I'm really saddened by this. I myself had a few tussles with Daniel before (I was very involved when he tried (unfortunately successfully)to get his Wikipedia entry deleted, and I'm a pretty biased source. During that process, he engaged in some pretty nasty behavior, including posting online the personal details of a various Wikipedians, including some who were minors. In the worst act, he gave the personal details of a female admin to Andrew Morrow, an individual who had made hobby of sexually harassing high level female Wikipedians. In that case, Morrow then, using the data from Brandt actually showed up to her place of work. Daniel expressed zero remorse over this and related issues. However, Scroogle was unambiguously a good thing that Daniel was doing. Daniel doesn't play well with others, and in the last year or so, his main feud has been with various elements of Encyclopedia Dramatica along with some of the nastier bits of Anonymous. It shouldn't be too surprising that they really are willing to respond in pretty nasty and destructive ways. The loss of Scroogle represents a real loss of a helpful service. But given that Daniel has now taken down all his domains including Wikipedia Watch which was primarily a list of personal details of various Wikipedians, I do have to see some minimal silver lining. But it isn't sufficient. The internet shouldn't be censored, whether by the government, or by people who have the capability to launch sustained Denial of Service Attacks. There's a real problem here wen someone as stubborn and experienced as Brandt can be brought down by this sort of thing. We worry a lot about censorship from governments through things like ACTA and SOPA, but this sort of thing is functionally as bad. Daniel Brandt's free speech has been essentially curtailed here. Much of that is speech I disagree with, but there's a relevant line attributed to Voltaire about that.
Much of that is speech I disagree with, but there's a relevant line attributed to Voltaire about that.
Don't feel bad, free speech is OK, but free speech and damn the consequences is dangerous and can be damaging.
If you are speaking with no intent but to bring harm to others, you're outside the scope of, let's call it "the spirit" of the First Amendment. It was written to uphold the right of the people to criticise their government, not to give safe harbour to malicious people who, quote: [post] online the personal details of a various Wikipedians, including some who were minors
but free speech and damn the consequences is dangerous and can be damaging.
There is no such thing as "free speech with consequences." Well, provided you meant the government punishing you, anyway. Otherwise, even the worst countries have freedom of speech.
let's call it "the spirit" of the First Amendment.
Let's not. That sounds like an awfully slippery slope right there. If you want unprotected speech, a constitutional amendment is in order. And that's difficult to do for a reason.
So you can love free speech, and simultaneously seek to prevent people from deliberately saying harmful things.
No, you can't. That's not truly free speech. Even if you think it shouldn't be allowed, speech is still being censored.
There is no such thing as "free speech with consequences."
Yes, there is. It is called libel, defamation, and harrassment.
But judging from your post, you've never heard of these words and their relationship to the 1st amendment. There is no absolute right to "truly free speech". It is to be balanced with other rights of other people.
Yes, there is. It is called libel, defamation, and harrassment.
Then that's not truly free speech. Some speech is being restricted. Whether you or I think that's good or bad is irrelevant.
But judging from your post, you've never heard of these words and their relationship to the 1st amendment.
No, I've read the first amendment. I've just never seen those words in it.
It is to be balanced with other rights of other people.
There is no right to not be offended (at least not yet), lied about, or any other such thing. Okay, maybe there is, but not specifically mentioned in the constitution as far as I know.
I still think there should be a constitutional amendment to clarify this nonsense.
"Truly free" speech is a nice romantic idea, and might work if everybody was honest and ethical, but the horrible reality is that not everybody is, and "truly free" speech is an irresponsible, dangerous idea.
I didn't actually say that it was a good idea (in that post). I only said that the constitution actually gives no exceptions and that I think we should correct this to more closely follow it.
Before you disagree, consider what you would do if you were being maliciously targeted and slandered on the Internet, and that affected your ability to gain employment.
Perhaps if it was widely known that you could be slandered, people wouldn't be so quick to believe everything they hear like imbeciles.
After all, if slander was legal, you could do it to any employer, as well.
Don't tell me you would accept it "Oh well, it's their right to say these things"
But I did want to tell you that.
and accept the effects of unemployment that are a direct consequence of somebody else's actions.
Yeah. The idiotic employer who believes everything he hears.
if he has managed to make enemies of wikipedia and ED he must be a real winner
Wikipedia is a big pile of political nonsense and power abuse, it can be a very hostile environment if you get involved in anyone's fifedom or run into a power crazy admin. It's amazing that project produces anything of real use.
I would like to know just what he did to upset the ED people though.
This is deeply unfortunate (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much of that is speech I disagree with, but there's a relevant line attributed to Voltaire about that.
Don't feel bad, free speech is OK, but free speech and damn the consequences is dangerous and can be damaging.
If you are speaking with no intent but to bring harm to others, you're outside the scope of, let's call it "the spirit" of the First Amendment. It was written to uphold the right of the people to criticise their government, not to give safe harbour to malicious people who, quote: [post] online the personal details of a various Wikipedians, including some who were minors
So you can love free speech,
Re: (Score:2)
but free speech and damn the consequences is dangerous and can be damaging.
There is no such thing as "free speech with consequences." Well, provided you meant the government punishing you, anyway. Otherwise, even the worst countries have freedom of speech.
let's call it "the spirit" of the First Amendment.
Let's not. That sounds like an awfully slippery slope right there. If you want unprotected speech, a constitutional amendment is in order. And that's difficult to do for a reason.
So you can love free speech, and simultaneously seek to prevent people from deliberately saying harmful things.
No, you can't. That's not truly free speech. Even if you think it shouldn't be allowed, speech is still being censored.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is. It is called libel, defamation, and harrassment.
But judging from your post, you've never heard of these words and their relationship to the 1st amendment. There is no absolute right to "truly free speech". It is to be balanced with other rights of other people.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, there is. It is called libel, defamation, and harrassment.
Then that's not truly free speech. Some speech is being restricted. Whether you or I think that's good or bad is irrelevant.
But judging from your post, you've never heard of these words and their relationship to the 1st amendment.
No, I've read the first amendment. I've just never seen those words in it.
It is to be balanced with other rights of other people.
There is no right to not be offended (at least not yet), lied about, or any other such thing. Okay, maybe there is, but not specifically mentioned in the constitution as far as I know.
I still think there should be a constitutional amendment to clarify this nonsense.
Re: (Score:1)
"Truly free" speech is a nice romantic idea, and might work if everybody was honest and ethical, but the horrible reality is that not everybody is, and "truly free" speech is an irresponsible, dangerous idea.
I didn't actually say that it was a good idea (in that post). I only said that the constitution actually gives no exceptions and that I think we should correct this to more closely follow it.
Before you disagree, consider what you would do if you were being maliciously targeted and slandered on the Internet, and that affected your ability to gain employment.
Perhaps if it was widely known that you could be slandered, people wouldn't be so quick to believe everything they hear like imbeciles.
After all, if slander was legal, you could do it to any employer, as well.
Don't tell me you would accept it "Oh well, it's their right to say these things"
But I did want to tell you that.
and accept the effects of unemployment that are a direct consequence of somebody else's actions.
Yeah. The idiotic employer who believes everything he hears.
Personally, I'm will
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if he has managed to make enemies of wikipedia and ED he must be a real winner
Wikipedia is a big pile of political nonsense and power abuse, it can be a very hostile environment if you get involved in anyone's fifedom or run into a power crazy admin. It's amazing that project produces anything of real use.
I would like to know just what he did to upset the ED people though.
Re: (Score:2)
And who said the old Internet Flameware/Shit-a-thon was dead.