If this was an isolated incidence perhaps. But how often will this type of call be made? And will these calls "chill" or scare someone from posting freely on a blog, newspaper or message board?
How often a “call” will be made by the Secret Service would be based upon how many emails the Whitehouse receives and to what degree the authorities think that each email warrants investigation. As I suggested, not every call to 9-11 gets emergency services to arrive. Each email or piece of web site information forwarded by email to the Whitehouse will probably be read. It will then be handled in a variety of ways. If the information received is in the form of a complaint, the writer of the complaint might get an acknowledgement of the complaint or even an explanation. If it is misinformation, then the originator of the misinformation might be contacted with correct information from the Whitehouse. I think that each instance will be handled appropriately based on the type of information forwarded.
I doubt that this call will “chill” or scare someone from posting freely on a blog, newspaper, or message board. Such a concern reminds me of responses that arrested people make when they complain that they have done nothing wrong. The policeman, after chasing him down the street will ask why he ran. The apprehended person will say that he was scared. The policeman will then explain that if he did noting wrong, then he would have had no reason to run.
As I see it, the only chill that it might have is that people might do more research before posting, and stick to facts. They might cut back on posting hype and hyperbole.
Have you heard of someone named Michael Savage. He said some vicious things about Muslims. CAIR compiled some of his statements into a 4-minute audio clip. It then criticized Savage and asked that businesses boycott Savage. Savage sued the organization for copyright infringement but lost because of the principal of “fair use”.
Lesson: Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be quoted and criticized. Be careful about what you say. If what you are about to say (or post) is intended to be a joke or is not to be taken seriously, then preface your comments with such a disclaimer. It is as simple as that.
I am more talking about the freedom to criticize. I am trying to look at this from the SS's point of view and in that alone I have no large issue with this one instance. My issue is this desire to have bored partisan desk "rats",shut ins and cubie dwellers perusing the internet looking to be some hero to the government or to garner some short lived attention, when in truth most are going to be wasting the governments time and resources.
We still have the freedom to criticize. I would like for the critic to criticize in a clear and civil way. It would also be nice for the critic to have the courage to identify himself. By doing so, the Whitehouse can the address the critic, acknowledge his criticism if it is based on fact, or correct him if it is based on a misunderstanding or error. True productive communication can be the result.
Yes, there will probably be bored partisan desk rats, searching the Internet, trying to find stuff to throw at the Whitehouse, and come across as a hero. I’m confident that the Whitehouse will be bombarded with emails. I doubt that this bombardment of emails will waste too much of the government’s time and resources. I imagine that no more than 20 percent of the emails will even be read. The government might take a random sample to examine, look for a pattern of issues, group the emails by issue, and address each issue as warranted.
For example:
(Disclaimer: I have not updated myself on Whitehouse healthcare policy ideas.)
Suppose that the Whitehouse receives 10,000 emails each day. From that number, 2,000 get read.
Suppose that 500 of these forwarded emails make the claim that
all of American citizens will be insured by the government whether they want government run insurance or not. Emails claim may be grouped together.
Suppose that 200 several other emails concern the same “anti-Obamacare”
website. These emails might be grouped together. Then the Whitehouse can examine the web site carefully for any errors.
Suppose that 300 emails concern a similar site. These would also be set into a group and the web site in question would be examined.
Suppose that 600 forwarded emails concern the
cost of such a healthcare policy. These emails could erroneously claim, perhaps based on bad statistical work, that it would cost the government $X.XX. Some of the emails might also want to know how the government can afford to run such a program. These emails would all be grouped together.
Suppose 500 emails can be interpreted as direct or indirect
threats against Obama’s safety. Those would naturally be complied and the original authors might be questioned.
The remaining 3500 emails that were pulled from the sample might be easily seen by Whitehouse authorities as silly satire unworthy of a reply.
Even though, at first glance, this project might seem daunting, I think that it can be handled without too much trouble if a sample is taken, the emails from the sample are grouped by issue, and the issues get addressed.
By the way, aren’t there partisan hacks already? Aren’t people tossing out criticisms about the Whitehouse and support to the Whitehouse? Don’t you imagine that the Whitehouse has already been getting letters of complaint and letters of support? This program is not that new a creature but perhaps an innovative approach.
