In the current political climate, Democrats in Congress and presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as a means to neutralize the effectiveness of conservative talk radio. Regardless of the underlying political agenda or your personal political party affiliation, the Fairness Doctrine is a horrible idea for free speech rights.

If the doctrine is revived, imagine what it will do to the content of your blog because the government will have the right to decide whether you’re being fair to opposing viewpoints. You may be forced to permit guest bloggers (your competitors or opponents) to post content on your site that fundamentally disagrees with what you believe and even the purpose of your site.

What are the odds that the Fairness Doctrine can be revived? Very good under two different scenarios.

1. The Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency.

2. The Republicans win the presidency but the Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress, including at least 60 seats in the Senate.

This means that if you oppose suppression of Internet free speech you can use your vote this fall to support politicians who oppose the Fairness Doctrine. If that fails, you can then contact your elected representatives beginning in January 2009 and let them know your opposition to the doctrine. Frame it as a matter of free speech instead of ideology.

As a final note, if this post was made with the Fairness Doctrine in place, there’s a good chance that I’d be forced to provide space on my site for views supporting the Fairness Doctrine. If you happen to support the doctrine, please blog about it on your site. That’s the free market solution to exchanging ideas.

And of course, feel free to leave comments.

I visited him at Harvard Law School and he stopped by to see me when I was attending law school at SMU. Shortly thereafter, the friendship fell apart and we haven’t spoken for more than a decade. Because of this history, I was somewhat hesitant to write about Thomas’ Wikipedia controversy. Yet it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Thomas has been accused of modifying his Wikipedia bio in order to make it reflect favorably on himself. If true, it begs the question whether such editing violates Netiquette.

What is undisputed is that Thomas has angered the pro-illegal immigration lobby and its adherents within the State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix city officials, and the local judiciary. He’s facing an onslaught of tactics to get him to stop aggressive enforcement of laws designed to deter illegal immigration. This has included numerous Bar complaints plus a failed recall effort.

I’m not going to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of these arguments against Thomas — just noting that he’s got some very powerful political enemies that want him out of office.

With that in mind, it is easy to extend the political with personal attacks on the Internet, including the content of Wikipedia biographies.

What would you do if someone edited your Wikipedia bio to cast you in an unfavorable light? Would you ignore it (particularly if you’re an elected official) or would you edit the content to make it more favorable?

The flaw in the Wikipedia model is the lack of context provided. If your enemies write about you on Wikipedia, they should be clearly identified as such. Similarly, you should have the opportunity to respond to the content they write with your name attached as the author of the rebuttals.

And therein lies the solution. Thomas is accused of modifying his bio using a username that included his initials and age but not his full name. Wikipedia would be doing itself and readers a service if disclosure of the full names of those who do the editing of bios are attached to the editing that occurs.

Yes. Free speech should be encouraged on the Internet. Yet with freedom comes responsibility. Let’s eliminate anonymous hit jobs.

The subjects of Wikipedia bios, their friends, and their foes should clearly identify themselves when writing content. That way credit (or blame) for what’s written can be clearly given.

What do you think? Is there a better way to deal with the issue?

Although one can question the wisdom of going to Singapore and daring the authorities to do something in response, the fact that a blogger has been arrested for “insulting a public servant” in an email is unconscionable. Many public servants deserve criticism for incompetence and/or corruption. Although there are good judges and elected officials, too often these positions go to those who cannot compete in the real world and seek to live off the public trough through political patronage.

As for the Singapore officials who arrested Nair, their stupidity is an embarrassment to the civilized world. With a little luck, the blogosphere will rake these morons over the coals until they release the blogger.

And what’s the story with the U.S. Department of State? Why in the world are they putting up with this ridiculous arrest? Real diplomats with cojones would inform the Singapore government that Nair gets released immediately or the U.S. military will make an extraction and topple the idiots from power to secure his freedom. Less appeasement and more Teddy Roosevelt.

What are your thoughts?

At what point should we defer to absurd laws of other countries that suppress free speech on the Internet? If Nair can be arrested, why not you or me?

As a final note, this blog post contains multiple insults to Singapore public officials. Please feel free to issue a warrant for my arrest. I won’t be visiting your country until you respect free speech rights.

In her post “WordPress.com Banned Again: Why Aren’t You Concerned?”, Lorelle VanFossen raises two issues:

(1) the apparent lack of blogger interest in fighting such bans; and

(2) to what extent WordPress.com as a whole should be responsible for the misconduct of a single blogger.

Let me tackle these issues separately.

1. Free Speech.

From a U.S. citizen’s point of view, an ideal world would have the same constitutional freedom of speech protections that we enjoy — and it should be a goal worth fighting for because such is directly tied to other personal liberties. Yet as a practical matter, speech rights are limited in most countries. For example, criticizing Islamic extremists in a Canadian blog or forum can lead to civil suits and prosecution for human rights violations in a PC society that has run amuck with moral relativism.

In short, we should promote free speech but not expect it where there is no constitutional protection for it.

2. WordPress.com Liability.

Lorelle correctly lays primary responsibility on the individual blogger rather than WordPress.com as a whole. Where we disagree is her contention that WordPress.com should be liable only up to the amount one pays to blog.

As we’ve seen with recent lawsuits against Craigslist and others, the less involved a site is in screening the content, serving instead as a mere conduit of information posted by third parties instead of as the author of such content, the more likely the site’s, owner, host, and webmaster will be absolved of liability for offending content.

Indeed, one has to wonder if it is even technologically feasible for a WordPress.com, Craigslist, YouTube, etc. to effectively police with preemptive actions to comply with applicable laws around the world. I’d contend that it isn’t possible to do it right.

Because of this, absent facts showing that WordPress.com was knowingly involved in the promulgation of the video in question, I don’t believe the site should owe anything. Period. End of story.

However, I do agree with Lorelle’s argument that WordPress.com should provide judges with the technical information necessary (if feasible) to block a single offending blog so that innocent bloggers are not punished for the misconduct of one blogger.

What do you think?

In your opinion, what are WordPress.com’s responsibilities?

I can’t imagine any attorney, or responsible workplace supervisor for that matter, giving out that type of advice for the latter example.  Frankly, it isn’t liberating — it’s degrading.

To be sure, I don’t expect everyone to have the knowledge or interests of a Lorelle VanFossen writing about Woopra’s new blog statistics program or a Jackie Lange writing about real estate investing. But is it too much to ask for Shine to actually assume its target market has an IQ above 100 and wants substance instead of stereotyped fluff?

What do you think?

Key changes include:

• a crisper layout
• easier navigation
• a useful resources section
• a simplified categories list
• ways to subscribe to the blog by RSS feed and e-mail

What do you think? Do you like the new blog look? Why or why not?

One of the amusing things is how many bloggers are doing it strictly for the fun of it, i.e. with no monetary incentives. Even those who are attempting to monetize their blogs, seem to be coming up short in the ways to do it. From the school of hard knocks, I’ve learned that there are far better ways to generate income with your blog than Google AdSense or as an Amazon Associate (affiliate).

If you get the chance, do attend a WordCamp. It will provide you with deeper insights into the blogging mindset.

One thing that Internet info product marketers could learn is the emphasis on transparency and truth in blogging. There’s no reason, financial or otherwise, to disrespect the visitors to your site with lies, half-truths, and material omissions. Candid works in the long-term…and you’ll preserve your self-respect in the process.

45 Ways to Power Up Your Blog

If you’re serious about blogging, you’ll read John’s post and apply his recommendations.

However, she overestimates the likelihood that small business owners are going to be injured because they can’t afford to compete with larger competitors for paid stealth links.

Most successful Internet marketers I know are able to do very well in the search engine rankings without paying a dime for links. Of course, they’re not going to share the how-to with everyone.

I encourage you to seriously consider DoFollow for your blog. UPDATE - See comment below.

If you’re using WordPress, you can take care of the spam issue with Lucia’s LinkLove and Spam Karma 2 plugins while rewarding bloggers who provide substantive comments with the links they deserve.

The widget is free and easy to install. Took me less than five minutes to register for it, add the code to my blog’s theme (you can see it to the right in the sidebar)…plus another 3 or so minutes to watch the video at the beginning before making the decision to install it.

Let me know if you install Blog Rush and how it affects the traffic to your site.

09/16/07 Update: Preliminary results are mixed. The tool works but, for my blog, it isn’t the right traffic because it is getting lumped in with criminal law and political blogs. The widget will need to be refined to reflect different subcategories for “legal” for it to impress me. That being said, it may work well with your blog depending on how well your topic matches the category to which you assign it. I’ll give it more time…just disappointed that Reese launched it with incomplete taxonomy.