I’m sharing these passages (with attributions) from various items I’ve read. You can draw your own conclusions, thoughts and ideas from them.
- 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.
-First Amendment to the
- The Internet [...] has also nurtured an “artificial” sense of community among the hateful [...] When you have a venue for ventilating rage, your belief in that rage is ratified [...] It increases their belief that their behavior is acceptable. Their behavior is applauded, seconded. In that case, it’s scary. It does seem to roll and escalate.
-Shari Julian, psychologist, in an article in the Denver Post about Craigslist cracking down on what was being posted on its site.
- One, I think there’s so much information out there that it’s hard to know what to believe and what not to believe. Two, rumors take on a life of their own. Three, the democratization of all this information undermines any kind of authority. Everybody’s an authority, so nobody’s an authority.
-Dee Dee Meyers, former White House press secretary, in an article from Public Relations Tactics magazine.
- It started as privacy protection for the abused, the oppressed and the bashful. Now it shields creeps, criminals and malicious mobs. One story example was about a girl who, after sneaking out of the house, grabbed the keys to her dad’s Porche® and ended up crashing and killed in an accident. Gruesome photos of her mangled remains showed up online on Google™, Yahoo!® and Photobucket. Captions accused the girl of being a spoiled rich girl who deserved it. The postings were all anonymous.
-Paraphrased from the Forbes magazine article "Anonymity & the Net."
Food for thought.
John W. Scherer
John is CEO & Founder of Video Professor.com
Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.