We might be able to reduce crime by completely outlawing weapons of any sort, 24 hr. surveillance cameras in our homes, and daily strip searches at every corner too...but sometimes we must weigh against the tyranny committed against our personal liberty. In that instance, we could argue, "We could save lives!" "Think of the children!!" > Yes, but it would still be wrong. Besides, a business does still have some legal recourse. They just don't have the legal ability to have negative reviews about them deleted upon request.
I can tell you from experience and knowledge: You have very limited legal recourse, and the rules as written on most sites along with current legal decisions give a "wronged business" virtually no shot at recourse. These cases have been tested extensively to date. The publishers do have great protections. Clearly freedom of expression is a major component. Most sites hosting these reviews tend to not remove anything. Legal recourse is more a myth than reality. That is especially the case with smaller businesses. Possibly larger businesses might get those kinds of reactions but that would probably solely occur because they could afford endless legal battles. Frankly best way to deal with these things now is through non-legal efforts. I/we have had to deal with these issues directly. I've been arguing all along there are many issues at stake. In my mind there are situations that cause more harm than the good that freedom of expression provides. Those are the issues I'm raising. If people here don't see any value to those concerns than further discussion is pointless. I suppose its ironic from a personal level and with regard to my long commentary at P&R. My perspective overlaps on some level with two Republican politicians. LOL Also with regard to the first part of your last post.... Consider the following: Not that long ago O_bamanation put out a piece with some political commentary attached to it (how rare) on a fairly recent news event: Congress passed and Obama signed legislation on the defense appropriations for this year. Two elements in the 500 page document had to do with security issues. You pointed out that the legislation really continued policies that had been in place since the Bush administration. Correct. The two small line items each dealt with the Presidents ability to protect Americans. They were both very specific and used language concerning terrorists and al-queda, etc. They were not directed at the great masses of people. I don't care about them or am concerned about the President waging war in general against all Americans. They are directed against specific folks. Frankly I want the current president and any future president to do exactly that...and to do it in this country or elsewhere. At various times a nation should take actions to protect its people that during other less lethal periods might be construed as restrictions on freedoms. The way its been over the last decade or so...I have no problems with it...and frankly I believe most Americans fully agree. Those that welcome more 9-11's probably disagree.
If I understand correctly this bill is for the New York state constitution. How would they possibly enforce this bill? If my website was located on a server in Missouri and someone posted a comment without their name on my blog, is New York going to call and say, "Hey, could you please remove that comment on your website about a business we have here in New York?".
I don´t know why you think Iran or China are any worse than USA. None of those countries have officially a law that permits them to kill their citizens just because they consider the person a threat. While the government of most dictatorships are acting outside of their own country law, USA is making dictatorship to a law of the country. What happens when great masses of people are classified as terrorists? Iran, China, Russia, Syria, Sudan,..... are all killing terrorists.
GWorld, over the long haul people know the US is better, more free, more protective than all those other nations you reference. The clearest indicator is that as people leave oppressive nations for freedoms the US is still among the first choices. In the US you can look to the interment of citizens, who were of japanese descent, during WWII. Clearly a case where certain rulings could be considered abusive. I'm not saying these things are perfect.
earl, I expect more from you in a debate than just waving the flag and talking about how great USA is instead of discussing the subject. Look at my old posts from many years ago in this forum when I predicted the "laws" which only applied to "terrorists", soon enough will be changed to include American citizens. Many people outside of USA, still think of USA as pictured in John Wayne movies were bravery and honesty were rewarded and justice always prevailed in the end, but we both know that this is not the reality. The simple fact that you have to say that USA is better than China, Russia or Iran anyway, just shows how much your country has deteriorated in the last decade.
Gworld: In the decade since 9-11 neither I nor the people I know have generally felt any overbearing restrictions. Yet there are vigorous efforts to hunt down terrorism. I'm sure some people who are innocent experience the pressures from that surveillance and pursuit. For all we know under Obama they may be better and more vigorous than under Bush. I don't know. He has been decidedly more effective in killing terrorists overseas than was Bush. If you check to see where immigrants migrate to from oppressive nations, many still end up in the US. The US is not the only refuge for immigrants, and the laws about immigration are tighter. Its still one of the first choices with regard to freedoms and opportunities. Frankly, that could change. I'm not speaking about ideals and pie in the sky stuff. I'm speaking about realities.
The idea of squashing freedom of speech on the Internet, even placing individuals in danger, in order to help business delete possibly fake negative reviews, appears ludicrous at best. But that's just my opinion. It's not personal. And, it's not that I hate business. Or, that I would want an innocent company to suffer over undeserved bad reviews. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you talking about this thread? If so, I didn't specifically mention the Bush administration. What I said was, "Even now, if a US citizen in the US is posing an imminent threat of violent attack, and capture is not feasible, they'll probably end up being killed. For example, let's say an individual is holding people hostage and threatening to kill them. And, further, in the best judgment of law enforcement, they don't believe they can capture the individual without the hostages being killed, I think they would use a sniper if at all possible." I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread. Let me ask you something. Would you vote Yay or Nay for S6779 as is?
Rebecca: I was thinking of a different thread. I'll have to look it up. Would I vote for the thing as is? Guess I would not. Usually though its not that simple. They debate the thing. If the debate is serious they'll change a law. In congress they have staffs that write and rewrite laws and adjust them before a final resolution. I believe I said earlier I viewed the legislation as a starting point for debate. On the business side I'd keep pushing and pushing. I do know of one vertical (an industry specific type) that has organized to fight all the malicious costly spam and negative battles. I know that in that industry there have been legal cases about fraud, etc. I know the industry realizes its in a long haul fight. Nothing gets done in a day.
I can promise you that the majority of over 1 billion Chinese or 75 million Iranians don´t feel any overbearing restrictions, just those who dare to oppose the system. How about the other side of the coin and people who expose fraudulent businesses; should they be scared to keep their mouth shut because they will be afraid to expose a company which is involved in different scams since they don´t have the resources to fight them?
Actually I've done that at times and I know some other people who are doing the same. I'm aware of a case where the scammers have threatened a whistleblower....and I know of cases where there are exposures to scams and nothing is being done to correct the issues. Its not a perfect world. Seriously GWorld I'm sure there are myriads of Chinese and Iranians who would scream for freedoms if not afraid for their lives. We keep seeing that pop up from time to time. Those are oppressive regimes. Open your mouth too much you are DEAD.
I am pretty sure you are being sarcastic there. If machines are the problem, then put machines in jail. We do have daily strip searches. Its called T S A. Here is a guy whose time is coming. Falkvinge. He says the youth are supporting him, which means a change is about to happen in a few years. Listen to his statistics. I do not think he is lying. http://www.ted.com/talks/rick_falkvinge_i_am_a_pirate.html
It is that simple. Because I was just asking whether you would personally vote for it. If the answer is you guess that you would not, at least there is still some hope for you. In my definition, starting point is when you have a generally good idea. S6779 is not a starting point. If they don't have the resources to fight them, they would probably just end up deleting the review. Many individuals do not want to post their private identifiable information. That alone would allow a business to delete many negative reviews. If they did post it, a business could use that to intimidate them with vague legal threats, regardless of whether they intend to follow through. Yes, lol.
Scams and different form of frauds is an International Business which is run by criminal organizations and earns billions. Just ask all the Europeans who every year are fooled to buy Regulation S or OTC stocks in American companies that are totally worthless. There are pyramid scams that use big exhibitions to recruit their victims and use Hells Angels and hired guns to deal with anybody who dare to raise their voice during their meeting. If you talk against such groups and they know your identity, they never take a legal actions against you, they simply kill you. The bigger the criminal activity, the bigger need for anonymity for speaking against them.
Majority of Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans are exactly like majority of Americans are so concerned with survival that they will hardly think about what is happening in their country or in the world. Among above countries or anywhere else show me one government that has an official law that permits them to kill their own citizens without due process of the law? You can say that those governments kill their citizens but none of them dared to make it "legal".
It takes a Republican to turn a serious discussion to an opportunity for propaganda to suppress women rights.