Sunday, April 27, 2008

Blog Bomb in the Works?
Posted by Peter A. Stinson

Over at the Coast Guard Report, Thomas Jackson reports that one of his "on scene leaders" at headquarters has told him that a new media policy is in the works. Let's hope Mr. Jackson is correct when he says, "At the end of the day I'm not sure Coasties need to worry about this just yet." He notes,

Sadly we are told that the new policy will seek to restrict the First Amendment Rights of Coasties by limiting what they write in Blogs as well as what they can say in comments.

Perhaps by the time the ALCOAST hits the streets, any bold First Amendment restrictions will have been left aside in the re-writes.

I find it interesting that comments are something the Coast Guard is looking to squelch. Aside from the fact that comments are one of the key characteristics of blogs, comments are protected speech... and the publisher of the blog is not responsible for them. Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230) provides cover for blog publishers when it comes to comments. In short, blog publishers are not responsible for comments left by other people.

Yes, IANAL, but I think that's what it boils down to. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a pretty good FAQ about Section 230. Section 230 says, in part,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

EFF notes,

Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs.

Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it.

Not just defamatory statements are covered. EFF notes that Section 230 also

has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress.

This section of the U.S. Code does not

does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law,

notes the EFF FAQ page.

While I'm the publisher of AN UNOFFICIAL COAST GUARD BLOG (see the bottom of this page), I am not liable for comments made on this blog by other people.

If the Coast Guard does attempt to hold blog publishers accountable for comments, they're not the only organization attempting to do so. TechDirt had a post just last week about this very issue: LendingTree Pressures Blogger To Remove Comments.

I would hope that this impending ALCOAST is more of a what Coasties can do rather than what Coasties cannot do. Over the last several months, we've offered suggestions as to what ought to be in the Coast Guard's new media policy. In no particular order, here are a few posts that touch on what ought to be in a new media policy:

• What's the best method of harnessing Web 2.0 for the Coast Guard?


• Thoughts on organizational use of New Media


• Bring on FROM THE DECKPLATE, please


• Barbara Streisand, blowback, and this blog

While some of these ideas have been embraced in the last month or two, some suggestions are still hanging out there totally unaddressed.

I hope this new policy, if indeed it is headed down the pike, really does create a policy which helps the Coast Guard embrace and use new media.

As Mr. Jackson noted in his post,

We'll need to wait and see what actually is said in the new policy, but Commandant Thad Allen will only get one chance to get it right and live up to his Transparency Moniker.

Here's hoping Admiral Allen and his Director of Governmental & Public Affairs, Rear Admiral Landry, craft a policy which addresses strategic issues, provides for specific tactics, and encourages transparency and dialogue.

Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2008
   

Labels: by Peter Stinson

3 comments:

At Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:33:00 PM EDT Thomas Jackson said...

Peter,

Thanks for this well researched, written and thoughtful post. You provide the necessary background to give Bloggers (CGbloggers) some hope that their First Amendment Rights will be at least somewhat safe.

My sources were very cautious about sharing this, and only after confirming it from a second source was I able to go to print. Like many, I remain concerned for the number of Coasties (Military and Civilian) who live in fear of reprisal and retaliation. I suspect that will become a way of life for the Honorable.

Our Country is fortunate to have so many Coasties whom are indicative of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty above and beyond all else.

 

At Monday, April 28, 2008 5:07:00 AM EDT Thomas Jackson said...

Peter,

I read Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, also known as Title 47 United States Code, Chapter 5, Section § 230.

I wonder if HQ Coast Guard, Radm. Landry's staff will use the applicable laws in drafting the policy. Tina Calvert and Arlene Gonzalez are busy in the basement drafting the new Coast Guard EO Manual. The old manual still in use does not follow 29 C.F.R. 1614.

My point here is that Coast Guard leadership have been known in the past to draft policy that is inconsistent with law. That works well until challenged.

Like you said, I said, ... Admiral Allen gets one shot a getting this policy right. It will either support transparency or it will spell the end of his transparency moniker.

 

At Thursday, May 1, 2008 1:02:00 AM EDT Anonymous said...

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with the 'blog comments' angle. I'd guess that it's more of a 'if you write a racist comment on a blog, don't expect to get away with it' and not a 'if there's a racist comment on your blog you're in trouble'. That's the way I interpreted the original post.

 

Post a Comment