You're free to think whatever you like in the US. You aren't necessarily free to disseminate that thought. The freest society is one without laws. And yet, paradoxically, you end up less free in such a society. Maybe you can't say you want to kill the president on the internet, but you can say that you think Joe Schmoe is an asshole, and he can't do anything about it except for bark back because of laws. In an anarchy, you are free to say you are going to kill whomever you like without legal ramifications. But if you badmouth Joe, he can come over with a shotgun and see whether you think you're so clever when you're full of buckshot. And so while actions are not proscribed, people will not make use of their freedom for fear of the consequences. So what is better, a limited freedom that people make use of, or an absolute freedom that is too dangerous to risk?
Things have changed, people are taking what you say seriously on the net. If you type about killing, blowing up etc. on the net, someones going to report you. People are being prosecuted for it and what you type or say might come back to haunt you. Bullying, terrorism are serious and they are being looked at with a microscope. You might of gotten away with typing what you feel when the net was young but now you might be held accountable.
The truth is your rights and supposed freedoms can be violated at anytime your Gov. sees fit. Phone tapping, internet watchdogs etc.
People might think that they are anonymous and can do what they like on the net but if it catches the eye of certain people they might get a knock on the door and a search warrant handed to them.
Log in to comment