Blogging has begun to come under the legal spotlight and it could affect the blogosphere as we know it. Upon reading this article from David Spinks I have begun to wonder whether this is a good thing. I mean it could obviously be great for the improvement of blog quality with more truthful and responsible blogging but at the same time...what about the honesty of blogging.
Blogs originally started as personal online journals where people could write their thoughts and ideas about the world around them. Does the policing and reading of every blog by "Big Brother" really ensure that we will get honesty from every writer out there?
Spinks also mentions that higher restrictions could also lead to what he calls "less noise" as in less content and therefore less repetition and useless content. But really, what is useless content? To a Blogger your blog is NOT useless content. Everyone writes for some purpose, whether it be for informing other people, venting about your feelings, or simply to send your ideas out into the internet and see what others think of your thoughts. If we are adding restrictions and keeping some of these people from writing, doesn't that take away the essence of what blogging is all about? Removing the rights of people to blog is like removing their right to think or come up with new ideas. Blogging is free speech and free thought. These are ideas that the United States is founded on. Many frown upon countries where free thinking or liberal bloggers are condemned and the uproar upon the discovery of political censorship of blogs in certain nations. If we are to condemn other nations for their censorship of blogs do we truly have the right to even begin to consider putting restrictions on our own?
Perhaps I have just stood upon a soap box, but at the same time, isn't this a bit of censorship?