Freie Rede, Aggroblogging und Kathy Sierra
Posted by Oliver Gassner • Tuesday, March 27. 2007
Kathy Sierra dokumetiert die frauenfeindlichen und sexuell-aggressiven Morddrohungen gegen sie: Creating Passionate Users: Death threats against bloggers are NOT "protected speech" (why I cancelled my ETech presentations) und sagt alle öffentlichen Auftritte ab.
Robert Scoble geht in eine einwöchige Blogpause, da auch seine Frau bedroht wird - und fprdert in deiser Zeit zu einer öffentlichen Diskussion darüber auf, wie mit solchen Angriffen umzugehen sei.
Ross Mayfield macht sich generelle Gedanken über Redefreiheit und individuelle Sicherheit und die Relevanz der Anonymität..
via: Heuer
Ausgehend von Ross' Überlegungen: und wegen der Trackbacks auf Englisch):
***
Free spech is a consequence of the age of enlightenment, which put reason and argumentation before violence and control. If you use free speech for attacks of this kind, they are no better than a wielded weapon that is used without cause, without reason. You cannot have free speech as a medium for hate and violence (which is why some European states put limits to free speech if e.g. racism or revisionism of the holocaust is concerned).
Sometimes words are weapons and have to be treated the same way, and I am shocked to read in the comments at the Scobelizer, that 'living in Texas' (and having the right to wear concealed weapons) is the right way to react to death threads of this kind.
'Aggressive Blogging' is also a trend in Germany and some people collect their traffic this way: by deriding other people (instead of citizising them in a civilized way), by calling them names, calling them 'my enemies' and both using sexual and miltary language to speak about them. Or by using imagery like 'sitting on the bank of river waitng for the bodies of my enemies to float downstream' or using phrases like 'I would have stopped the attack against company XY if they had given me the head of ...'.
Those bloggers are mimicked by others and there is a shift of non-argumentation' that is slowly poisoning the 'dialogue' - because it is no longer a 'discourse among enlightened people'.
It is OK to critizise, but if definitely needs to be done in a way that respects others opinions and lives and psyches.
And it is not coincidental that the first sentence of the netiquette reads: "Never forget that the person on the other side is human."
Robert Scoble geht in eine einwöchige Blogpause, da auch seine Frau bedroht wird - und fprdert in deiser Zeit zu einer öffentlichen Diskussion darüber auf, wie mit solchen Angriffen umzugehen sei.
Ross Mayfield macht sich generelle Gedanken über Redefreiheit und individuelle Sicherheit und die Relevanz der Anonymität..
via: Heuer
Ausgehend von Ross' Überlegungen: und wegen der Trackbacks auf Englisch):
***
Free spech is a consequence of the age of enlightenment, which put reason and argumentation before violence and control. If you use free speech for attacks of this kind, they are no better than a wielded weapon that is used without cause, without reason. You cannot have free speech as a medium for hate and violence (which is why some European states put limits to free speech if e.g. racism or revisionism of the holocaust is concerned).
Sometimes words are weapons and have to be treated the same way, and I am shocked to read in the comments at the Scobelizer, that 'living in Texas' (and having the right to wear concealed weapons) is the right way to react to death threads of this kind.
'Aggressive Blogging' is also a trend in Germany and some people collect their traffic this way: by deriding other people (instead of citizising them in a civilized way), by calling them names, calling them 'my enemies' and both using sexual and miltary language to speak about them. Or by using imagery like 'sitting on the bank of river waitng for the bodies of my enemies to float downstream' or using phrases like 'I would have stopped the attack against company XY if they had given me the head of ...'.
Those bloggers are mimicked by others and there is a shift of non-argumentation' that is slowly poisoning the 'dialogue' - because it is no longer a 'discourse among enlightened people'.
It is OK to critizise, but if definitely needs to be done in a way that respects others opinions and lives and psyches.
And it is not coincidental that the first sentence of the netiquette reads: "Never forget that the person on the other side is human."
