Post details: Why the Lieberman Campaign is Voiceless Today

Why the Lieberman Campaign is Voiceless Today

Posted by Andrew on August 8th, 2006

Do the unique characteristics of the Web call for a medium-specific First Amendment doctrine? I've been saying yes to this question since 1996. One reason is that the Web's unidirectional hyperlinks tend to privilege mainstream over marginal speakers. Another doctrinally salient feature of the Web is well illustrated by today's apparent denial-of-service attack against Senate candidate Joe Lieberman's campaign Web site on the day of his primary election against Ned Lamont. Is there any other medium for political discourse in which it is possible to silence a speaker by receiving their message excessively, against their will?

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Scott Boone [Visitor]
Hasn't a similar type of denial been done with election day phone banks? Wasn't some group (in NH or VT) indicted for jamming the phone lines of the opposing candidates get-out-the-vote phone centers? IIRC, they just kept calling the phone centers phones so they couldn't get calls out.

Also, I have anecdotally heard of individuals who purposefully interact with door-to-door political volunteers such that those individuals do not have time to talk to other potential voters.

P.S. Andrew, please forgive the time stamp on this comment!
Permalink 08/11/06 @ 17:02

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)