The story of Dick Metcalf, a figure in the hunting
and rifle world, when he wrote an opinion piece (in Guns and Ammo) calling for
moderate gun regulation, is telling for those who like to get published, at
least by others. The result, from
pressure from advertisers, was that he was banned from a major outdoors
magazine. The tale is told by Joe Nocera
in the New York Times Saturday, November 9, 2013, on p. A19 of the New York
Times. The link is here.
For me, the parable illustrates why self-broadcast
and self-publishing, much protected by Section 230, has become so
important. When others pay the freight,
you have to say what other people want. You have to protect their
interests. Having a family is seen as a
reason others should have leverage over what you say.
It’s worth mentioning that book publishing (previous
post) does not have protection like Section 230 or DMCA Safe Harbor for
publishers (and a similar risk lives in television and mainstream movies). As noted here before, authors actually have
to indemnify publishers. This rarely
causes problems, although it sounds on the surface like it could invite
frivolous lawsuits against deep-pocketed publishers which authors could be forced
to pay to defend. This definitely sounds
like an area for tort reform. But the
practical paradigm is different: a lot more diligence goes into publishing a
book or movie through commercial channels than in writing a tweet, blog or
Facebook post.
No comments:
Post a Comment