Protecting Free Speech: ABC/Disney

Believe it or not, the public relations arms of KSFO, ABC, and Disney can learn a lot from Jason Goldberg.

Sure, everyone knows that I tossed in my fair share of communication flack about how Jobster handled its crisis communication situation (not enough, it seems, to warrant a hit), but I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. Although Goldberg seemed to create his own “blogswarm,” largely spurred by his own posts, he didn’t hide from it. He talked about it.

KSFO, ABC, and Disney aren't talking. When Online Media Daily asked, Julie Hoover, a spokeswoman for ABC Radio, declined to comment. Brian Sussman, the KSFO radio talk host under fire, told CBS 5 by e-mail that he is not doing any interviews about the broadcasts. As much as I have searched, none of the stations and companies under fire has really said anything.

Public Relations 101 says “no comment” is an admission of guilt, unless you clarify. There are several instances when it is permissible not to comment, the most obvious that could have been used in this instance: legal counsel has advised against communicating on that subject while the matter is before the courts or pending court action. Unfortunately, they missed it, along with the most basic truth that their misguided nemesis preaches censorship above all else.

If you take the time to read his pained posts, you’ll see a consistent story: this guy has tried everything, including government intervention through the FCC, to shut down one talk show host after the next. Failing to impact the higher-rated hosts, he finally found some wiggle room at KSFO.

As much as I think it was wrong for Internet provider 1&1 to cancel his account for reasons already mentioned, it is equally wrong to think that this “offended” blogger represents the spirit of the First Amendment. I suggest he hit the books and study up, starting with Ray Bradbury:

“… minorities, each ripping a page or paragraph from a book, until one day the books were empty and the minds were shut and libraries were closed.” — Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

While I might not be an attorney, I do know a few things about the First Amendment and have been directly and indirectly involved in several productive free speech cases over the years, including the amicus brief taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1996, which was one of the first real landmark actions in preserving a poster’s intellectual property rights from Internet providers by defining them as passive carriers as opposed to publishers. It also prompted America Online to provide a free speech area, monitored by the ACLU, that was not subject to the company’s terms of service.

Back then, a few years before the term “blog” first graced the pages of the Internet, I spent ample free time attempting to educate people on merits of free speech, frequently citing one of the best quotes on the subject by Charles Bradlaugh, who warned us: “Better a thousand abuses of free speech than the denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial stays in the life of people.”

How true is that. And how sad it is that KSFO, ABC, and Disney have yet to make the case that maybe, just maybe, despite their ill-advised legal letter (note: the threat of legal action and actual legal action are light years apart) from a public relations perspective, KSFO needs some First Amendment protection. How interesting would it be to see the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU face off on the issue? I’m all for that as long as the risk doesn’t wack away another piece of "fair use."

Of course, if KSFO, ABC, and Disney are not inclined to wrap themselves up in the Bill of Rights, then they should drop any legal action all together. Sure, some folks will toast to being triumphant for a day, but will quickly become irrelevant without the lawsuit. Or maybe, you can take a page from the AOL case and host a blog for bashing Sussman. (Once AOL folks had a free speech area, few, if any, posted.)

I suspect this guy is the same. Sure, he has a right to complain about this and that with speech that I find no less hateful than his so-called “right wing prosecutors,” but his agenda is hardly pure with today’s post entitled “Their time is over,” meaning people with a contrary view to his own. Likewise, his personal quote — which once read “I just want a piece of the action,” er, until he noticed that being a public figure for 15 minutes isn’t as easy as being an anonymous blogger — revealed. It was deleted this morning. Go figure.

So is the glass half full or half empty? I suggested ice.

Learning From Social Media: Spocko

Much has already been written about Spocko vs. ABC/Disney so I almost passed by this page in social media history. But then I scanned the various posts and saw something missing from most of them. With all the backlash aimed at ABC/Disney, the missing link seems to be 1&1, an Internet provider.

Sure, Disney had sent a cease and desist letter to 1&1 about Spocko's Brain, but 1&1 took action, not Disney. And that's not good for anyone, with consequences that reach much further than Disney's misguided attempt to silence a critic. (It's not the first time they've failed at it.)

You see, for a long time now, most Internet providers have been extremely careful to label themselves as distributors, which, simply put, provides them a certain amount of legal protection to avoid getting caught in any content crossfires. It can be likened to the United States Postal Service, which cannot be sued for the magazine that arrives in your mailbox, or your cable company if you prefer.

Of all people, Andreas Gauger, 1&1 chairman of the board, Ralph Dommermuth (now CEO of United Internet, the public parent company of 1&1), and Achim Weiss (now CTO of 1&1) should know this, given that they handle about 5.87 million customers and 7.2 million domain names worldwide (minus 1). Or maybe they don't, given that they are a relatively new player to the United States, crossing over from Europe.

As a provider, the allure of 1&1 is relatively cheap Web hosting services and its big break into the US market by offering three years of service for free in 2004. I guess the old adage "you get what you pay for" is true. Despite a significant net worth and global presence, 1&1 barely blinked before buckling to ABC/Disney, potentially damaging every other Internet provider in the world by making them unnecessarily responsible for content.

Look, I am not saying it was prudent of ABC/Disney to send the letter to begin with, but I also appreciate that companies and public figures do it all the time. They send letters to various publishers and editors, sometimes from their lawyers, saying cease this and desist that and "oogie boogie no advertising dollars for you."

To that end, Spocko and other bloggers could learn a lot from print publishers, who are a bit more familiar with fair use and whatnot. As a blogger, always be prepared to face the reality of blogging: you're a publisher with much less overhead, but not necessarily much less risk.

Any time you critique people, someone is going to try to shut you down. In fact, when you get down to it, that is what Spocko was trying to do in the first place: shut down KSFO's morning talk show because he didn't like what they were saying. In some ways, ABC/Disney just followed suit by shutting Spocko down, temporarily, sort of, not really.

I suppose I might clarify that I'm talking about "what is" and my personal take on the situation is a bit different, but not much. You see, I believe very strongly in the First Amendment and have been an activist on that front more times than I care to talk about.

But as a First Amendment advocate, I think of this mess a bit differently. First and foremost, I don't particularly care for what I heard listening to clips from these so-called "right-wing" talk radio hosts, but then again, I don't begrudge anyone their right to act like idiots as these drive-time hosts obviously do. It's a shame that listeners support the show by driving up the numbers, but I don't pick what people play on their radios.

I also believe very strongly that Spocko had every right to critique the show in the court of public opinion, even by using clips to illustrate the point. And given what Spocko wrote, I think that advertisers had a right to buy or pull their ads based on that, because frankly, most just buy the numbers until someone tells them what they are buying. I don't agree with forcing people to be "PC" — and that is a personal choice.

Anyway, given Spocko was targeting advertisers in an attempt to censor KSFO, I suppose ABC/Disney had every right to try to take action too, even as ill-advised as that action was (because it led to suicide by public relations in what is being labeled "David vs. Goliath" as opposed to "Will the real censor please stand up...").

So that leaves us with 1&1. If 1&1 wants to continue to increase its presence in the United States, it needs to learn not to knuckle under the pressure of a legal letter.

While I am not an attorney and appreciate this is still being sorted out in some sectors, I believe Internet providers in this country owe it to themselves and their customers to be carriers, with each blogger solely responsible for his or her content. Shame on 1&1 for not sticking by what seems to me to be the single most important definition of Internet content in the last decade.

Likewise, kudos for "The Daily Kos," along with YouTube, Blogintegrity, Firedoglake, and others for trying to teach Mr. Gauger that he is not a publisher. His customers are publishers. Let's keep it that way.

As for ABC/Disney, I'm tracking this as a living case study to see how it handles the fallout. That's more telling than a legal letter that worked, temporarily, sort of, maybe.

Then again, at the end of the day, I think ABC/Disney would have been better off limiting any legal letters to only Spocko so Spocko could have it framed and then blogged about it. Better yet, the radio hosts that went crying to their bosses might have used the airwaves to talk about Spocko's plight to make the world PC. Had that happened, this might have remained a regional story instead of potentially impacting us all.

Killing Christmas Trees

All the Christmas trees at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport were taken down overnight after one complaint. It was made by a rabbi (along with the Central Organization for Jewish Learning) who threatened a lawsuit unless the airport agreed to put up "an eight-foot menorah to balance the message of the Christmas trees."

The airport decided it would be easier to remove the trees that some identify as a Christian symbol than fight a lawsuit or build the menorah. It will be the first time the airport will abandon its 25-year tradition of placing a tree at each of the 15 airport entrances.

The Seattle story is the polar opposite of another in Michigan, where a bipartisan capitol committee recently voted unanimously to rename the capitol's 61-foot blue spruce a “Christmas tree” as opposed to calling it a "holiday tree." The same committee rejected the state house's urging to create a joint display — a Christmas tree and a Hanukkah menorah — after a Jewish group said it's a religious symbol that would violate the separation of church and state. This Jewish group has no problem with the tree.

While not attempting to appear unsympathetic to the plight of the Seattle rabbi, there seems to be too much emphasis on the perceived power of symbols in the United States with little regard to the First Amendment or any understanding that symbols might mean different things to different people, including Christmas trees.

Depending on the source, the symbol of a Christmas tree is ripe with interpretation despite its close association with Christianity. One source places its origins 1,000 years ago when St. Boniface, who converted German people to Christianity, came across a group of pagans worshipping an oak tree. He cut down the oak tree, but to his amazement, a young fir tree sprung up from its roots. St. Boniface took this as a sign of the Christian faith.

Another source credits Martin Luther, who is said to have attached lighted candles to a small evergreen tree, trying to simulate the reflections of the starlit heavens as they appeared over Bethlehem on the first Christmas Eve. The Christmas tree star topper (or angels) are said to represent the Star of Bethlehem.

Others look further back to the Egyptians who celebrated winter solstice by bringing in green date palms, the Romans who raised an evergreen bough during the feast of Saturn, the early Scandinavians who paid homage to the fir tree, the Druids who considered the springs of an evergreen to be holy, and the Norsemen who felt they symbolized the revival of the sun god Balder. Take your pick.

Trees are not exclusive to one faith. In fact, the very idea of celebrating Christmas on December 25 was less than exclusive. It was originated by the Catholic Church to eclipse the festivities of rival pagan religions in the 4th century. (Jesus was believed to have been born in the spring.)

Anyway, what is more certain about Christmas trees is that they traveled across Europe to England after Queen Victoria visited relatives in Coburg, Germany, and fell in love with Prince Albert. After they were married and returned to England, Prince Albert decorated a tree with the finest of hand-blown glass ornaments. It was so admired by common citizens, they copied the tree and the couple's customs, partly, in recognition of their love. In France, it was introduced for a similar reason: Princess Hélène de Mecklembourg brought a tree to Paris after her marriage to the Duke of Orleans.

In the United States today, almost 80 percent of non–Christian citizens celebrate Christmas and 96 percent of the total population celebrates it (including some Jewish families), which raises some question of whether or not a Christmas tree is exclusive to Christianity (even the church has banned them on occasion).

Perhaps, like all symbols, the meaning remains in the eye of the beholder. For Christians, the Christmas tree means something. For non-Christians, it means something different.

But for all of us, the move to ban any holiday symbol in fear that other symbols might be excluded is wrought with ignorance and intolerance. It is also contrary to spirit of the First Amendment, which is meant to protect all voices. It is not meant to censor others out of fear that not everyone will be equally represented.

The bottom line, from a communication standpoint, is that symbols are funny things. They only have power when they are given power by the perception of people. For one rabbi, a Christmas tree represents the prevalent spirit of giving among many faiths in America. For another in Seattle, it seems to mean the exclusion of his faith in America. Ironically, for the latter, his apparent fear of exclusion gives the symbol much more power than the first, but with a twisted meaning.

Now that's something to think about in a country that has defined the Confederate flag as politically intolerant and the Mexican flag (over the United States flag) as a beacon of tolerance. Neither was meant to signify the meaning they have recently been assigned, except by those promoting their own fear and intolerance.

For me, at the end of the day, when I see a Christmas tree or a crucifix or a kinara or a menorah, all I see is the United States, a country that allows people to celebrate and share their holiday rituals openly, without fear of persecution. Let's try to keep it that way.

Blogging To Jail

Josh Wolf, 24, self-described freelance journalist and independent videographer, remains in “custody” at the Federal Detention Facility in Dublin, California, after being charged with contempt because he refused to provide a federal grand jury with unedited video of a 2005 G-8 protest in San Francisco. The authorities wanted the unpublished portions as part of an investigation into crimes that may have occurred during the protest.

Wolf refused, claiming he is a journalist protected under the First Amendment, which is what makes for an interesting case study in the move ta o define a "journalist" in the United States. The primary reason some find it difficult to define Wolf as a journalist is because his experience is primarily as blogger. The secondary reason is that Wolf tends to move back and forth between activism and journalism.

“If I have any reservations about whether or not he is a journalist, it is whether he went there as an independent gatherer of news and information," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Associated Press in an interview with reporter David Kravets. “We certainly hope that in the future if he goes to these events, he makes up his mind as to whether he is a journalist or a protester.”

On one hand, Wolf does have earned credentials as a journalist, including a 2006 Society of Professional Journalists award for Journalist of the Year. On the other, he has also participated as an activist and is generally seen as sympathetic to left-wing causes. Even journalists covering his incarceration, as well as those who have stepped up to help defend him, are unsure of whether or not he is best described as an activist or journalist.

Generally speaking, the question is easy enough to answer as a professional but difficult to answer as a person: am I an observer reporting the news or an active participant in making the news? And is there a point during some event when I might switch from observing into action? To save a life? To protect an officer? To prevent an abuse of power? In the strictest sense, the answer is no.

Journalists do not become active participants in the story, regardless of the circumstance, as unfortunate as this may seem. It is difficult to discern whether or not Wolf was indeed acting as a journalist, ironically, because the best evidence to determine this is precisely what he has refused to surrender.

I submit the real calamity here is not whether Wolf is a journalist or activist, publisher or blogger, but that when individuals abuse our civil liberties and rights guaranteed under the First Amendment (and I am not saying Wolf has done this), all sorts of crazy judicial opinions are rendered that could have long-term consequences such as the continuing erosion of the First Amendment. Case in point, presiding Judge Alsop offered up “This great country which has allowed you to be a journalist — sometimes your country asks for something back.'’

While his sentiment is sound, his statement is erroneous. There is only one person who ''allows'' another to be a journalist and it is not the government. A journalist is granted privilege by a publisher, even if they are one in the same. It is the publisher who is specifically guaranteed rights in this country as written: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The press" is not defined as a journalist in the First Amendment, but rather a publisher. Journalists are hired by publishers to execute these rights. And the only reason there is any confusion today is that the advent of blogging has made it possible for anyone to publish and reach a mass audience. In some ways, blogging has brought the press back to its roots of our forefathers, wherein anyone with enough money to afford a printing press could be a publisher.

Does that mean Wolf is protected? His edited video remains on his site today so there is no injustice there. So perhaps the real question is not whether he is a journalist, but whether or not he was a participant, observer, or acting member of the press. As a participant or observer, withholding the tape is an obstruction of justice. As an acting member of the press strictly covering the protest for publication (by a publisher), he is protected under the First Amendment. Case closed.

Now only if all these fine folks involved would stop working so hard to define 'journalistic rights,' perhaps they could tell the judge to review the tape and determine whether Wolf was a participant or not. If the judge determines Wolf was a participant, then it's a much easier case to decide and all of us will be free from seeing well-intentioned people continuing to muck up our First Amendment with definitions that do not belong there, including blogger, journalist, or whatever.

Confusing Comedy

The ancient Greeks knew it best. Tragedy is the essence of all comedy.

The pratfall is a fine example. Someone falling is tragic. Yet, the pratfall, staged or not, remains a comic classic.

Unfortunately for Michael Richards, best known as Kramer from Seinfeld, he opted to forgo the pratfall and chose tragic racial material for his comedic routine, which spiraled out of control when he let an obnoxious heckler get under his skin.

From the video, Richards at the TMZ, it is difficult to discern whether or not Richards was heckled for racial material in his routine to begin with or chose racial epithets simply to attack the heckler. What is clear is that his digs were directed at an individual and not an underlying racial agenda aimed at demoralizing people based on their heritage.

Comedians frequently attack hecklers with generalizations: weight, appearance, fashion, and yes, race. Chris Rock does, though his characterizations are generally aimed at Caucasians, which is largely accepted and tolerated in America. (Personally, I find Chris Rock funny most of the time.)

What Richards did wrong that Rock has never done wrong is apologize. Rock would have looked you straight in the eye and said “Hello, it's comedy ... commmm ... eeeee ... dddeyyy. Comedy."

Richards publicly apologized on "The Tonight Show" to the people who took "the brunt" of his abuse, saying he was "really busted up," but then went on a strange tangent on race relations, saying he was "concerned about hate and rage" and about a "great deal of disturbance between blacks and whites" after Hurricane Katrina.

What he probably meant to say was: race relations after Katrina have been a travesty, and he was shining a comedic light on the tragedy of the situation as comedians do. By in large, that is what comedians are supposed to do, release the tension created by tragic events in the forum of a comedy club.

Certainly, not for a minute, can I condone what Richards said, but neither do I think he should be burned at the stake. I can also say, with certainty, that he needs a new publicist.

As I have often posted, the downward spiral of public perception is never in the action, but in how one handles the action after the fact. As noted, Rock is a master at handling his own racial material after the fact. He never gives an inch.

In this instance, Richards would have been better off simply apologizing for losing his cool with the heckler (which is not the mark of a leading comedian), perhaps noting that hecklers, regardless of heritage, aim only to steal the spotlight at the expense of other audience members and it is the fundamental job of a comedian to shut them down and get on with the routine.

Now was not the time to discuss the truth, no matter how painfully obvious, that there are some racial tensions still being stirred in New Orleans or that there exists, sometimes, a double standard in defining racism.

As someone who writes comedy on occasion, I generally avoid all subject matter revolving around race or heritage because I don't really find racial stereotypes all that funny. But I can also be somewhat sympathetic to comedy clubs that will soon be forced to put signs on their doors that "some content might offend some audience members.”
Censoring comedic routines, good or bad. Not funny.

Correcting For Politics

I seldom write about the same subject two posts in a row, but the Wee Shu Min story (after her father, Wee Siew Kim, apologized for his apology) continues to develop as a topical case study about political correctness. Specially, he apologized for saying "I should not have said what I did about people's inability to take the brutal truth and strong language" and reinforced that he counseled his daughter Shu Min.

In the United States, it's called political correctness (PC), though the concept is not exclusive to the English language. The term is commonly used to describe language, or behavior, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described.

The "earliest cited usage of the term" is said to come from a U.S. Supreme Court decision — Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) — where it clearly means that the statement it referred to is not ''literally'' correct. However, for most Americans, the real PC movement began in late 1980's and early 1990's. By the end of the 1990's, the term was equally loathed by political conservatives and liberals alike because more often than not it hindered communication rather than enhanced it.

Part of the reason Americans began abandoning PC usage came after the push to use "gender-neutral" job titles ("lineworker" instead of "lineman," "chairperson" or "chair" instead of "chairman," etc.). Some stuck. Some did not ("maintenance hole" never really replaced "manhole"). Some, it depends on who you talk to (many female executives have insisted on being identified as chairman vs. chairperson.) And some characterizations are moving targets, most notably among people over age 55, who have been reclassified from "elder" to "elderly" to "senior" to "older adult" to "active adult" in the last few decades. In addition, ''handicapped'' became ''disabled'' became ''people with disabilities.''

Besides renaming specific groups and objects, particularly around issues of race and gender, the real movement was aimed at watering down heated political speak about social issues, as if social issues can somehow be discussed without emotion or passion. And that is the real trap Wee Siew Kim is putting himself in. As I've written before, public figures and companies are seldom judged on a crisis, but rather on how well they manage the crisis (even if it really wasn't a crisis to begin with).

In Singapore, many bloggers seem to feel that the issue, not the words, deserve discussion. But unfortunately, they are learning just as Americans (or should I say people of the United States?) continue to learn, that too much focus on semantics will always overshadow the real issues, paralyzing entire communities and countries. Analyzing the apology and demanding an apology will serve as nothing more than a distraction over the real issue. Meanwhile, nothing is done.

Certainly, this is not a popular view, not even among some fellow citizens, but a solution for Singapore borders on the obvious. As long as a society prefers capitalism over communism, which has proven ineffective as the great equalizer it was claimed to be (communistic leaders often assume exclusive privileges over the people anyway), then there will always be people who covet what other people have, even if what they have or do not have was their own choice. Anyway, all that is missing, or seems to be missing, is opportunity.

Ergo, Derek Wee was possibly right in his assessment of a problem. However, Wee Shu Min was perhaps equally right to say the solution was not for the government to create jobs to meet the skill sets of the workers (which despite her colorful quips is really what she meant, I think). However, that is not to say that the government could not invest in a worker rehabilitation program that provides these unemployed workers with the skill sets they need to meet the demand of the job market. Then, those who choose to pursue marketable skills will be qualified to fill those jobs, currently being taken by foreigners.

The concept is simple enough. Give a man a fish and he has a meal. Teach a man to fish and he eats for life. And if too many people are fishing, then teach him another trade that is underserved. And if progress replaces that need, teach him something else. (Historically speaking, governments did not subsidize corrals when the automobile made them obsolete.)

But alas, all this is lost in the focus of whether calling something the brutal truth is appropriate or not. And meanwhile, the real effort to communicate is spiraling out of control because rather than propose a solution to the problem, Wee Siew Kim has to provide apology after apology because his daughter posted it rather than some other 18-year-old, who would have been largely ignored for making the same statements.

This basically means that 18-year-olds who happen to have parents in prominent positions are held to a different standard, are required to censor their ideas, and are not entitled to the same liberty and freedom of thought as other people. And if that is not discrimination on its face, then I do not know what is.

Sanitizing Personal Opinion

There seems to be much ado about Wee Shu Min, a teenage blogger whose online journal was criticized as insensitive and elitist. The story has escalated to the point of absurdity with her father, MP Wee Siew Kim, and the principal of Raffles Junior College telling The Straits Times that Miss Wee had received counseling for using insensitive language.

She has since shut down her blog and apologized for her comments, though not directly to Mr. Derek Wee, a Singaporean who works for a multinational corporation. He had written in his blog on Oct 12 that he was concerned about competition from foreign talent and the lack of job opportunities for older workers. Miss Wee had responded to him on her blog, calling him old and unmotivated and said he was overly reliant on the government.

She specifically wrote: 'Derek, Derek, Derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron rice bowl or a solid future if you cannot spell? There's no point in lambasting the Government for making our society one that is, I quote, 'far too survival of the fittest.' If uncertainty of success offends you so much, you will certainly be poor and miserable.' She concluded by telling Mr. Wee to 'get out of my elite uncaring face.'

In the apology, Wee Siew Kim went further to say that in "In our current desire to encourage more debate, especially through the Internet, our comments must be tempered with sensitivity. I will not gag her, since she's 18 and should be able to stand by what she says. ... Nonetheless, I have counselled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it."

Before writing an unpopular opinion, I will offer up that as an accredited business communicator, I adhere to the International Association of Business Communicators' Code of Ethics, which encourages members to "engage in communication that is not only legal, but also ethical and sensitive to cultural values and beliefs; and engage in truthful, accurate and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding; among other things." I wish more bloggers would consider such ethical guidelines before posting various rants on the Web.

However, Wee Shu Min has obviously not bonded herself to such a code, and therefore, must be respected for her opinion, no matter how insensitive or elitist it may have come across. If anything, I have personally welcomed people to state their minds, no matter how insensitive, ignorant, or bigoted they may be, because it is the very language they use that may reveal their own lack of credibility or character. In fact, Wee Shu Min self-describes herself as elitist and insensitive, which seems to me to make any criticisms of her for being that rather redundant.

In sum, both Derek Wee and Wee Shu Min have a right to their respective opinions. It seems to me that Derek Wee probably made the stronger case, given that Wee Shu Min did resort to name-calling and colorful insults as one might suspect from an 18-year-old college student. However, the equally aggressive rebuttals and public outcry, and then public apology by her father and the principal of her college, seems largely disproportionate.

If anything, her post did succeed in revealing the country's growing disconnect, perhaps, between younger and older adults, skilled and unskilled workers, and/or affluent and less affluent citizens. Until that is addressed, with open dialogue, there is little chance any measures could be taken to address Derek Wee's concerns and grievances.

But then again, I live in a country that, despite occasional pressure to be 'politically correct' in stating opinions, allows for unpopular language under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Although frequently tested, one simple truth remains: the abuse of free speech will die in a day, but the censorship of free speech, including rants from those like Wee Shu Min, will span generations.

Questioning Ethics

If you want to shake up people's definition of ethics, go no further than the Internet.

Some of the same folks who easily chastise Rep. Mark Foley e-mails and private messages, laughed as they discovered Augusten Burroughs frequently amused himself by placing fake personal ads, and smirked when Jude Law's character pretends to be Julia Roberts and sucks in Clive Owen (Closer), are now defending married men and women seeking extramarital affairs on Craig's List personal ads.

The controversial practice, which has been around for some time, has been brought to center stage after after Michael Crook, a 28-year-old Liverpool, N.Y., man posed as 19-year-old Melissa and coaxed personal information from Kevin Murphy, who answered a personal advertisement on Craig's List. Crook then shared the information about the extramatarial affair with Murphy's wife, bosses, co-workers, several of his company's corporate accounts, and on his Website, which is dedicated to exposing Internet infidelity.

According to Abigail Goldman's story in the Las Vegas Sun, ethics experts say the stunt is immoral. Legal experts say it encroaches upon the gray territory of online liberties. Internet rights experts say it raises questions about privacy in cyberspace.

Does it? While two wrongs might not make a right, the question of the First Amendment still hangs over the entire argument. We cannot censor people from sharing any portion of a conversation, online or otherwise, if they choose to publish it. Can we?

Sure, some might argue that Crook and similar publishers are defrauding these men, but aren't they themselves attempting to defraud single women as available, only offering up their marital status when it suits them (to say nothing of what they are doing to their spouses)? Are people so naive to believe that personal ad exchanges are honest, despite years and years of articles that point out they are generally rife with fraud as those who post and respond frequently shave 10 years, 20 pounds, change jobs, and even their own names along the way? Where is the outrage in this seemingly accepted practice?

Ergo, there is only one answer here. If we are talking about ethics, they are all wrong. But if we are talking about stupidity, then those seeking online affairs retain all the honors. Maybe not today nor even tomorrow, but someone somewhere has stored all that personal informational shared over the Internet, innocently or not, possibly with the receiving party totally unaware (given that traces of pictures and e-mails remain on hard drives long after they are 'erased' and Google archives Website pages so they can be viewed long after you've taken them down).

As I've posted before, there is no such thing as a private conversation. So unless you would be proud to see what you say or do on the cover of the Wall Street Journal (Crook, I might point out, is proud of what he is doing), don't say or do it. It's about that simple. This holds to be especially true on the Internet because the information you put out there is much more permanent than anyone ever imagined, and the risk of it resurfacing is far greater than you ever considered.

Suing Over Myspace

Last year, I wrote a post about the growing popularity of blogs and the pressure being created to define a 'legitimate' journalist in (Blogging To Journalism), citing that neither the First nor Fourteenth amendment defines the press or 'journalists' as people who are affiliated with big media conglomerates or whose work is distributed on paper. In short, bloggers deserve the same protections afforded to journalists.

However, in the same post, I also suggested the real question people should be asking is not whether bloggers should be protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments, but whether they should be held to the same standards as mainstream journalists in regard to accuracy and libel. Maybe it's time they were, I said, especially those that unjustly libel individuals and coworkers whenever they like.

Sixteen months later, that question is being asked as a high school assistant principal sues two students and their parents, alleging the teens set up a Web page on MySpace.com in her name and posted obscene comments and pictures.

Anna Draker, an assistant principal at Clark High School, is claiming defamation, libel, negligence and negligent supervision over the page on the popular free-access Web site. She claims two 16-year-olds, a junior and a sophomore, created the page using her name and picture and wrote it as through Draker herself had posted the information, according to Draker's attorney, Murphy Klasing.

The site falsely identified Draker as a lesbian. Klasing said Draker, who is married and has small children, was "devastated." MySpace.com removed the page when Draker told them it wasn't hers. Bexar County Assistant District Attorney Jill Mata would not release information about the case, but confirmed that juvenile charges are pending against a local high school student involving retaliation and fraudulent use of identifying information. Both are third-degree felonies.

As I said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Unfortunately, no one seems to have told these teenagers that once you publish a blog, you become a publisher, bound by the same libel laws as the rest of us. Be bold, but be honest.

Designing A Free Future

We didn't post on 9/11 yesterday, perhaps it is because we remember it all too well. Five years ago, we developed and implemented a crisis communication plan for the Southern Nevada Hotel Concierge Association (SNHCA) within a half hour as the crisis began to unfold.

To assist these dedicated professionals in their struggle to answer thousands of questions and help people find alternative transportation home from Las Vegas, we transformed our commercial writing services company into a fax broadcast news center, collecting information from news sources, internal airport contacts, and transportation sources. Then, every fifteen minutes on the first day, every hour on subsequent days, we would send a blast fax to about 30 hotel concierge desks throughout the city.

While the system seemed archaic, it proved very effective. Not all concierges had access to a television or computer so we had to adapt. Since all of them had a fax machine, it was the most logical form of media distribution.

The consolidated information, for weeks, became their alternative breaking news source. We had information many major networks did not have, mostly out of necessity. We had to think beyond covering the crisis and focus on finding solutions for visitors. From the concierge desks, the blast faxes filtered up to hotel management.

In the weeks and months that followed, for our company, 9/11 had a tremendous impact. We lost a few clients, irritated by our decision to be part of the solution (first with the fax broadcasts and then with a Liberty Las Vegas campaign, which was backed by Mayor Oscar Goodman and designed to stimulate the local economy) rather than catering to commercial deadlines. We had to abandon an online literary project, called GroundZero, because its brand became symbolic for New York. And, it marked the beginning of the end for Key News * Las Vegas, a publication we managed for the SNHCA after several advertisers cancelled their contracts. (It took a few years, but we did successfully salvage the publication and sold it.)

So all in all, I don't talk about it much, especially because as much as we were involved, the impact seemed to me somewhat insignificant when compared to other stories I came across as a business person and as a journalist. I made that decision weeks after the tragedy when I was interviewing someone from Aon and 9/11 came up. She mentioned she lost her office ... along with 20 some co-workers.

Instead, while we'll never forget, we prefer to focus on the future. And that is what I would like to leave you with today.

The McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum is the first Web site in the U.S. that is dedicated exclusively to the topic of freedom and the First Amendment. Its doors opened in April 2006.

Communication Arts magazine wrote it up best: Not only does it (The Freedom Museum) do a great job of defining the role that the First Amendment plays in the basic freedoms of Americans, it does it in a way that makes the historical content palatable to teenagers (its primary audience). I guess I'm young at heart. I loved it anyway.

Sometimes, in the face of tragedy, it's worthwhile to consider the benefits. Freedom, not security, is both the cause and the reward. And when it comes to freedom, the First Amendment is always a great place to start. God bless.

Blogging To Journalism

While it might not be new that a preliminary ruling a few months ago held that three bloggers who published leaked information about an unreleased Apple product must divulge their confidential sources, what is interesting is the growing pressure to define a journalist. Some are reporting that if the ruling holds, it will set a precedent because it will mean under the law bloggers aren't considered journalists and are not privileged to the same protections. Right. For about five seconds.

Media Law 101: 1. The First Amendment wisely guarantees, but does not define, freedom of speech or the press. 2. The Fourteenth Amendment wisely guarantees that any person within its jurisdiction shall have equal protection of the laws.

Neither amendment defines the press or 'journalists' as people who are affiliated with big media conglomerates or whose work is distributed on paper. Most dictionaries, however, do. A journalist is: 1: one whose occupation is journalism 2: one who keeps a diary or journal. And journalism is defined as: the collecting, writing, editing, and publishing of news or news articles through newspapers or magazines (and, as generally accepted, through broadcasts, which would include the Internet).

Despite this, one foolish judge seems to be sympathetic to court papers that claim that the people who run the sites targeted by the lawsuit aren't "legitimate members of the press," and therefore they should not be granted the same privileges as the press. Ahem. I hate to point it out, but none of the founding fathers of this country were "legitimate members of the press" either. Not one.

I looked it up. They were businessmen, lawyers, merchants, boaters, securities speculators, farmers, shippers, scientists, physicians, and minsters. Not one of them considered their primary occupation to be a publisher or journalist, yet they were the very people who wanted to protect the free exchange of ideas. That is what the First Amendment truly aims to protect.

The medium of publication, distribution, or circulation is irrelevant. Sure, I appreciate the angst that some journalists feel when they are cast in the same category as bloggers, but it hardly justifies treating the profession as a regulated field. Like it or not, a journalist is someone who shares their ideas or observations through publication or broadcast. This includes blogs.

Not to mention, at least one of the three named bloggers is considered a 'legitimate journalist' (whatever that means) outside of his Web log. And, in the larger blogging community, many notable bloggers have decamped from mainstream media sources or created their own blogs to write freely.

Sure, some blogs have also gained a reputation for inaccuracy, but inaccurate reporting and outlandish opinions are not exclusive to blogging. Those nasty little side effects have been around long before the printing press was invented and, based on the number of 'whoopsie' moments in the mainstream media let alone bloggers, are not likely to change in the near future.

It seems to me the real question people should be asking is not whether bloggers should be protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments, but whether they should be held to the same standards as mainstream journalists in regard to accuracy and libel. Maybe it's time they were, especially those that unjustly libel individuals and coworkers whenever they like. With freedom comes responsibility.

Forgetting The First Amendment

This morning, I read a column by Thomas Mitchell, editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that shared some disturbing (but not so surprising) survey statistics that revealed how much 112,000 high school students valued the First Amendment.

After having the First Amendment read to them, 35 percent agreed with the statement "does the First Amendment go too far in the rights it guarantees" and 21 percent were undecided. Even more troubling, when asked whether newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without prior government approval of a story, only 24 percent of these students strongly agreed. Thirty two percent also concluded the press had too much freedom.

A year earlier, a similar survey was conducted among adults. Sixty five percent disagreed with the statement "does the First Amendment go too far in the rights it guarantees" yet only 48 percent strongly agreed that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without prior government approval of a story. While not much better, we could at least find some comfort in that a majority of Americans truly valued one of their most important Constitutional freedoms.

While one can only guess, there seem to be several reasons that the First Amendment is losing its luster. Among them: a growing mistrust of the media and its corporate owners, the increasing number of news stories that have been proven politicized or biased, the continuing number of inaccurate stories that are the result of journalists who sacrificed accuracy for expedience, and the ever-present emergence of less credible yet popular publishers who specialize in pushing the boundaries to the extreme. In short, the media is very often its own worst enemy in demonstrating its vital role in preserving our most basic freedoms for one reason or another.

Personally, I tend to subscribe to the theory that any abuse of the First Amendment tends to die in a day, while any restriction to the First Amendment will last generations, if not indefinitely. Unfortunately, I find myself in a shrinking minority, perhaps because my fellow citizens sometimes have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.

They don't always understand that increased government scrutiny on the media would include increased government scrutiny on their individual thoughts, views, and opinions as well. Perhaps it is ignorance, but they don't seem to understand that the day they begin a website or blog is the day that they have effectively decided to become a publisher, subject to the same restrictions that might one day be placed upon the media. Second, and even more startling to me, they sometimes seem to think that the government (whether local, state, or federal) will always act responsibly and never do anything to undermine the freedoms we have been granted, especially the First Amendment. But then again, I know better.

A few years ago, I worked on now State Senator Bob Beers' first run for the state assembly. During the race, his campaign team published a direct mail piece that brought to light several lies being promoted by his opponent during the primary. Once the piece was published and mailed, his opponent filed a complaint with a state commission and this governmental body ruled that although the piece was factually accurate, Beers should be fined because, in sum, the commission did not like the presentation of the content. Right. Beers was literally fined for telling the truth, a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Fortunately, Beers was exonerated and went on to win his first bid to serve in the legislature as an assemblyman. Last year, he was elected to the state senate. Coincidentally, we again faced a challenging primary from a 20-year incumbent who allowed his campaign team to publish countless misleading information and blatant lies about Beers. We decided, rather than file a complaint with a governmental entity, to employ an old-fashioned solution: the best way to remedy an abuse of the First Amendment is not by censoring the abuser, but by a candid, timely, and open discussion and presentation of the facts. In doing so, relatively few people were swayed by the opponent's misleading statements. Bob Beers won handily, and is currently representing his district as the clearest voice among fiscal conservatives and as vice chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

My point is simple enough. The First Amendment does not simply protect the media. It protects all of us. Value it. Preserve it. Protect it. Without it, we may very well one day have to apply for a license to publish something as simple as a blog post.