Bloggers a public menace?
The European Parliament has been debating on whether weblogs are good or bad:
This is so classic rhetorics... Equating child pornography and weblogs? Saying that bloggers don't have to worry about libel laws? (Then why has Jani of Mummila a court date set for his libel suit? The libel and criminal laws work on the internet as well as on paper.) Stating that bloggers throw out democratic norms and standards? Hell-o? What could be more democratic than the fact that all people can finally have an equal voice on the internet?
What freedom is it when people are allowed to say whatever they want, as long as it conforms to standards?
What is it about freedom that scares the high officials?
Have they done something wrong - something they do not wish to be uncovered?
Or is it just that the cheerful anarchy of the blogosphere hurts their aesthetic eye for law and order?
"People have little time and want to be reasonably confident that the sites they visit are reliable, whereas a lot of weblogs are tripe", said White. Considering that 90% of weblogs are about the daily life of the common person, does that mean that Mr. General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists thinks that the life of a common person is tripe? Perhaps people should not be allowed to write about their own life, because they are not experts and trained journalists? I mean, someone might actually mistake that for a real life?
What a dumb and horribly condescending thought.
(Thanks to Janne for the link.)
Back to weblog
|"Main_blogentry_151205_1" last changed on 15-Dec-2005 10:50:31 EET by JanneJalkanen.|