The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact. This is both a practical and ethical belief. On a practical level, we simply cannot review all one hundred million-plus Tweets created and subsequently delivered every day. From an ethical perspective, almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits.

Our position on freedom of expression carries with it a mandate to protect our users’ right to speak freely and preserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed.

It was well-placed statement given that many news sources speculated on how Twitter’s service facilitated the Egyptian (and subsequent) protests; opportunistic, even, as Twitter wrapped itself in the banner of Free Speech and cried, “Sally forth, citizens of the world. Get your freedom on!”

Twitter stated earlier this week that they were branching into services for other languages such as Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew. On a date that is so significant for so many in the Middle East, it was hard not to conceptualize the timing of the announcement as a self-acknowledging wink at Twitter’s role, however major or minor, in the organization of protesters over the past year.

In a post on their official blog today, Twitter acknowledged that as they continue to move into culturally different regions of the world, some of what they can permit to be said through their service will be challenged by conflicting mores and tenets of freedom of expression. Given that, Twitter said today:

Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.

We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.

So, if I’m understanding this correctly: someone in Egypt tweets something that violates a cultural or political restriction on free speech, so Twitter receives a request to remove it. Twitter now has self-applied the power to selectively remove the Tweet from view within Egypt, yet the rest of the world will still be able to read the tweet?

I really hope that’s what Twitter means by this news. Please let this be what this means, Twitter.

So what do you think about Twitter’s new elective powers for selectively censoring tweets where they violate freedom of expression laws but still make them available outside of that country? Anybody have any thoughts on what kind of implications people could see as a result of this new policy? Comment below with your thoughts.

William Lawrence Cassidy stood accused of using Twitter to target Alyce Zeoli, a Buddhist religious leader, with aggressive and violent threats during the months of May to December in 2010. Some of Cassidy’s tweets were derogatory towards Zeoli’s religious beliefs while some vaguely suggested acts of violence that may befall Zeoli. The FBI concluded that of the 8,000 tweets that Cassidy posted, almost all of them were about Zeoli or her Buddhist group.

In his ruling, Judge Titus cited the First Amendment as the influence for his decision:

Even though the Internet is the newest medium for anonymous, uncomfortable expression touching on political or religious matters, online speech is equally protected under the First Amendment as there is “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied” to online speech.

Judge Titus’ understanding of exactly how sites like Twitter operate is a little concerning, as he believes them to contain the same potency as a community bulletin board:

Because this case involves First Amendment issues, terms that were in use by citizens when the Bill of Rights was drafted may help in understanding the legal context of Blogs and Twitter. Suppose that a Colonist erects a bulletin board in the front yard of his home to post announcements that might be of interest to others and other Colonists do the same. A Blog is like a bulletin board, except that it is erected in cyberspace rather than in one’s front yard. If one Colonist wants to see what is on another’s bulletin board, he would need to walk over to his neighbor’s yard and look at what is posted, or hire someone else to do so. Now, one can inspect a neighbor’s Blog by simply turning on a computer.

Twitter allows the bulletin board system to function so that what is posted on Colonist No. 1’s bulletin board is automatically posted on Colonist No. 2’s bulletin board for Colonist No. 2 to see. The automatic postings from one Colonist to another can be turned on or off by the owners of the bulletin boards, but there is no mandatory aspect of postings on one Colonist’s bulletin board showing up on the other’s. It is entirely up to the two Colonists whether their bulletin boards will be interconnected in such a manner

The collection of Tweets from Cassidy that were available in the court ruling are categorized as “Threats,” “Criticism of” Zeoli and/or her religious group, “Derogatory Statements Directed Towards” Zeoli, “Responses to” Zeoli and/or her religious group, and “Statements not necessarily directed towards” Zeoli. Some of Cassidy’s cryptic tweets below are from Appendix A of the court document that was provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

- Tuesday, June 22, 2010: “want it to all be over soon sweetie?”
- Sunday, July 25, 2010: “(A.Z.) you called me a “sick low life pig” oh great Mandarava? Go kill yourself.”
- Sunday, October 24, 2010: “Rain tomorrow should cover the tracks…”
- Monday, December 20, 2010: “I have this *amazing* present for a group of people who really, really deserve something *amazing*. Long time in preparation. Wait for it.”
- Monday, December 20, 2010: “I have a really *special* eclipse present for somebody who really, really deserves something *special.* Full circle karma. Wait for it.”
- Sunday, May 30, 2010: “(A.Z.) is a demonic force who tries to destroy Buddhism”
- Sunday, May 30, 2010: “ya like haiku? Here’s one for ya: “Long, Limb, Sharp Saw, Hard Drop” ROFLMAO.”

Going from what I can understand of page six of the document, it appears that Zeoli attempted to protect herself from Cassidy’s harassment by using multiple accounts although it’s uncertain if these were used in tandem or if they succeeded each other after she abandoned an account due to Cassidy’s persistent tweeting. Twitter does have privacy policies where you can protect your tweets from being seen to the general public, but it’s not clear whether Zeoli applied that setting to any of her accounts (couldn’t read the whole court doc, folks – I gots deadlines).

Internet trolls are nothing new. The Internet would probably never get used if it weren’t for people out there trolling other people, anonymously posting venomous comments about other anonymous people. But still… although the tenacity of Cassidy’s aggressive fixation on Zeoli and her religious group probably does file into “free speech,” that doesn’t mean that they’re not menacing or threatening. Would these somewhat-veiled threats be considered the same way if they were scrawled onto notes that were left on her windshield? And if Cassidy is free to make “uncomfortable” use of the First Amendment, what does this imply about anyone in the United States who may be posting material that could be considered “uncomfortable” but terroristic?

The adjournment and subsequent delay came after a flurry of new amendments had been presented by committee members, which was a part of what has been described as a “marathon” debate. The Congressional members adjourned in order to turn their attention “to a floor vote on a nearly $1 trillion spending bill that would avert a government shutdown.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Committee Chairman and fervent SOPA-pusher, didn’t consider any of the backlast against SOPA thus far to have any legitimacy. From The Hill:

“I am pleased that the unfounded claims of critics of the Stop Online Piracy Act have overwhelmingly been rejected by a majority of House Judiciary Committee members,” Smith said. “The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality. Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts.”

So stay tuned next week when Congress might reconvene and maybe we’ll actually see a vote on SOPA. Until then, enjoy all of your unlimited free speechiness on the Internet this weekend!

When Obsidian Finance Group, an Oregon-based investment firm, sued blogger Crystal Cox for defamation, she believed that the law would protect her. Cox argued that her work constituted journalism, and that she was therefore protected by an Oregon law that protects journalists from being required to divulge sources. U.S. District Court judge Marco Hernandez disagreed, and ordered Cox to pay $2.5 million in damages to Obsidian Finance.

Cox runs a small armada of blogs, most dealing with an array of legal and financial issues (a pair of sites devoted to natural health remedies being the exceptions). On several of those blogs – most notably Obsidian Finance Sucks – she has taken issue with the behavior of Obsidian Finance and Kevin Padrick, co-founder of the company. In one post in particular, posted late last year, she accused Padrick of fraud, of dishonesty with Obsidian’s shareholders, and the abuse of his position as the company’s chapter 11 trustee for personal gain.

The post acknowledges that Cox had already received a cease-and-desist from Padrick’s attorney. In response to Cox’s refusal to comply, Obsidian sued for defamation. Cox, who represented herself in court, argued that she was a journalist, and that the information in her post had come from a confidential source, insulating both her and the source from liability. Judge Hernandez wrote in his ruling that internet blogs are not covered by the statute in question, which defines media of communication as “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.” He further argues, citing state statute, that the protections of Oregon’s journalism shield law do not apply in civil defamation suits, meaning that even if he accepted Cox’s argument that being a blogger made her a journalist, she would not be protected by the shield law in this instance.

After the ruling, Cox posted a flurry of updates to her Obsidian Finance blog. In the posts she argues against the judge’s ruling and cites the publicity the case has garnered as a victory for her.

Last week, 18-year-old Emma Sullivan was attending a youth in government conference with her fellow classmates at a Topeka high school when she submitted the tweet that would draw the ire of government and school officials and gain her a few thousand new followers.

At what point do you think it is reasonable to limit speech on social media? Let us know in the comments.

As Kansas Governor and former U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R) was speaking at the conference, Sullivan decided to tweet this during the address:

Apparently, Sullivan didn’t actually say anything to the Governor, and was really just joking around with her friends.

While the tweet might not be the most eloquent expression of political frustration, it’s pretty innocuous. But it was enough to catch the attention of the Governor’s office, who spotted the tweet in question during routine social media monitoring.

Presumably a tad perturbed, Brownback’s people contacted Sullivan’s high school principal. Sullivan was then asked to apologize for her tweet, and according to Politico, the principal even instructed her to use certain talking points in the apology letter.

Sullivan refused the request to apologize, tweeting this late Sunday:

“I don’t think I should write the letter, and I don’t think it would be the best move for me,” she said. “At this time, I do not think an apology would be a sincere thing for me to do.”

She also said that she would do it again.

Why does she think Governor Brownback blows a lot anyways? Apparently, she disapproves of his decision to get rid of the entire Kansas Arts Commission budget.

Some Twitter users have jumped on the #heblowsalot hashtag to express their disappointment of Brownback and other officials involved:

So, is young miss Sullivan taking a stand to become a model of free speech in social media? Before her semi-political tweet, her Twitter feed was mostly crowded with Justin Bieber and Twilight. But her refusal to apologize has gained her a whole new following, as she has gained a few thousand followers in just a few days.

Let’s face it: her tweet regarding Governor Brownback doesn’t exactly amount to astute political commentary. I mean, she did use the hashtag #heblowsalot. But Sullivan’s lack of eloquence is really beside the point. That point being – why did Governor Brownback’s team get their panties in a wad over this tweet?

Sure, social media monitoring can be a useful tool for someone in office. It allows them to gauge public sentiment on a variety of issues and also receive live feedback on decisions they make that affect their constituents.

But contacting a girl’s school to complain about a critical tweet is not the type of monitoring that politicians should be engaged in. Do these people really have nothing better to do than troll Twitter looking for dissenting viewpoints….from high schoolers? Come on guys, thicken up the skin a little bit.

Honestly, there is no room in a free society for the mere suggestion that someone should apologize for expressing their opinions on social media. There are situations where free speech on social media sites might not cover certain content. Take for example the head of the College Republicans at UT Austin, who made headlines when she tweeted, “Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had! #2012.”

Sure, that’s in poor taste. But even with a tweet like that, there is a debate as to whether or not that speech is dangerous enough to warrant restriction.

But there is one thing I am sure of, no debate necessary: the hashtag #heblowsalot does not deserve a governmental reprimand and it sure as hell doesn’t warrant an apology letter.

Late Monday, Governor Brownback and his team came to their senses and apologized to the student, saying that his staff overreacted and emphasizing that he cares greatly for freedom of speech. Here’s the statement, which he posted as a note on Facebook:

“My staff over-reacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms. I enjoyed speaking to the more than 100 students who participated in the Youth in Government Program at the Kansas Capitol. They are our future. I also want to thank the thousands of Kansas educators who remind us daily of our liberties, as well as the values of civility and decorum. Again, I apologize for our over-reaction.”

The school district also weighed in on Monday, saying that Sullivan did not have to apologize for her tweet.

What do you think about the Governor’s actions? Is there any situation where an elected official should scold a constituent for a disparaging tweet? Did the school have a right to initially demand an apology from Sullivan? Or do you think that all of this is a ridiculous misuse of authority? Let us know in the comments.

It’s unclear whether Twitter removed the topic or it simply fell off the list naturally (evidence suggests the latter), but the question remained: Should they censor that offensive content?

Your comments last week provided a pretty clear answer to the question: No. Although the distinction was made that social networks like Facebook and Twitter are private companies who aren’t compelled to operate under the same free speech allowances as the U.S. Government, a majority said that it would be wrong to remove the offensive content.

This week we ask a similar question, but with raised stakes. What about content that advocates violence? Let us know in the comments.

Let it be known, the following article will contain no religious opinions from yours truly – whether heavy-handed or carefully cloaked. At the heart of this, for me at least, is simply the issue of anonymity online and the tendency for people to say crazy things when staring at a keyboard and a monitor. Oh, and some of these posts are simply epic in their jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

Here’s how the story goes:

Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists made an appearance recently on America Live with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel.

The reason that he appeared was to discuss the recent lawsuit filed by the American Atheists group over the cross-shaped steel beams at the World Trade Center site know as the “World Trade Center Cross.” The cross would form part of an exhibit at the September 11th Memorial and Museum.

The lawsuit alleges that the cross-shaped steel beam display promotes Christianity over all other religions and it diminishes the civil rights or non-Christians since it is included on public property.

To them, it’s a matter of church and state separation. Either that or it’s about the singularity of the religious celebration. According to ABC News, the American Atheists said that they “have contacted the 9/11 Memorial and Museum requesting to display their own atheistic memorial next to the steel-shaped cross, possibly in the form of an atom or an American flag, to represent the ’500 non-religious Americans’ who were “among the victims of the 9/11 attack.”

They say that their request was met with silence.

After Mr. Scott’s appearance on the show, Facebook users flooded the Fox News Facebook page with comments.

UPDATE: Fox News has issued a statement about the comments in question:

“We make every attempt to keep our Facebook page as safe as possible,” said Peter Drace, Fox News VP and creative director of promotion, “and we take immediate steps to remove all hateful and dangerous language.”

Fox News deleted the post containing the comments after identifying over 200 threatening comments. The post containing the comments went up on the night of July 28th. The post was removed on the morning of July 30th.

Although the content is no longer available as it has been removed, multiple sources managed to grab screencaps of the comments. Here are the ones culled by American Atheists themselves -

From the mouth of one gentleman, “few groups are filled with more hatred than atheists.” Just before that, “can we start killing them now.” Isn’t it ironic? Dontcha think?

Some bloggers who also screencapped many of the comments blurred out the names of the commenters. Others specifically brought attention to their names. Their argument is that the internet needs accountability. Basically, if you have the balls to say something, you should have the balls to answer for it. Nobody should protect people on the internet who post controversial content for public consumption.

Anonymity: Is it the landmark achievement of the internet or its central problem? Last year, a Facebook product design manager wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times where she called for content providers to stop allowing anonymous commenting. She pushed the importance of accountability.

And just recently, (former) Facebook employee Randi Zuckerberg said that anonymity on the internet has to go. She said that “people behave a lot better when they have their real names down” and “people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.”

Well, the majority of the commenters above didn’t hide behind closed doors. They used their reals names to post their misguided comments. You can check out their Facebook pages – many of them aren’t set to fully private. Is the fact that people aren’t having to talk directly to people’s faces enough? Is that all the anonymity they need?

We talked yesterday about new research linking Facebook use to aggressive behavior. Is this what they were talking about? Is all of that anger and hatred a product of Facebook use in general? Or is Facebook simply a platform that can be used for everything, good and bad – and Facebook just enables some people with certain predispositions to bad behavior?

Motivations for the behavior aside, controversial content finds its way to social media sites. This is a fact. And once it gets out there for public consumption, decisions must be made regarding how to deal with it.

From the various reports from people who were screencapping these comments as the rolled in, the pace at which the truly extreme “death wishes” disappeared was pretty quick. It’s much more likely that the Fox News Admins were fighting to remove the content as opposed to Facebook stepping in. But the debate remains: if the comments above had been left alone, should Facebook have removed them?

Or do the inarguably vile comments deserve free speech protection within the realm of social media speech guidelines?

I know that few topics of conversation could be filled with more sensitive issues than vile threats to atheists over a Christian monument at 9/11. That’s hitting all the hot spots – religion, national tragedy, politics, etc. And it’s virtually impossible to separate those sentiments from a free speech debate. But let’s try to think about this as Christians, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists – whatever title your identity merits.

Does this violent speech have a place on Facebook? Even though it doesn’t advocate the death of any singular person, is it prone to incite violence?

Should it remain as a testament to free expression? Let us know what you think in the comments.

[Lead Image Credit]

Named the Final Solution by the Nazis, and subsequently known as the Holocaust around the world, concentration camps were found by Allied forces advancing toward Germany. The first major camp was Majdanek, which was found by the Russians in July 1944. This was followed by other camps in 1945.

The concentration camps were built for one reason – the extermination of the Jewish race by Hitler, in an attempt to breed the perfect Aryan race of blond hair and blue eyes.

While the exact number isn’t known, over six million Jews died in these camps – two thirds of the Jewish residents of Europe at that time. Of this number, one million children perished, along with two million women and three million men.

However, the numbers could be far more – many scholars feel the genocide of other ethnic groups by the Nazis, such as homosexuals, disabled people, Romani and other cultures, should be included. This would mean around 11 million people were murdered in the Holocaust, all because of one man’s twisted vision.

Over the years, there have been many claims by groups and individuals that the Holocaust never happened and that it was a myth created by Israel. Despite the public video footage; the images taken by Allied troops; the admittance of guilt by past Nazi generals – many still believe the Holocaust never happened.

It’s a viewpoint that’s raised questions on free speech and opinions and if, by denying the right to deny the Holocaust, people are having their own right to speak abused.

Now that debate and fight is involving Facebook.

Facebook and Free Speech

A caveat. I’m a huge believer in free speech and differing opinions, and often get shit on because of it – c’est la vie. I will admit I don’t agree on all speech being free – clear hate and sex crime/hate, for example, are some areas I feel opinions step over the line. But then does that make me against true free speech? Possibly.

That’s a personal opinion, though, and would affect very few people in the grand scheme of things (and only if I spoke out). A social network like Facebook, with over 700 million users, is a different kettle of fish. It’s a public platform that allows anyone and everyone to post (and access) status updates, thoughts, views and more.

Facebook’s policies look to encourage free speech and opinion, and rightly so. But is there a limit to which this should stop, and a different policy invoked?

That’s one of the questions currently being asked of Facebook by survivors of the Holocaust, in a plea to Facebook to remove groups that have been set up to deny the Holocaust ever happened.

In an open letter posted on the Simon Wiesenthal Center website, the survivors ask Facebook to re-evaluate their approach to what’s classed as free speech versus hate speech so that the atrocities of the past aren’t repeated.

In dialogue so far between the survivors group and Facebook, a Senior VP at Facebook has advised of the importance to “…maintain consistency in our policies, which don’t generally prohibit people from making statements about historical events, no matter how ignorant the statement or how awful the event.”

I’m not sure I can buy that.

Free Speech or Road to Conflict?

As I mentioned earlier, I’m a huge believer in free speech and opinion – yet should all speech be free? Opinion is different – you can keep that to yourself. But, by definition, speech is public and has the ability to change mindsets and start movements.

A speech by Hitler in 1938 led to a movement. It resulted in the deaths of at least six million people.

I’m not naive enough to believe that had the speech never happened, the Holocaust wouldn’t have. Hitler was determined in his path to the Final Solution, and if that speech hadn’t happened, others would have (some did). Nazism was much more than words from a balcony.

But if there’s one thing that history can teach us, it’s that words can be dangerous. When hate is powerful enough, it can see words become a powerful weapon. The world saw its results from Nazi Germany. It sees its results in countries where dictators rule by force, and people live in fear of their gender, sexuality, beliefs and religion being used against them.

Free speech is important – it differentiates true freedom from state-defined freedom. The question is, if free speech is silencing voices and historical fact – and has the potential to incite violence – should it still be free?

I don’t have the answers, just my opinion. You?

Check out DannyBrown.me for more articles by Danny Brown

But the SCOTUS has made a ruling on the case based on first amendment free speech rights, and in doing so has declared videos games on par with other forms of artistic expression like books, film and music.

The case was originally titled Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, but the filing party was changed to Brown. The state of California originally passed bill AB 1179 which attempted to make the sale of the violent games illegal. Here is the criteria from the original bill on whats makes a game fall into that “ultra-violent” category –

A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would
find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the
community as to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon
images of human beings or characters with substantially human
characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or
depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the
victim.

The California courts subsequently ruled this law to be unconstitutional. The state appealed to the SCOTUS, and they agreed to hear the case.

And today, in a 7-2 ruling, the SCOTUS upheld that the new law is in fact unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia says that the act “does not comport with the First Amendment” and that “video games qualify for First Amendment protection.”

From the opinion –

The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. ___, ___. Unlike the New York law upheld in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that “interactive” video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its out- come, is unpersuasive. Pp. 2–11.

It looks like the court thinks that the California state law unjustly and unprecedentedly opens up a can of worms when it comes to content regulation. Scalia went on to say that the gaming industry’s voluntary rating system (E, Teen, Mature, etc.) allows enough help for parents who wants to restrict their children’s access to violent content. He also added that the act is “overinclusive” because not all parents want their children restricted to violent video games.

So, besides being a huge win for the gaming industry, does this ruling give even more legitimacy to video games as an art form? If so, that may ruffle Roger Ebert’s feathers a little bit.

You can expect the interwebs to respond heavily when either free speech or video games are discussed. Put them together and whoa. Here are some of the top responses of Twitter –

Most of the comments rolling in on Twitter take this shape and agree with the decision. There are a few, however, that have a different opinion –

I, for one, would not be the well-adjusted man that I am today without ripping out some spinal cord as a fatality in Mortal Kombat when I was nine. The argument can rage on whether young kids are harmed by violent video games, but the SCOTUS, with this ruling, is leaving that debate up to the parents. I’m sure most of us can be happy that with this decision, video games as an art form just scored another one in the win column.

As long as you don’t own a PlayStation 3.

A ruling by a California Judge issued a restraining order favoring the Sony corporation over the rights individual owner — surprise, surprise –  and now, George Hotz is no longer allowed to disseminate information about how he hacked his PlayStation 3.  Further, the ruling also requires Hotz to turn over his computers to Sony, a move that’s just as disappointing as the restraining order.

So not only is Hotz not allowed to reveal his hacking methods, which feels an awful lot like free speech infringement, he has to turn over equipment that Sony has no legal right to, all because the trend of favoring big money over the rights of the individual owner continues unabated.

In fact, the judge in question — US District Judge Susan Illston — initially had reservations about trying the case in northern California because Hotz lives in New Jersey, meaning there was confusion about jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop Illston from issuing a dubious ruling that serves as a blow to an owner’s individual rights, infringes on Hotz’ free speech rights, and serves a boon to entertainment corporations everywhere.  No longer do the Sonys of the world have the burden of proving piracy, they can simply rely on the court system to rule in their favor when they are threatened with a future they can’t control.

Forgive my confusion, but doesn’t Hotz, you know, own his PS3?  Did he not buy it with his own legal tender?  If so, he should be able to anything he wants to it.  If Hotz wants to relieve his bodily waste inside of the device, he can.  If he wants to take it home and smash it into a million pieces, he can do that to.

But the one thing he cannot do, apparently, is hack the device — too bad it’s not an iPhone — and then discuss how he did it.  Mind you, Hotz was not found guilty of piracy or hacking.  Sony was merely trying to stop him from spreading the word on how to rid the PS3 of Sony’s oft-maligned DMCA, which means the only freedoms Sony cares about are the ones that protect their bottom line.

While we’re not allowed to discuss how to hack a PS3, we can discuss how to build bombs, or to kidnap children, if that’s your thing.

The bright spot in all this, if there is one, as CruchGear points out, is good luck on stopping the flow of information.  Now that the details for PS3 hacking have been unleashed on the Internet, it’s going to be hard, if not impossible, to put that particular genie back in the bottle, like so:

It’s just unfortunate a US Judge would so willfully disregard a person’s right to free speech, regardless if Sony liked the content of the message or not.

Using Google’s define: function brings back nothing. Google doesn’t know what digital terrorism is, and the top search result for the phrase lands at HomelandSecurityWeekly, where the phrase is used in the title of an article about hackers, but is not revisited in the body.

Also high in the search results is a press release regarding a study conducted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an organization devoted to fighting anti-Semitism. The study, titled Facebook, YouTube+: How Social Media Outlets Impact Digital Terrorism and Hate, found that 30 percent of new postings on Facebook are extremist in nature. The organization to date has identified 10,000 “problematic hate and terrorist websites, hate games and other internet postings,” much of it from user-generated sites allowing “the viral spread of extremism online” where “expressions of hate can easily flow unchallenged.”

The Los Angeles-based Wiesenthal Center, known for its Museum of Tolerance, includes the usual hate-group and terrorism suspects: neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Taliban. It also includes South American Communist revolutionaries, who, though the government it fights labels it a “terrorist group,” might not entirely fit that definition, digital or otherwise.

The problem is the fine line between terms. What separates a revolutionary from a terrorist? If Britain had labeled American settlers terrorists instead of rebels, would France have been so eager to lend a hand? Could the settlers have achieved such moral support for their insurrection?

That’s a whole pile of apples and oranges, maybe.

There was a big stink regarding Holocaust denial groups peppering Facebook, and Facebook heads took a stand for freedom of speech, a stand surprising many considering the social network’s aggressive deletion of breastfeeding images upon offended user request. The slightest hint of areola provided perhaps a clear demarcation line for identifying what is obscene, but Facebook needed actual threats or advocating of violence before it would pull the terms-of-use plug on hate groups.

At 225 million members, Facebook needs a sort of governance, and the company revealed the buds of such governance recently through new quasi-democratic processes. Any site reaching that level of mainstreaming requires some mirror of polite society prohibitions, but prohibition in “real-world” polite society was always dicey with blurry boundaries between acceptable and offensive, with definitions of each changing with the regional topography. Imagine how much finer the lines, how many more toes are smashed by insensitive boots in a virtual world without the physical restraints of geography.

Facebook is just the popular target of the day, though. YouTube has faced similar quandaries regarding the same fringe undesirables. Luckily for both, private companies don’t have the same obligations as the government they operate in*. They can turn anyone away at the door. But it’s not always so easy. A jihadist, a white supremacist, sure, easy to spot, easy to toss out, only those who think like them complain. But what should Twitter do with the influx of tweets praising the assassination of an abortion doctor?

Yes, dicey waters indeed this censorship business.

At the moment it’s of little consequence. These are private companies with terms of use to enforce and the right to do so. Alienated groups are pushed out to the fringes of the Net, never without an outlet for their brands of speech so long as they can pay to host their own content or find a public site sympathetic to them. One wonders if the pressures of the mainstream will one day convince Google to de-index them, hosting companies to kick them down, and what criteria will be used to do so. One also wonders what kind of entity eventually is tasked with policing all dicey Internet waters, who will become the ultimate arbitrators of acceptable speech, who will decide the difference between art and pornography, between a sexy nipple and a maternal one, between dangerous speech and offensive speech.

Last week, Websense Security Labs cited the Wiesenthal study of extremist communities proliferating on social networks and issued its own report. Categorized as “Militancy and Extremist” and “Racism and Hate,” Websense found a threefold increase of such material over the past year on social sites like Yahoo and Google Groups and YouTube.

Websense has devoted some of its security research to identification and classification of extremist groups, doing so by analyzing symbols and content, separating extremists from cultists, “legitimate” news sites from “propaganda” sites. From Websense analysts Ruth Mastron and Eva Cihalova’s blog post on the subject:

A wide breadth of peripheral information sends a site to our “police lineup.” User profile, channel subscribers, links in and out of a page, connections among users, the architectural style of a page, textual and multimedia content, among other attributes, all feed further into processes that help us uncover their “buddies.” We have learned that birds of a feather flock together. Once we identify one such site, we almost always find many more.

So there we have now an example of Web security ballooning to include the tracking and identifying of hate groups and extremists and what they say. In Salem, a couple hundred years ago, nobody felt sorry for the “witches,” and very few today are going to feel sorry for racists, hate-mongers, and terrorists, so why not keep a good, close eye on them? But then again, whom do we trust to draw the right lines?

It’s not a new idea that “good” causes are eventually abused by those with good, moral, utopian desires. In fact, that idea is inked into the US Constitution, along with the ideal that innocence is not to be jeopardized in pursuit of corruption. Things like suspicion and dislike are not just enough causes to deprive a person of his rights. Ideally, that’s the rule of law in America, even if—over and over again—the ideal is not carried out.

But things change, especially when a matter of security, eh? One wonders how long before, if a person wants a modicum of freedom of speech, one keeps his or her speech off the Internet completely. Not to get all 1984 on you, but Big Brother is polishing up his computer monitor. A term like "digital terrorism" provides a just vague enough blanket to throw over lots of people.

*Though, as we’ve seen with telecoms, the government may rely on private companies to collect information it can’t legally collect itself.