Should the government be able to censor you when it's necessary to prevent you from embarassing someone who harmed you? Say, for example, you were able to photograph a peeping tom. Should you be able to publish the peeping tom's photograph on your website? Dan Solove says "censorship" in this post, and I say free speech in the comments.
The post is also interesting since Solove and I are in a framing war. He is attempting to frame the disclosure of truthful but embarassing facts as "Internet vigilantism." I am attempting to frame his approach for what it is - censorship. Which frame will prevail? This matters a great deal, since if Solove's frame wins, e-shaming will be limited. Who, after all, supports vigilantism of any kind? If my frame prevails, then e-shaming will be less limited. Who, after all, supports censorship?
We won't know for a few years which frame will be accepted. For the sake of free speech and public safety, I hope everyone recognizes that publishing photos of a peeping tom isn't vigilantism, it's free speech. Do check out the post and my comments.
