Why Not Apply A Three Strikes Rule To Everything?

from the watch-the-accusations-fly... dept

Back when the entertainment industry first got serious about pushing its silly three strikes concept, we were among those who wondered if the entertainment industry would accept a reverse three strikes rule, meaning that if they send three bogus accusations, they lose their own internet access.

However, leave it to Ed Felten to demonstrate just how ridiculous any sort of three strikes policy is -- especially one based on accusations, rather than convictions -- by suggesting that we extend a three strikes rule to print as well, noting that the reasoning behind the internet three strikes rules seem to also apply to print:

My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print.

As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year.

A few naysayers may argue that print bans might be hard to enforce, and that banning communication based on mere accusations of wrongdoing raises some minor issues of due process and free speech. But if those issues don't trouble us in the Internet setting, why should they trouble us here?

Yes, if banned from using print, some students will be unable to do their school work, some adults will face minor inconvenience in their daily lives, and a few troublemakers will not be allowed to participate in -- or even listen to -- political debate. Maybe they'll think more carefully the next time, before allowing themselves to be accused of copyright infringement.

In short, a three-strikes system is just as good an idea for print as it is for the Internet. Which country will be the first to adopt it?

It seems like anyone who thinks three strikes rules are a smart idea should be required to (a) read this and (b) explain why it shouldn't apply to print.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Modest Proposal: Don't Try To Censor Students Who Have This Thing We Call The Internet

from the only-positive-stories-around-here... dept

Way back when I was in high school, I wrote for the school newspaper, and occasionally we had some problems with either the paper's "advisors" or the administration not liking something that went into the paper. While we were able to get plenty of stuff published, there were occasional arguments. The best we could do at the time was complain -- and eventually some of us started a non-school-sanctioned paper to allow us to be more free. That, of course, was in the days before the internet was widely available. These days, things work quite differently. Romenesko points us to the somewhat ridiculous story of a principal confiscating the school newspaper and demanding that the students write more "positive and uplifting stories" after he freaked out about a student's attempt to mimic one of the most famous pieces of satire: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Apparently, the principal didn't get the satire of the piece, which proposed executing all of those who score in the bottom 25% on an IQ test. Of course, in censoring the paper, the immediate response is pretty much what should be expected these days. The editor of the paper resigned and posted the whole ordeal to Facebook, where it spread quickly, not only making the principal a laughingstock for not recognizing a clear homage to Swift, but it gave the actual column much more attention -- even to the point that the major newspaper in Atlanta, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, republished the student's modest proposal within its own pages. Now that's a positive and uplifting story.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..