Julie Hilden considers the legality of “Web ‘Blacklists’ at FindLaw:
With the chance of misinterpreting information considerable, why not regulate – or even ban – sites like Litipages? And why not keep settlements confidential, as is the current practice – rather than making them open, as I have suggested?The answer is that there’s a cure for misinterpretation – and it’s more information, not government censorship. It’s condescending to suggest that Internet readers “can’t handle the truth” and will inevitably misinterpret it. And it’s anti-free-speech, as well: A key First Amendment principle is that there’s no “listener’s veto.” Just because a listener may misunderstand, or be offended by, speech, is no reason to censor it. If it were, the marketplace of ideas would be both dumbed down, and made bland.
If need be, regulators may require more information to be provided: We don’t stop selling food because some may be allergic to it; we put its contents on the label instead. But they should not outlaw such sites entirely.
It’s hard to imagine there’s any serious chance of such legislation, but her analysis is a good one. Hat tip to Kevin Heller, and here’s a traffic building tip, too: I decided to check up on his blog, which I’ve missed lately, merely because I saw him log onto Google Talk! Result: A link from our highly influential blog! His happy story could be yours, too…
Originally posted 2012-06-05 19:02:35. Republished by Blog Post Promoter