Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Tech help

How can I put a banner like this

in my sidebar? "Free text" doesn't seem to pay any attention to HTML, and my "links" bit has no option for image links! Argh.



( 13 comments — Comment )
Nov. 16th, 2005 06:25 pm (UTC)
You may have to build a custom overlay...
Nov. 16th, 2005 06:27 pm (UTC)
Bummer. That sounds like hard work :o/ Or at least more time than I'd planned on spending!
Nov. 16th, 2005 06:28 pm (UTC)
What on earth are "bloggers' rights"?
Nov. 16th, 2005 06:31 pm (UTC)
Follow the link and find out!

The right to not be censored or imprisoned, or sued unless it's actual libel, essentially.
Nov. 16th, 2005 06:34 pm (UTC)
So same as normal rights then?
Nov. 16th, 2005 06:51 pm (UTC)
Yes. I'm sure if you get into trouble your Normal Sensible Rights will keep you safe.
Nov. 16th, 2005 08:56 pm (UTC)
Yes, I was beng a *tad* glib there. But who's going to pay attention to this apart from other bloggers? The hysteria about chatrooms alone shows the bizarre popular attitudes. I just don't see how more division into tinier and tinier subdivisions of rights is going to help things; surely the internet is now just an extension of social space; if that social space is infringed (as I know only too well, from events last year), you can expect consequences, just as if I'd said something dreadful to someone's face.
What exact rights are they looking for that don't actually exist already under law? Just special privileges for people who weren't careful enough not to infringe on the attitudes that govern us all in any social space, like politeness, civility, non-libelling etc? I mean, if it's a basic human rights issue, eg if you're talking about regimes like China where they have extreme restrictions on freedom of speech, I don't think this campaign extends to changing governments, does it? I eventually read the whole thing, but I find it a little hectoring and am not sure I understand what they actually want. I have freedom from intimidation as a blogger at the moment, as far as I can tell. If I blog at work, they actually have every right to tell me not to. If I blog about work, I make it private, just like I have a private conversation. It's their equipment, time, money. I am not sure what these smaller divisions of rights are meant to achieve.
What do you see all this as?
Nov. 16th, 2005 09:07 pm (UTC)
Hmmm...I don't think they're looking for bloggers to have special rights (except possibly to be able to keep their sources private, like journos can.) It's just that they've been set up to deal with online stuff - the EFF is pretty famous and well-established in doing this sort of thing. If you get into problems offline, you go to, I dunno, the police, or Amnesty. If it's online, you go to the EFF.

You wouldn't say that having organisations for breast cancer was pointless and breaking things down into subsections of society, would you? But it's the same sort of thing. I think.

Might come back to this when I don't have a *vitally important* Uncharted Territories to subtitle in a hurry :)
Nov. 16th, 2005 09:13 pm (UTC)
To summarise (cos i think i might have missed it out completely) - bloggers have the same rights as anyone else, and the organisation is just choosing to target them as their customers, essentially. You can't just have one huge human rights organisation - everyone specialises.
Nov. 16th, 2005 10:44 pm (UTC)
Oh, I agree, interest groups are just that, and rights need to be upheld; it's not like they grow out of the ground, after all. I just wondered what your take on it was.
(Deleted comment)
Nov. 16th, 2005 07:17 pm (UTC)
Ooh, thanks! That looks great!
Nov. 16th, 2005 07:23 pm (UTC)
I should say, that that was me! :o)

(snakepen is my community watching account--I didn't realize that I was still signed in.)
Nov. 16th, 2005 07:26 pm (UTC)
Ah! *is enlightened* :o)

( 13 comments — Comment )


bad wolf
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com