I wonder if his ‘jurisdiction’ extends to other countries.
He seems to think the net is just a local US phenomenon.
What an ignorant twat.
I had faith. He’s been working dilligently at it since his ratings climbed from worst to first. Now, he’s the Ordained Spokesman of Truth–in his mind.
Ahh, O’Reilly and his famous Talking Point Memos, in which his true colors are invariably revealed. Frankly, I’m surprised he even knows how people use the Internet (though, given his comments, perhaps he doesn’t know it all that well). Apparently, it’s just fine for him (a Big Celebrity, blingbling) to spout off about whatever and whoever he pleases, but when John Q. does it, it’s bad, BAD, VERY BAD!
Jerk.
I agree with O’Reilly. Though with the important qualification that I am not endorsing censorship. But I don’t see O’Reilly endorsing censorship either.
Essentially, the point is that the nature of the internet is such that the same rules that apply elsewhere allow for mass production of slander and libel etc. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the internet, which has a downside along with its obvious upside. This appears to be O’Reilly’s complaint, a point that seems to have been lost on the OP, Dewey, and any number of other posters.
What to do about it? I don’t know. It doesn’t appear that O’Reilly does either. But meanwhile it’s something to complain about, like so many other things. (Maybe he should have posted it here, as a Pit thread 
).
Allow me to rephrase your first two sentences: “Essentially, the point is that the nature of the printing press is such that the same rules that apply elsewhere allow for mass production of slander and libel etc. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the printing press, which has a downside along with its obvious upside.”
Blaming the delivery mechanism for these things is stupid. It’s like blaming the post office for the Unabomber.
And the whole TPM is just an incoherent mess. Good Lord, he’s upset over a piece in the San Fransisco Chronicle, so he decides to rant about…webloggers? Talk about nonsensical.
The mass production of libel and slander helps up the damages asked for. It’s a net benefit, IMO. 
And this from a man who pimps his website on every show.
That is also valid (though to a different extent). What is your point?
It is, to an extent. But the crucial point is that the Unabomber’s actions were rare enough and a small enough percentage of total packages delivered that they are insignificant in considering the post office as a whole. The same cannot be said of all the jive that floats around the internet.
Well everything can seem nonsensical if you ignore the point in favor of ranting. O’Reilly’s point is that same exact jive is different to deal with when it gets loose on the internet as it is when it is merely published. He is saying that it is a lot easier to deal with a false report published in one print source or in an identifiable number of print sources. But that once the story gets out into internet-land it becomes a lot harder to track down and destroy. This is a fact, as you well know. (This is also the main subject of his entire piece, as you apparently don’t know ).
Warning: longish and non-Pitlike.
I’m addressing elf6c’s link regarding a new proposal by the Council of Europe. I had a hard time believing this, but there is some truth in it. In order to combat ignorance, I shall have to dwell on it a little longer. Please ignore if you don’t need to know this.
The Council of Europe is an international organization of European states* that aims at promoting human rights and democracy. Its prime achievement is the Rome Treaty on Human Rights, which works as a kind of ‘European’ constitution, enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, thereby protecting basic human rights in a manner similar in the way the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution do. One of these rights is the right to free expression, hence my surprise at news that the Council would work against free expression.
The news refers to the Hearing on the right of reply in the on-line environment, which take place at this very moment (16-18 June). The Final Draft does indeed offer a right to reply that appears to extend even to bloggers and the SDMB.
Now please take a moment to see what this right involves. I’m quoting the core of the proposal.
So it only adds an obligation that if the subject wants to reply, he should be given the opportunity. There is no obligation to ask for a reply prior to posting the information. As far as I understand it at this moment, if O’Reilly could put a claim under this obligation and wanted to reply here on the SDMB to this thread, he could simply register and post his own viewpoint. The SDMB would thereby have fulfilled its obligation.
I should furthermore add that if the draft is accepted, it will not have force of law. It will be up to the member states to actually implement the proposal.
- ‘European’ in this sense is very loosely used; states like Azerbaijan and Armenia are members too (as of 2001). The Council of Europe is not connected to the European Union (though there are movements to get them to work closer together).
I find your lack of faith… disturbing.
Esprix
Sorry, but the courts disagree. They have found that ISPs are not liable for the actions of their posters. I don’t have the names for the cases, but this was the deal (maybe someone can provide the case): Someone posted an ad on the AOL message boards stating that a gentleman was selling “free Tim McVeigh” (or something) shirts shortly after the OKC bombing, and posted his actual phone number and address. He was flooded with threats, and AOL took down the post. He sued, and named AOL as a defendant, but the court found AOL not liable, because there was no way they or any other ISP could be reasonably expected to police every single thing on their board, just like the Post Office cannot check and make sure that every single piece of mail is just mail.
Now come on. What has more credibility–a sourced story in a well-known publication, or a speculative story found on the internet? And it’s not like the internet is the only place where lies or half-truths are spread.
My point is that Bill O’Reilly’s point was stupid. **
Spare me. At any given moment, I’d bet there is tons of illicit material – including child porn and libelous statements – sent via the U.S. mail. **
Please. He’s doing more than just saying “how unfortunate it is that news stories spread quickly on the Internet.” He describes web postings as “dangerous” and as a “threat to America.” And he’s implicitly saying that web posters have an obligation to check up on every major-media story they link to. Which is absurd.
(N.B.: the notion that poorly-researched stories are any more intractable due to the Internet is highly suspect. After all, plenty of people still actually believe George Bush Sr. was “amazed” at a common supermarket scanner in 1992. The grapevine doesn’t need an ISP to operate.) **
And it is also why his piece is exceptionally stupid, if that is his only point. It amounts to just venting about some unchangeable aspect of life he doesn’t like. Well, boo-hoo, Mr. O’Reilly, but why should I care, exactly?
I guess his next TPM will read “I really hate it when it rains on the weekend. Sure, it waters the plants and all, but it royally fucks up my tee times.”
Presumably O’Reilly thinks the situation on the internet can and should be changed somehow; otherwise, why use valuable program time to vent about it?
This does not have the slightest connection to anything I’ve posted.
True. But the sheer volume of junk out there on the internet is overwhelming. A determined discriminating reader can assess the credibility of internet sources with some degree of success, but the vast majority of people don’t fall into this category. This is what keeps Snopes et al in business, but for someone on the receiving end, it can get downright unpleasant.
I would bet there is not nearly that much. It is my impression that the government does in fact do its best to monitor child porn being spread through the internet, so the comparison is not valid there. And I don’t know if I’ve ever received libelous statements through the mail (unless maybe it was campaign literature ). Not even remotely approaching the magnitude of the internet.
Allowing for the usual amount of hyperbole I agree with both of these statements. (I don’t know if big corporations controlling a lot of the media is a “threat to America”, but if you allow the phrase in for that, I’ll let it in for the internet as well).
I disagree. If you link to some false and libelous story and make no attempt to check up on it, or publish a retraction if it turns out to be false, you are wrong. Of course there’s a limit to what is possible. But within reason, you should make an effort.
It doesn’t “need” it. But it operates a lot more with it. I know the amount of false information that has come my way - both in circulated e-mails and on websites - is magnified by about 100 as compared to the stuff I see elsewhere. I’m not sure if you are actually denying this, but if you are I am skeptical to say the least.
Well it is an emerging concern, unlike the weather which has been around forever.
I would guess O’Reilly would like to change it in some way. (So would I - I am opposed to the “public figure” exemption to libel laws.) But often the way these things work is that you bring up matters for public discussion even without a clear idea as to how to go about solving it. Your intention is to increase public awareness of the problem as a first step. I am not familiar with the stated intention of the “Talking Points Memo” segment, but I imagine that O’Reilly’s intentions were somewhat along these lines.
Sorry - that was supposed to be “being spread through the mail”. (It is also true that they monitor the internet as well, so perhaps we should just leave child porn out of the comparison entirely).
Oh, I agree if it comes to the poster’s attention that the story was false, he should let the readers of the blog/message board know. But that’s not what O’Reilly was saying. He was saying that if web posters had “bothered to make even one phone call” they would have known the story was false. In short, he’s demanding that web posters independently verify the information contained in the major-media stories they link to.
And that’s absurd. GD would shut down if that was the standard for posting information from media articles.
Although I find amusing the idea of december having to call the office of every Democratic politician quoted in articles used in his OPs to verify their quotations before he posts, that just isn’t realistic. **
The problem with that approach is it leads to half-assed, feelgood legislation that does more harm than good. “Bringing a matter up for public discussion” such as this without some conception of how to fix it amounts to whipping your audience into a fervor to “do something.” Which, of course, is O’Reilly’s stock in trade.
That’s not how I read it. The “one phone call” bit was about “anyone” - IOW it was to bring out how blatantly false the story was and how no one bothered to verify it. I don’t think he is demanding that everyone call up to verify everything they pick up from other sources. Only observing that the nature of the internet is such that a easily disproved story will be picked up in a multitude of sources and no one will verify it. Which is one of the things that make the medium of the internet so conducive to passing along false information - info gets passed along from source to source at rapid speed with no one checking for accuracy. Which is the problem he is decrying.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t (lead to bad legislation). So do articles that propose solutions - sometimes these solutions are bad. I think overall this type of approach (bringing up problems without necessarily proposing solutions) is a legitimate and useful one. YMMV, but if it does you have bigger problems than O’Reilly - the approach is extremely widespread and is by no means unique to him.
But I don’t get this.
So Westwood One made a deal to get his show on another station. So that deal was in place weeks before the actual move.
That doesn’t make the claim that the first radio station dropped the program false. It COULD be false, but O’Reilly hasn’t shown that here.
I mean, Westwood One could have made the deal with the second station because the first station told them they didn’t want O’Reilly anymore. Which would make ‘dropped’ completely accurate.
Right??
Which does not “criminals at the computer” make. Assholes at the computer, rather.
O’Reilly, with his (corporately-sanctioned) media access, could do as much or more damage spreading his own spin – yes, spin – of the facts in order to tear down and destroy those public figures HE deems unworthy, but would have to spend more time and effort checking those facts 'cause Murdoch and Ailes can and will axe his ass if he screws up too badly.
What seems to be rubbing no less than december (and many of us) the wrong way – is Bill O’ comes across as if saying that a hatchet job by a corporately-backed professional (such as himself) is journalism because he puts his paycheck on the line if he’s wrong, but one done by a freelance kook who “works for nobody” is “criminal” because the freelance kook has nothing to lose.
But then again, if someone has uniquely superior reading-comprehension skills, who are we to argue :dubious:
In any case, that the 'net allows the aforementioned freelance kook to call me a goat-felcher on 10 million screens every day for free, as opposed to plastering my neighborhood with 1,000 xeroxed flyers to that effect, does not make him kookier or more “criminal” (heck, with the xeroxed flyers in my neighborhood at least I’d have a case for direct harassment/stalking!). (BTW I was under the impression that slander/libel are civil claims, not crimes.)
Caveat lector, it’s not the 'net’s fault if audiences are uncritical about their info sources. Then again, were they critical, where would O’Reilly, Matthews, Drudge, etc. be?
It doesn’t seem like I read the same article that many here are complaining about.
O’Reilly didn’t say anything about restricting first ammendment rights. He has, in the past, disagreed with NAMBLA’s right to free speech using the argument that they are a criminal conspiracy. I am in agreement with this. Your rights to say what you want don’t include planning and assisting the molestation of children, IMO. Besides that, he isn’t in favor of restricting the speech of anyone that I am aware of.
O’Reilly’s gripe here seems to come from this San Francisco Chronicle article. This traditional media source printed something that isn’t true. However, ordinarily it would only be read by the readers in San Francisco. But, since there are many anti-Bill O’Reilly web sites, it was spread around the globe. Also, he can probably get the Chronicle to retract the false statements, however, he never will get the online people to.
So, he is using his forum to attack them as a group and do some bitching about the posters on the internet in general.