It’s fun watching the government and major industry leaders scurry about trying to define… It’s fun watching the government and major industry leaders scurry about trying to define the extent of our freedom as the Internet brings into question issues that they thought had been settled long ago.

One of the Internet’s features has recently earned government attention: Web logging, or blogging. It’s forcing the people in authority to deal with topics ranging from free speech to campaign finance.

However, most of the blogs I’ve read have been horribly inane. Some people are concerned about the growing number of people who are getting fired for publishing information about the company they used to work for on their blog.

Let’s admit it though, folks. They are kind of asking for it. It’s one thing to whine to your friends about frustrating, even evil, corporate policies, but it’s another thing to express your angst on the World Wide Web. Chances are your friends aren’t going to rat you out, and the five people you told aren’t enough to jeopardize your company’s carefully crafted propaganda.

While it’s unlikely even twenty people will read your blog, you’re certainly more of a risk to the company with your digitized kvetching available to any dedicated Googler. Why should they take an unnecessary risk when they can just hire any number of people who want your job?

The businesses are going to protect themselves.

Right now the government is trying to decide how to handle web-based political activity. It seems a bit trivial to focus on blogs when all our freedoms, digital or otherwise, are still being fought for.

People become rabid over the topic of free speech. A few recognize that in order to speak at all we must be alive, and they’re willing to sacrifice a freedom or two to maintain that. Most people I associate with understand there’s more to being alive than breathing, and a government that is willing to sacrifice a freedom as vital as speech to keep us “safe”…well, God knows what else they’ll sacrifice in our best interest.

There’s something missing from both sides of the argument though. Whether you’re blogging that Bush is a slightly retarded monkey with his furry finger on the red button, publishing a column about the absolute necessity of owning a good sofa or screaming something appropriately zealous at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Bigelow Boulevard, it should all be protected.

And it’s wonderful that we have the right to share our thoughts and feelings. But, once again, we riot for our right to do something and completely neglect to mention the obligation inherent in such a right.

There’s the old saying we learned in kindergarten: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Here’s an updated version for everyone who feels strongly about their freedom to speak or publish or their beliefs: “If what you’re saying isn’t thoughtful, if the ideas aren’t really yours, shut the hell up!”

We have enough advertisements, TV shows, movies, books, politicians, terrorists and activists inundating us with the opinions they’ve collected like carnivorous butterflies. We don’t need another parrot.

We need free thinkers willing and able to speak. Freedom of speech is vital to preserving our other rights because it allows dissent to be voiced. The rise and fall of opinions is what allows a nation founded on democratic principles to weather change.

We’re all proud to live in a free country. Some people focus more on preserving the nation, and others highlight the need to keep it free. People don’t argue to remove freedom. They may sacrifice it for greed or out of fear, but there aren’t any enemies in these debates — just fools.

So I’ll let the fools work to keep us all alive and let the less foolish ensure that I have the right to speak my piece.

As for me, I’m going to keep searching for something important, something mine, to say.

If you think Zak Sharif should start a blog, e-mail him at [email protected].