From: Harris Cohen <hlc2105@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:50:46 -0500

Re: [CPC] Re: Anonymity - Yes, I do care, but then what?

------=_Part_17204_24124916.1142020246397
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It's also useful to distinguish between the confessional, diary-esque blog
and the blog that is more of a journalistic report on matters of some
limited public interest. Of course, making this distinction isn't always
easy, which is the large elephant in the media law room right now.


On 3/10/06, Matt Norwood <mrn2101@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Just to clarify my position: I'm very much pro-blog in general, where
> "blog" is the current buzzword signifying information produced and
> published/transmitted by ordinary citizens. Not only does
> self-publishing promise a democratic news-media environment less under
> the thumb of moneyed interests, but personal blogging actually does
> important work in creating and maintaining communities. But a
> "community" is not an unqualified good; there seems to me to be an
> inherent trade-off between social alienation on the one hand and
> repressive cultural orthodoxy on the other. One can only hope, I think,
> to allow people to choose to which communities they belong and to limit
> the degree to which one community can impose its values on another
> insofar as those values are not conducive to republican government.
>
> Right; maybe "clarify" wasn't the right word at the beginning of this
> message. I'm just saying: blogs are a net good, loss of privacy
> notwithstanding.
>
> Matt
>
> > I'm rambling and not offering any useful ideas, but I have one thing
> > to add.  I know that we focus primarily on the negative aspect of
> > the blogosphere, but there is certainly a positive populist element
> > to it as well.  And perhaps we have touched upon it a bit.  I don't
> > know, let's just say that for every 1000 inane, bubble-gum "I
> > kissed Matt Norwood with tongue" blogs, there are investigative
> > journalistic blogs uncovering the lies that the MSM propogates for
> > the administration.  I'm not convinced that the best thing at this
> > point isn't just to keep pushing and talking and telling and using
> > this sort of technology as the amplifier.  As legal experts, we add
> > credence (deserved or not I won't say) to our opinions.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>
>

------=_Part_17204_24124916.1142020246397
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It's also useful to distinguish between the confessional, diary-esque blog =
and the blog that is more of a journalistic report on matters of some limit=
ed public interest. Of course, making this distinction isn't always easy, w=
hich is the large elephant in the media law room right now.
<br><br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 3/10/06, <b class=3D"gmail_=
sendername">Matt Norwood</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:mrn2101@columbia.edu">mr=
n2101@columbia.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8e=
x; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Just to clarify my position: I'm very much pro-blog in general, where<b=
r>"blog" is the current buzzword signifying information produced =
and<br>published/transmitted by ordinary citizens. Not only does<br>self-pu=
blishing promise a democratic news-media environment less under
<br>the thumb of moneyed interests, but personal blogging actually does<br>=
important work in creating and maintaining communities. But a<br>"comm=
unity" is not an unqualified good; there seems to me to be an<br>inher=
ent trade-off between social alienation on the one hand and
<br>repressive cultural orthodoxy on the other. One can only hope, I think,=
<br>to allow people to choose to which communities they belong and to limit=
<br>the degree to which one community can impose its values on another<br>
insofar as those values are not conducive to republican government.<br><br>=
Right; maybe "clarify" wasn't the right word at the beginning of =
this<br>message. I'm just saying: blogs are a net good, loss of privacy
<br>notwithstanding.<br><br>Matt<br><br>> I'm rambling and not offering =
any useful ideas, but I have one thing<br>> to add.  I know th=
at we focus primarily on the negative aspect of<br>> the blogosphere, bu=
t there is certainly a positive populist element
<br>> to it as well.  And perhaps we have touched upon it a bi=
t.  I don't<br>> know, let's just say that for every 1000 inan=
e, bubble-gum "I<br>> kissed Matt Norwood with tongue" blogs, =
there are investigative
<br>> journalistic blogs uncovering the lies that the MSM propogates for=
<br>> the administration.  I'm not convinced that the best thi=
ng at this<br>> point isn't just to keep pushing and talking and telling=
 and using
<br>> this sort of technology as the amplifier.  As legal expe=
rts, we add<br>> credence (deserved or not I won't say) to our opinions.=
<br><br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------=
--<br>
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list<br><br></blockquote><=
/div><br>

------=_Part_17204_24124916.1142020246397--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list