Is A Blogger Strike The Best Way To Fight Back Against Laws Designed To Quiet Bloggers?

from the doesn't-seem-like-it dept

Wed, Aug 19th 2009 3:53am — Mike Masnick

Last month, we wrote about a proposed law in Italy that would likely have serious chilling effects on bloggers and other independent online producers, by setting up fines for not pulling down content if someone accuses the site of defamation (not upon a court verdict, just upon accusation). In response, bloggers throughout Italy went on a "blog strike" to protest the proposed law. However, CitMediaLaw points us to a blog post raising the question of how a blog strike accomplishes that goal? If anything it would seem to do the opposite. By silencing themselves, and not talking about the issues, it keeps those issues out of the discussion for whatever period of time. Instead of silencing, why not do what the bloggers do best and talk about the problems of the law so that many more people are aware of them?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bloggers, censorship, defamation, free speech, italy

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 4:40am

Not all bloggers have a head. At least with journalism, there`s someone making sure you have half a brain before they hire you. Well not always, but you get the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ..., 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:05am
  
  Re:
  "Not all bloggers have a head. "
  
  Interesting. Have any pics ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  I'm just baffled as to what headless bloggers throwing pumpkins at public officials have to do with anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:09am

OT: Why US Newspapers atr failing
August 19, 2009
New York Times' Disgrace Deepens
By Richard Baehr
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/19/new_york_times_disgrace_deepens_97949.ht ml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zaven (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:48am

Reverse Psychology?
Perhaps the idea would be to show people what they'd be missing before the proposed law is voted on. In theory, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea. In practice, I'm not sure how they would pull it off. It's not like there's some special blogging authority that oversees all blogging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:52am

Two words: Streisand effect. That's what they need to happen right now but it certainly won't happen with a "blogging strike". Strikes only work when they adversely affect someone or a group of people (preferably your boss). It seems these people don't have enough sense to figure that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:59am

What?
Another law based on accusation. Seems the folks across the pond love guilt by accusation. Its a backwards law, for sure. But not blogging as a protest? It seems to me they are playing into the hands of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:34am
  
  Re: What?
  now now, here is the US we have our own brand of stupid law making.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:10am

Accuse?
Seems to me the best way to deal with this would be to start mass accusing large sites with defamation. (not sure if this law only applies to 'bloggers' and not 'professional journalists').
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris, 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:21am

um, "Strike" implies working in the first place
If bloggers go on strike would the take the extra two minutes a day they have to throw out that dead cat in their freezer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chargone (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:49am

something similar was done here in New Zealand, [many sites going dark, or at least blacking out all their image content] when that silly copyright reform was proposed.

it doesn't mean much if the government is dead set on closing things down, and suppressing blogs is a welcome side effect, but when it's acting based on external pressures, it can sever well to draw a lot of attention. attention builds pressure. sufficient pressure form the public in one direction makes it a Lot easier for an [actually] democratic government to resist pressure i the Other direction from corporate or foreign interests.

so it doesn't really do anything active to Fight proposed laws. it does, however, make it rather clear how big of a deal the issue is, and draw more attention, making it bigger still. not exactly Passive resistance, but not active attack, either...

again, if the goal is to suppress free speech/make money and damn the voters, it an't going nowhere. likewise if it's met with general apathy because the public don't care about blogs. but the NZ one started as just that. blacked out, maybe a sign saying why, no content updates.

it not only had an effect, it Spread. to, among other things, at least one British celebrity. And, among other things got noticed here. a big success.

so, yeah. just simply not writing anything won't do much though. gotta use it as part of a larger plan. we had some low key public protests. public protests that get more than maybe 50 odd people picketing the city council tend to make the news regardless, too. that helps. but the online thing goes a lot further to show the public opinion. it takes less effort, so more people bother to actually participate, ya know? and it all adds up.

another thought wanders across my mind now: given the nature of a lot of blogs, to anyone who follows them, Shutting Up because of something actually makes a pretty significant point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jjmsan (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 8:03am

On the other hand look at how much attention they have gotten already by saying they are going to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cara (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 8:56am

Yes. We have to stand up for ourselves because noone else will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yozoo, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:09am

Seriously?
A blogger strike? Talk about herding cats! It seems to me over the past 10 years or so the only people who seem to inflate the importance of bloggers more then the media does, are the bloggers themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry Leichter, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:42am

Don't look with just American eyes
In much of the world, the use of strikes to make a point is a long-established tradition. As it happens, this tradition is very strong in Italy. The basic message of any strike is: We're here, you need our services (see how it hurts you when we don't do our jobs?), you need to give us a place at the table. In the US, strikes are reserved almost entirely for labor negotiations - though there are celebrated examples of other uses: Consider the Birmingham bus boycott. (Actually, this displays a linguistic distinction: Strikes are over labor issues while boycotts are general political tools. There are other ways in which Birmingham wasn't a "strike", but we do tend to maintain that line in the US.)

The general strike - an attempt to basically shut down the economy - has been a common tactic in parts of the world for many years, but has never had much of a presence in the US, probably because we've never had any unions large enough to pull it off (though in the US in might well produce more anger than sympathy anyway).

Other cultures have developed other variations. Hunger strikes were a characteristic Indian form of protest against the British colonial government, and similar forms continue to be used in modern India.

It's always a mistake to judge the meaning and effectiveness of a tactic within someone else's culture by the standards of your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]