Defending the indefensible?

Regarding the man who faked his own beheading, while I share Kevin's (and Michele's) assessment of the hoaxster, I am a bit concerned about First Amendment implications.

According to this story, the FBI is treating the matter as a crime:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A San Francisco computer expert duped international media on Saturday into believing Islamist kidnappers had executed an American hostage in Iraq by staging his own mock beheading on the Internet.

The FBI questioned Benjamin Vanderford, 22, shortly after the hoax became public. "We will pursue any and all legal avenues for prosecution," said FBI special agent LaRae Quy of the bureau's San Francisco office. "At this point the matter is still under investigation."


.....

He said his video was made and posted on the Web about three months ago, intended as an experiment into how quickly such items spread on the Internet. He was surprised at how long it took.

"It is unfortunate that it had to be the type of video that was offensive and shocking, but it was necessary to see how quickly this kind of thing would spread," he said.

Little Green Footballs, properly characterizing the hoax as "an incredibly foul thing to do," links to this Fox News story, in which Vanderford elaborates on his reasons:
  • "to just make a statement on these type of videos and how easily they can be faked."
  • "to see how quickly that system will spread news."
  • "I see how it could be considered disrespectful. But I think people, if they look at it, will understand two other big issues it brings up," he said. "A small group of disgruntled people in Iraq or Saudi Arabia could just get more attention just by easily releasing something like I did on the Internet."
  • Forgive me for being suspicious, but the above reasoning sounds very similar to the justifications used by media operatives who do things like penetrate security in various places, and then later claim current laws are inadequate.

    Via Reid Stott, pictures of Vanderford can be seen here. He's an otherwise bland and inspid looking bureaucrat (as well as an aspiring politician) and I don't trust his motives one bit. I think he wants more than just fifteen minutes of fame. (Slide show here, via New Media Musings.)

    Maybe he is angling for a new job; Betsy Newmark wonders whether Vanderford might now qualify for a job working for Michael Moore.

    Which brings up an important issue. Much as I detest Michael Moore, he has just as much right to crank out his hokey videos as does Mr. Vanderford.

    Considering recent statements by the FBI and by at least one dean of a journalism school, I find myself wondering whether legislation is in the offing....

    The News Integrity Protection Act?

    Or, the News Infrastructure Protection Act?

    "There are too many threats to the integrity of our news infrastructure today, and millions of Americans need to know that law enforcement officials are given the tools to.....[fill in yourself, with appropriate NewSpeak.....] Perhaps this will do as a starter:

    FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kenneth McGuire, who oversees the cyber-crime squad in Los Angeles, says that disseminating video of such violent acts over the Internet is a new form of cyber-terrorism — one proving difficult to contain.

    Some Internet services have tried to shut down sites that host such videos, but the images continue to flow. Over the weekend there were new kidnappings and threats of beheading, and with them, the possibility of more videos to come.

    Here here! More laws! We need to protect the public -- especially the children!

    While I never thought I'd be defending the likes of Michael Moore, or the right to create fake news stories, free speech is not conditioned on honesty or integrity and it never has been. I can't tell you how many stupid hoaxes I've seen on the Internet. (In honesty, some of them were even intelligent-sounding, and really pissed me off because they had me going along.) The Howard Stern Show has a long (and quite infamous) history of inspiring phony news calls, infuriating guys like Dan Rather while ridiculing their gullibility and greed in wanting to beat the competition to the story.

    It is illegal, of course, to lie under oath, or to official investigators such as the police or the FBI. But God help all of us if it ever becomes illegal to lie to the news media, or circulate bogus stories.

    Hoaxes are irritating, and sometimes hurtful, but I hope people don't react in anger and scream that it's "time for new laws" against "bad news."

    That would really be bad news.

    posted by Eric on 08.08.04 at 05:37 PM





    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1265








    December 2006
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
              1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31            

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail




    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives




    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits