November 3, 2005

"I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site..."

I'm worried about free speech up here too.

15 comments:

Jacques Cuze said...

If you look at the DMCA and 2600 case and how 2600, a print magazine with an online presence was treated differently than CNN, a TV network with an online magazine, and look at how fewer resources you and yours have, you would do well do be concerned.

The interesting conlaw aspect is one of the curious downsides of the first amendment. Engineers, Doctors, and yes, even lawyers have licenses and codes of ethics so that it is easy to determine who is legally licensed to design and build hospitals and who is not. Who is legally licenesed to practice medicine in that hospital, and who is not. Who is legally licensed to chase ambulances that drive to those hospitals and who is not. And if you violate the various laws and ethics those licenses can be removed.

(And I believe that such is the basis of various labor exemption laws to.)

Due to the first amendment, long may it reign, though, any "amateur" can be a journalist. No license required. No ethics demanded. No way to remove a malpracticing journalist.

But current judges apparently only think that large organizations are deserving of first amendment protection.

So bloggers like Kos, Atrios, and even RedState may have to consider their opinion pieces to be election contributions.

And former big-media journalist bloggers (Marshall, Neiwert, Billmon, Gillmor) may not be considered journalists anylong and anyone (Michelle the Interner Malkin) that works for a media outlet is considered to be a journalist REGARDLESS of any examination of the work they perform to produce their content.

I mean, that would have to give a con law prof and blogger the fits, right?

Me too Ann.

Jacques Cuze said...

Offtopic but a followup, I would like to point you to this editorandpublisher article, CBS Poll Finds Public Takes Plamegate Seriously

Con law profs may not be the best judge of what the public considers to be serious or relevant to the people. (Neither are aerospace engineers....)

I bet most ordinary Americans with places to go and lives to live feel something fairly similar. Who's going to delve into all of this now?

But you may wish to rethink that bet, and even rethink what your duty as a citizen is.

EddieP said...

If the congress was really interested in protecting bloggers and defending free speech they could repeal the offensive McCain Feingold travesty.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Michael said...

And now without typos...

I hate posting something that's completely not related to the topic, but I wanted to point this site out: http://www.frappr.com/

It lets your visitors put in their ZIP codes, and through the magic of Google Maps, you can see a map of your readership. I did it for another site, and the distribution was very cool.

I go to a lot of blogs, but yours was the 1st of thought of mentioning this to. I figured you'd enjoy the geographic analysis that would follow.

Back to the free speech thing...

michael a litscher said...

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 559

For those too lazy to click and count: Republicans voted in favor, 179 to 38, while the Democrats opposed the measure, 143 to 46. Party of civil rights, my @$$.

I have to wonder; how many of Ann's God-given and constitutionally protected rights will Russ Feingold have to abrogate before she looses her crush on him.

Jacques Cuze said...

http://schnoodles.com/cgi-bin/web_chi_form.cgi
Web Chi Square Calculator: Results

BloggingVote
Dems Thugs Total
For 143 179 322
Against 46 38 84
Total 189 217 406

Degrees of freedom: 1
Chi-square = 2.86936238315387
For significance at the .05 level, chi-square should be greater than or equal to 3.84.
The distribution is not significant.
p is less than or equal to 0.10.

Return to Web Chi Square Calculator

====

If I did this right (doubtful), the 46 Dems and the 38 Thugs were equally reprehensible.

Jacques Cuze said...

And uh, michael a litscher, troll, as an exercise for yourself, you may wish to ask yourself, why Russell Feingold is not recorded as voting either yay, nay, or not at all in this vote in the house.

michael a litscher said...

quxxo, you've got the Democrat's votes inverted, so no, you did not do it correctly.

143 Democrats voted AGAINST free speech on the internet, whereas only 46 Democrats voted FOR free speech.

Thugs, indeed.

michael a litscher said...

And uh, michael a litscher, troll, as an exercise for yourself, you may wish to ask yourself, why Russell Feingold is not recorded as voting either yay, nay, or not at all in this vote in the house.

Because he's a Senator. Any more stupid questions?

Jacques Cuze said...

You're right I did, my mistake. I still do not know why you blame this vote on the house on Russell Feingold, Senator.

michael a litscher said...

I still do not know why you blame this vote on the house on Russell Feingold, Senator.

I blame the abrogation of our first amendment rights on McCain and Feingold, as they were the two most responsible for the authoring of and the pushing for this so-called campaign finance reform in the first place.

The FEC rulemaking regarding the regulation of blogs is a direct result of the actions and legislation of these two reprehensable men.

That's why I blame Feingold and McCain.

As both Ann and I live (and vote) in Wisconsin, and as I have read Ann write positively of Feingold in the past, I'm curious as to how she feels about him now.

Not that the question was posed to you in the first place.

michael a litscher said...

Oh, and quxxo, feel free to re-run your Chi Square analysis, and enlighten us as to the results.

And then tell us again who the thugs are.

Adam said...

Sen. Feingold has already explained that he will not support this bill in the Senate.

Jacques Cuze said...

Well Michael, I am glad to see you and Ann, Con Law Prof, are both concerned about Civil Liberties. Welcome!

I am curious how you feel about Patriot II, Padilla, and Hamdan.

Is it as serious a threat as Arthur Silber, Libertarian, believes?