatever reason), don’t they have the right to do that? Or are Yahoo chat rooms now essential to our right to express ourselves? Were we living in a fascist state before Yahoo was created and just didn’t know it? What about the hundreds of other chat room services that still exist on the Internet? Don’t they take up the slack?
Many folks, particularly those who have branded themselves “professional advocates,” seem very willing to blur the line between rights and privileges. A right is guaranteed by law and cannot be taken away without prosecution (or at the very least, public outcry). A privilege is guaranteed only by a contract between two parties (express or implied) and can be taken away based on the terms of that contract. When you use Yahoo’s services, you agree to a “Terms of Service” contract. You are granted the privilege of using Yahoo’s service (in this case, free of charge) in exchange for granting them the privilege of showing you their advertisers’ messages. Yahoo takes a risk that everyone will suddenly stop using the service and they’ll have to return their advertisers money. You take a risk that Yahoo will decide to get out of the chat room business, leaving you with no place to discuss Tom Cruise’s love life (sorry, cheap shot).
We have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to Yahoo Chat Rooms. Claiming that we do only decreases the signal-to-noise ratio in this area, making it less likely that an actual rights violation will be taken seriously.
UPDATE: Other advocacy groups are praising Yahoo’s decision:
“The specific reason for the closure not withstanding, this is a positive a step in the online fight against child exploitation,” said Michelle Collins, director of the exploited children unit at The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, based in Alexandria, Va.
Ms. Collins makes a good point. I wonder which Ms. Newitz of the EFF (see above) would consider more important: chilling the right to free speech or preventing child exploitation? Tough call, I guess, especially when you make your living defending free speech…
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Rights & Privileges
Laura weighs in…
Friday, May 20th, 2005Laura Bush agrees with me.
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Laura weighs in…
Rule #1 – Somebody Tell George
Friday, May 13th, 2005One of my biggest pet peeves is government officials telling us something that isn’t true with a straight face, and fully expecting us to believe it:
White House defends not telling Bush of scare – Yahoo! News
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Secret Service followed proper procedures and did not need to tell Bush immediately about the incident because the president was not in danger and the situation was defused in a matter of minutes.
Mr. McClellan: The president wasn’t in danger because the Cessna that was 3 miles from the White House wasn’t carrying a dirty bomb, or crop dusting equipment filled with anthrax, or a pilot with a death wish.
I realize that in a crisis, the President doesn’t sit in the oval office with a headset on, directing the precise movements of everyone under his command. I realize that had he been informed, he likely wouldn’t have done anything in particular. And I realize that the people who’s job it is to actually deal with this type of situation did so in exactly the right manner.
All of this is very reassuring, but for the fact that this obviously could have turned into something that required the President’s direction in a moment’s notice. And if that happened, these 40 minutes would have been tacked right on the end of the first 7 minutes of the September 11th disaster, when Bush portrayed confidence to the news media rather than running off to a command post to watch TV like the rest of us…
I know he’d never slam one of his own in public, but I’m hoping that privately, Bush is extremely pissed off, and whoever made the decision to keep him in the dark is looking for a job right now.
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Rule #1 – Somebody Tell George
Gary Hart on Iraq
Tuesday, May 10th, 2005Gary Hart – IRAQ: Exit or Empire?
Though the press has been unaccountably lax in pursuing this question, the best evidence, mostly from non-“mainstream” sources, is that we are building somewhere between 12 and 14 permanent military bases.
If the goal . . . was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don’t.
Interesting theory, senator. Are you suggesting, then, that we did not spread democracy and freedom in Germany, South Korea, or Bosnia? After all, we still have troops in all of those places.
Once Iraq is on its feet & functioning as a independent nation, they will likely be a strong ally of the United States. Many, including, I presume, Senator Hart, will see this as American puppeteering. I see it as a reasonable expectation on our part. And having some small number of American troops in that very volatile and strategic part of the world is not only in our best interests, but it is not mutually exclusive with spreading democracy and freedom in Iraq.
Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »