The mysterious case of Ms. Carrie Prejean

[kandrathe]

OK, what did you do with the *real* kandrathe?

He was still sleeping. :lol:

Yeah, that's just what we need, unenforceable laws restricting first amendment rights.

Well, I was not really thinking of restricting speech, just creating a legal precedence for the right of privacy based upon the premise of "unreasonable search and seizure". It may take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, but our electronic data needs better Constitutional protection, as well as intrusion into our private affairs by electronic means. This means all those modern gadgets which pierce our veil of privacy, such as shotgun microphones, and other listening devices, telephoto lenses or other image enhancement technology that uses IR, or ultrasonic waves to capture images though walls or clothing.

And, as much as I *hate* to say it, the internet needs to be reined in a bit from the anarchy that it is. My preference would be that it do that in two ways;

The first, is to think of it as a big town with zoning, where everything that is currently happening is still allowed, but zoned to the correct areas. That way, if you are looking for a business, you go to the business district. If you are looking for a school, or university, you go to the education section. Etc.

Second, I think all hosts of content should be treated like any other publisher. So, if you host a blog for the LA times and slander someone, it should be as easy to hold you legally accountable as if it were published in the LA times. If you post content that is ripped from elsewhere, then also it should be very easy to legally prosecute you for violations of fair use.

I am also hopeful that new document technology will enable the permanent embedding of authorship (i.e. electronic signature on steroids) to all electronic documents which would allow anyone to easily determine the original source and intent of electronic content. And, I do believe in anonymity for forums, and discussions, but ultimately the sites host must be responsible for removing any content which violates the law.

Edit: I'm reading this Harvard Law Review (Vol. IV No. 5) article from December 15, 1890 entitled, “The Right to Privacy” by Warren and Brandeis. I might have more to say on the topic after reading this.

Edit2: Enlightening, and it is a little scary to me that I am in agreement with Brandeis, who is better known as a progressive. However, his dissents on the Supreme Court in favor of free speech and privacy seem spot on in my opinion. Perhaps Olmstead v. United States 1928 is the best example of a case where the court considered the invasion of privacy by electronic means. Brandeis was in the minority, but later in the 1960's his position was affirmed when the Olmstead precedence was over turned.