Interesting discussion about the SD Legislature’s proposed defamation laws

Read the comments, they are great. I agree with Cory, if I am not making one single penny from anonymous people trying to defame politicians on my website, how does that make me responsible, and what is my personal gain? I have deleted comments in the past that are either slanderous or just really, really bad, but like Cory says, why should I be the speech cops for Pierre? This is just an attack on the blogs and they have suckered a former(?) blogger into writing the legislation to make the rest of us feel all warm and fuzzy about it.


#1 caheidelberger on 02.07.10 at 7:10 pm

Check out the comment from Rep. Brian Gosch on Robbinsdale Radical. It sounds like the Legislature just wants to dictate comment moderation policy for all of us. Maybe the Legislators should just start their own blogs.

#2 l3wis on 02.08.10 at 2:28 am

They don’t know their asses from a hole in a ground. A few years ago a group of us started a satirical zine called ‘Scrounge’ We did put it online eventually, but it was first printed on newsprint and distributed around town, it was popular. A former lobbyist who often is critical of Pierre took a stack of the zines to Pierre during the legislative session and handed them to legislators (I wrote about politics) He said when he handed Rounds one, Roger Hunt was with him and Roger made the comment, “I wouldn’t worry too much about it Mike, they are just a bunch of bloggers.” I guess they are worried about us now.

#3 Ghost of Dude on 02.08.10 at 7:50 am

These legislators, all of whom probably still use AOL, have no business trying to regulate anything about the internet.

Trying to regulate the internet is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Off th etop of my head I can think of several ways around these rules that wouldn’t require much work.

#4 l3wis on 02.08.10 at 10:41 am

I think of one. They are unconstitutional.

#5 Ghost of Dude on 02.08.10 at 12:45 pm

There’s one.

How about blogging from a server in another state or country?
How does this legislation take into account the transnational nature of the internet?
Suppose someone anonymously defames one of our esteemed politicians from Canada or Venezuela?

Bills like this only reinforce my belief that the state legislative chambers must smell like geritol and stale farts – just like both country clubs.
The same people who probably couldn’t figure out how to open an attachment on an email think they have the know-how to regulate the internets.

#6 l3wis on 02.08.10 at 1:53 pm

Legislators worry more about what people think of them instead of thinking about the citizens needs. If they would concentrate more on helping the people that elected them people wouldn’t be out talking shit about them.

#7 Douglas Wiken on 02.10.10 at 2:41 pm

I did not hear all of Midday today, but one side seemed conspicuously absent: Bloggers and Forum moderators.

Also absent in what I heard was a single example of anything on any South Dakota blog that would generate any need for such legislation. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any, just that I have yet to hear of a good example.

Also absent is the technology that Nancy Turbak? says ought to be available to make their legislation work. Perhaps the legislators should be aware of such before they start writing legislation on the assumption the technology must exist or be brought into existence to meet requirements of their law.

#8 anominous on 02.10.10 at 4:36 pm

They need to pass a law making it unlawful to own or use a microphone without a permit next.

#9 l3wis on 02.10.10 at 8:49 pm

Doug- They are just a bunch of crybabies.

Leave a Comment