Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Speech, Privacy and Technology

"The ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology (SPT) is dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology. The project is currently working on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists’ rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts."
In case there is anyone out there that doesn't realize this already, everything I write on this blog is my own constitutionally protected opinion. Such a simple statement,but some people occasionally get confused. “Is he speaking for Moultonboro or for himself?” I speak for myself alone. My words, my ideas, my opinions, agree or disagree are all just me. 
 The explosion of blogs and social media along with instant publishing power and the availability of many different devices to instantly access them, has changed the landscape of expressing ones opinion. 
What it does not do is change the freedom to express myself publicly, without censorship or prior restraint. 
The ACLU continues to champion freedom of expression in its many forms in the face of new threats to free speech.
"The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendment’s protections remain robust—in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn't use the law to stifle legitimate free expression."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

You go blogger! More are with you than are against you. Many more.

Duck Hunter said...

Keep up the good work Blogger.
It's informative and very interesting the way
you explain these things.
Right on with you.

Anonymous said...

Free speech is not an excuse to defame or libel. NY Times v. Sullivan is still good law which, the BoS and its members' should review.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

According to Wikipedia: "After The New York Times prevailed in this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements. The Times maintained that the case against it was brought to intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal actions of public employees in the South as they attempted to continue to support segregation."
"Constitutional law scholar Herbert Wechsler successfully argued this case before the United States Supreme Court. Louis M. Loeb, a partner at the firm of Lord Day & Lord who served as chief counsel to the Times from 1948 to 1967,[7] was among the authors of the Times' brief. The court's ruling held that news publications could not be sued for libel by public figures unless the plaintiffs were able to establish actual malice in the false reporting of a news story. The case, which had been brought against the Times by Montgomery, Alabama public safety commissioner L.B. Sullivan, allowed newspapers to report on the widespread chaos and police abuse accompanying the Civil Rights Movement. Loeb later called the libel cases he argued for The New York Times "the heaviest responsibility I’ve ever had since I began practicing law."

Not an official... said...

"Issue. Is the Defendant liable for defamation for printing an advertisement, which criticized a public official’s official conduct?

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Sullivan (Plaintiff) sued the Defendant, the New York Times Co. (Defendant), for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south that defamed the Plaintiff.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

A public official suing a newspaper. Really!