In the post before last, I briefly mentioned how bloggers are free to express opinions on news website forums. This is a form of communication, a usage of our free speech, and while people can be idiots about it sometimes, it is still a way for people to discuss the news.
Now, it appears that free speech is being limited on the internet as well.
Colorado's Channel 9 recently posted an article which described how a man was recently charged with a felony for a comment he posted on a news website.
Jeffrey Gargaro claims that he was exaggerating to make a point about the recent shooting in Washington that left six dead. Others in the forum were claiming that mental illness, a poor childhood, drugs, or lack of religion were the reason behind the rampage.
Gargaro apparently disagreed with the popular opinion, somewhat vehemently.
He wrote, "Also to all of you who blame drugs ... shut up as well. You know what, I am going to go shoot up Sunset Square today ... just for the hell of it. No drugs, no mental illness ... you can blame today’s episode on video games and George Bush's example of 'pay back' to society.”
Police say it was a threat. Gargaro's attorney claims that it's a freedom of speech issue.
"This was a computer news media blog. There's no rules and if you read these blogs, you'll see people make derogatory comments. These blogs are obviously notoriously bombastic,” said attorney Jeffrey Lustick. (source: 9News Article)
Wow. Just . . . wow.
Guys, I don't even know where to start with this one. First, I will waste no time saying that of course Gargaro was incredibly stupid to post something like that. He even specified a place, time, and weapon. Of course the police would react quickly.
But at the same time, I can see where Gargaro's attorney is coming from. On the internet, we all have a certain expectation of anonymity and freedom. We have been spoiled for years by screen names, the ability to move from site to site without having to see the repercussions of our actions, and frankly, the ability to say whatever we want. People are rude and crude virtually, and even the most well-mannered soul will often let their inner demons out when no one is around to see.
So if I had read Gargaro's comment, I wouldn't have thought twice about going to Sunset Square that day. I would have thought that it was one more person being an idiot online.
But should people have ultimate freedom of speech online? For years, the internet has been a symbol of the purest freedom--freedom to move where you want, freedom of information, and freedom of speech all included. The internet is where we can post the news that is important to us, and where we can discuss the news that we read or hear. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't we be able to say what we want?
Or should freedom be limited even on the internet? I'm not talking about cyberbullying here, people. I mean on legitimate websites, in forums or comments. None of this preteen drama, which is in a class of it's own.
So those are my questions for you: not only were the concerns of the police legitimate in Gargaro's comments, but is it legitimate to limit free speech at all? Even if people can't post comment anonymously? Is it really hurting anyone? And how does/will this affect blogging and forums discussions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I asked similiar questions in one of my last posts. Where the editor of my hometown paper came out and said he would not publish letters to the editor that could not be easily fact checked, or that attacked a candidate without endorsing another. I, like you, wondered if this imposed on freedom of speech, even though they were legitimate concerns. I guess I don't know. I think in my case it is up to the editor's discretion, and in your case it was up to police discretion - and possibly that of a jury if the case goes to trial....
I am not so sure that the police responding to what sounds like a legitimate threat would be limiting free speech at all. The thing about free speech is that that we can say what ever we want. The fact that he was able to post that comment not thinking of any consequences illustrates that point. in this case the police were right to track down an irresponsible comment. you yourself said you would have thought twice before going to the place he had threatened to start shooting. some comments like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater has real consequences that society as a whole needs to define appropriate or not. For the internet as a whole though I believe people should hold some rights to privacy. However, with the relative newness of the internet I think society as a whole is still trying to define what is ok and what is not.
It has been established in numerous court cases that speech is not absolutely free. There are laws against slander, disturbing the peace, creating unrest, etc. Such a post, if the police deem it a threat, is definitely subject to police action. However, the threshold for what we consider dangerous should be high, as to not revert to the old laws of the early 1900's where the government could arrest nearly anyone for teaching anything they thought may eventually lead to something resembling violence.
Good post. Keep them coming.
My thoughts are these:
What is the difference between being stupid, and being dangerous? Obviously the two often hold hands, but legalistically where is the line?
Also, I agree with Woolston in regards to a high threshold for what we consider dangerous. I am going to have to cite Michale Moore here and his movie "Bolwing for Columbine" in which he argues that US crime is so high, even when compared to other industrialized nations, is because we're such a defensive, jittery bunch. So I don't know if in this cases Gararo was out of line or not, but I do think that we have a low tolerance for threats and shall I say "mischief"--we're too paranoid and I think the media, and especially journalists (both amateurs and profesionals) take a huge hit for that.
Post a Comment