|
August 08, 2004
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.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: 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? 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.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 |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|