Amazon Kindle - a threat to our First Amendment rights?

[rationalbiker]

Mr. Jordan,

I suspect we are approaching this issue from vastly different philosophical points of view. As such, it will probably be pretty easy for us to "talk past each other" without lengthy explanation. It was not my intent in entering this discussion to become involved into the long, protracted conversation that is emerging, and which would likely be necessary for us to see what the other side is saying.

The essential point on the issue of "duty" that you must understand is that I do not allow other people to determine for me what my duty is or is not. No offense, but you can talk all day about what you think my duty is but that would not make it so. I reason with my own mind what I should or should not do, keeping in mind that some courses of action come with the consequence of loss of association, property loss and/or the loss of physical freedom. That being the case, if you feel I don't do something you think I should be doing, you can form your evaluation of my character as you see fit and limit your associations with me accordingly. I fully understand the notion of consequences.

I spend a significant amount of time already discussing such issues on a forum related to philosophy and ethics. If you have an interest in looking into that forum, I can provide you with the information. If you do not have an interest in that, that is fine also.

As you can no doubt see, I have some difficulty keeping my responses short when discussing such matters. That being the case, I'm going to make an effort to limit my discussions here to more ebook/book related issues and save my other thoughts for other forums. This compartmentalization is necessary for me to not waste too much of my time.

You can, of course, dismiss me as some selfish lunatic if you like. With that in mind, I leave the last response between us on this issue to you.

Take care,

RB

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

RB,
I don't dismiss you as a lunatic. (Hey, I've been called worse.) I'll merely agree with your observation that you and I obviously have a different definition of "duty," and leave it at that. Likewise, I'll forego any more lengthy debate on the subject, since it is a bit tangential to the actual subject of the thread.

To return to the subject, therefore, I'll state that the potential of regulating e-books delivered to the Kindle is a far cry from actual regulation... and further, since the Kindle does not yet represent all e-book distribution channels, regulation of that one channel would not severely impact e-book distribution overall, removing the notion of it being a "threat to First Amendment rights." Until and unless the Kindle becomes the only way to get e-books, it cannot be considered a "threat" to anything.

[JohnClif]

It's really a stretch to think that the FCC is going to try to ban ebooks. Actually, it's an absurdity.

Amazon isn't 'broadcasting' ebooks. They're transferring ebooks to my specific device at my specific request. The usage is identical to using WiFi to transfer information to my laptop, and yes, the FCC regulates the spectrum that WiFi uses, also.

America, and the world, have enough problems without inventing new ones that have no chance of ever occuring.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JohnClif

Amazon isn't 'broadcasting' ebooks. They're transferring ebooks to my specific device at my specific request. The usage is identical to using WiFi to transfer information to my laptop, and yes, the FCC regulates the spectrum that WiFi uses, also.

That's significant. In terms of what is taking place, it's the same as e-mailing a book to a specific person, but clearly not broadcasting, which is FCC's purview. And Amazon is only one distribution channel, so it's pointless for the FCC to crack down on the one and ignore all others.

We're more likely to see certain books banned by the government, in any format, than seeing the FCC regulate one channel for e-book distribution. If there's any "threat" here, it's not from Amazon.

[phuocle]

Originally Posted by carld

Uh-huh, tell that to the guy who criticized Bush in his gym locker room and got a visit from the secret service, or the three guys who got tossed out of a political event for having anti-Bush bumper stickers on their cars. Or the woman who got fired from her job for having a pro-Gore bumper sticker, or any of the other numerous cases like that.

The administration is nothing if not heavy-handed in dealing with any sort of dissent. We already know that the government in intercepting *all* emails, except for their own, of course, which are being destroyed, despite laws to the contrary.

As for the rest of what you had to say, no, sorry you're wrong on every count. And if you didn't want to read political opinions why open and read a politically oriented thread?

Carld, you sir are completely paranoid. It's best not to live like that. But I will entertain your ridiculous notions for the moment.

1. RE: The guy criticizing Bush in his gym locker room. Where are your sources? Multiple sources would be nice. Was it criticizing or threatening? They're 2 very different things. The first is entirely legal and I (as well as countless other Americans) do it everyday without any consequence. I even have a written record of my criticism on my Blog... no visit yet from any scary government agency. The second is not and can in fact get you a visit from the Secret Service. By the way, that law applies to all sitting presidents... not just Bush.

2. RE: The guys getting thrown out of a political event for having anti-Bush bumper stickers. Highly implausible. You imply that at this political event someone is watching everyone's vehicles coming into the event and tracking their bumper stickers to eject those who have questionable bumper stickers. But depending on who's hosting the event, they can do anything they want. It has NOTHING to do with the government. Absolutely nothing. Even if it was an official federal government event, protesters are allowed, as long as they are lawful. So I don't buy it.

3. RE: The woman getting fired from her job because she had a pro-Gore bumper sticker. First off, what's with you and bumper stickers? Second, are you f---ing dense? Even if that was the case, people would have to wonder if that was the real cause or just something ancillary. Third, you're presenting the case here that the Bush administration forced a private company to fire someone just for having a pro-Gore bumper sticker. Even if it was a government agency directly under Bush's control this couldn't happen like you described it. Because if it did, she has absolutely nothing to worry about. She just won a huge lottery.

And then your vague references like "any of the other numerous cases like that." I sense so much stupidity in your post it's hard to know where to begin. What I do sense is that you're bitter and for you it's mostly anything anti-Bush.

I love reading about political comments like this and getting into intellectual arguments about politics. But it's hard to have an intelligent conversation when only one party exhibits intelligence. You may want to re-read your post and see how dumb you make yourself sound.

[carld]

Insults and blah blah blah not quoted.

All three incidents are well documented and the last two have been on the news repeatedly. Do your own damn research.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Ding Ding Ding!

Alright, Carld, to the blue corner... Phuocle, to the red corner... next time the bell rings, I want youse two to come out and stay on topic!

[JSWolf]

Please stay on topic and the tone needs to come down a bit as well or the thread will have to be closed.