On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Will Rodger wrote, quoting me:
I spent the weekend in West Virginia, where folks are more than happy to gossip with (and about) their neighbors. Nobody would try to shut them up through force of law. This principle does not disappear when the information being shared is digital.
That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal level.
Which law, specifically, would gossiping with (or about) your neighbors violate?
Slander. Were I to maliciously spread a rumor, and you got fired, or suffered economic loss because of my gossip, you could sue me.
And yes, some of the "half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books" are misguided. Just as many argue laws against drugs, gambling, or FCC rules prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" material are also unconstitutional -- and a waste of our police's time.
True, but there is also a large body of law that is civil instead of criminal. While we are on social policy, police also enforce environmental laws which take property and affirmative action which violate all kinds of freedom of association. I can be damaged by information - which may be either wrong or out of context. Should I have no right to recover or correct such things? If no one had the right to the information in the first place (is personal information part of my personal property?), do I have any rights if it is both true and damaging (e.g. a felon with an expunged conviction - they can legally answer "no" if asked if ever convicted of a felony, but the historical record may show something different). When we talk about reputation capital, it becomes something that can be vandalized or stolen. Were any other form of capital stolen or vandalized, I could go for damages.
I don't think the issue is whether or not individuals should "care" about others talking about them behind their back. I think the question is how to address it: through the force of law or not. I may not want to shut up the Net-Nazis through the force of law (I would argue against it), but I would certainly "care" what they say and speak out against it myself.
Not all wrongs can be solved through the law.
And the converse, just because there is no law (or in the VPs words: "no controlling legal authority") does not mean it is not a wrong. virtue destroys vice, and truth destroys error. What there is no solution for is ignorance and apathy, and laws will neither inform people or get them to take action. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---