bradmoreso 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (24) comment rss

  • On the post: Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline

    bradmoreso ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 04:00am

    re: I don't get it;

    Read the article. The buried lede is that the laws are outdated and some lawyers are exploiting the mismatch.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Teaches Wrong Lesson On Freedom Of The Press

    bradmoreso ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 09:11am

    re: Who Left That Banana Peel

    Of course! The common carrier scenario, where editing exposes the carrier to any liability for content.

    Kennedy has it backwards: Fact-checking is the responsiblity--and the right--of the publisher. Terms for speaking in public or giving an interview are generally negotiated up front, not afterward. With previous negotiation, once the words are spoken, they're fair game.

    The high school, and especially the student editor(s) are on the hook for allowing themselves to be intimidated by the title of a high office. We Americans tend to forget our rights in circumstances like this.

  • On the post: Prosecutors Claim 'Innocence Project' Journalism Students Paid Witnesses

    bradmoreso ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 09:04am

    re: Citizen journalists

    The big question is whether current or proposed shield laws would/could/should curtail the prosecutor(s). I'm pretty sure that student journalists aren't protected, and I'd be surprised to learn that they would be protected by the new laws under consideration.

  • On the post: No Network Neutrality, No Internet… And That's Just What Telcos Want

    bradmoreso ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2006 @ 09:56am

    Re: Re: No Subject Given

    It doesn't matter whether any Bush official--or anyone at all, for that matter--actually said these words. This is what it looks like they're doing. If you think the words have more cred because they can be traced back to a specific individual, you'd prefer not to think for yourself. It's obvious. Think of Microsoft refusing to cooperate with existing standards, and simply inventing their own standards b/c of their market share.

    Legally defensible and morally reprehensible.

    OTOH, if you discredit the words because you don't like the NYTimes, or because they can't be traced to someone specific (that you could also dislike/discredit), you think only for yourself. That is, you don't have room to consider other perspectives.

    Neither position is "wrong". Both have (IMHO) unacceptable trade-offs, though. Your Mileage May Vary, Based On Your Usage.