NJ Supreme Court: Bloggers Not Journalists

I received this today from a retired AP journalist.

TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists.

The court ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not apply to such message boards.

The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.

Shellee Hale claimed customer information was compromised and that she should be protected from revealing her sources.

New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law.

Just what does the first amendment cover then?  What does the NJ SC think the 1st amendment covers?  I believe it covers both free speech and a free press.  Anyone who owns a printing press is a journalist...today that means anyone with a computer and the ability to write a coherent sentence.  After all, did the MSM actually report on Congressman Anthony Weiner's indescretions...Andrew Breibart did.  Andrew isn't a  journalist under this ruling, though I'd beg to differ on that.

Hopefully, this will be overtuned in the federal system as any 'journalist' shield law is at it's heart, a shackling of anyone who speaks out on any topic that "offends" someone.

Reason TV: The Greates Threat To Free Speech

Here's a great video on the biggest threat to freedom of speech...via InstaPundit.

Media Matter's Group Think

Professor William Jacobsen of Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion has an interesting point to make on Media Matter's charging ahead in it's attempt to limit our 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.  He quotes Eric Boehlert of  MM as saying: 

News that Juan Williams' contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network's evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR's Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions. This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.


I'm not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox. I'm just saying that if you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.

But Prof. Jacobson's point very simple: 

No conservatives are trying to prevent people from appearing on NPR, but liberal interest groups and their media outlets are trying to prevent people from appearing on Fox News.


There is a real threat to freedom in this country, and it does not come from conservatives. Media Matters is just the symptom, not the disease.

Emphasis is mine,  but he does make an important distinction.  Freedom of Speech means permitting those who think differently from you the means to speak their opinions without being punished, no matter how stupid, or ignorant those opinions may seem to you.  This is something that many liberals don't understand.

What You Can't Say On Campus

FIRE's Greg Lukianoff speaks about what you can't say on today's college campuses.




I think that people forget that "Freedom of Speech" means you have to permit opinions that you don't agree with.  When you begin to censor any speech, you open the door to all speech being censored.  If you don't agree with something, you don't have to listen to it, but that doesn't mean you have the right to forbid it.

''Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid.''  -- John Wayne

"First to go, Last to know, we will defend to the death your right to be misinformed, United States Marine Corps" 

That was a motto on a banner that hung in the Ready Room of HMM-266, The Gryphons, when I was a young Marine, back in the early '80's...and no truer words were ever penned.

I think that's what fundamentally wrong with Political Correctness, when you place limits on speech, you end up twisting the basic fabric of a free society. 

Freedom Of Speech

Recently the Left has begun attempts to place limits upon political speech.  One form of that is in response to the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC.  In that case, the Supremes ruled that corporate bodies (companies, small businesses, as well as unions and membership based groups) may now choose to a voice in politics.  All too often, however, free speech is seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp by the  liberal left.   They often feel that such freedom only applies to those with whom they agree with, and that any possible opposition to them is evil and must be stopped forthwith.

Freedom of speech means that you have to allow all of those who don't agree with you the chance to voice their opinions.  That's the dichotomy between the liberal and conservative movements in this country.  Liberals see opposition to be EVIL, thus must be supressed; while conservatives see those in  conflict with them to be MISGUIDED...and thus, should be convinced to the correct course.

As a young man, I volunteered for the United States Marine Corps.  In the last unit I served from August of 1983 until June 1984, HMM-266 the Griffins (now VMM-266, the third unit to activate to fly the MV-22).  There was a banner that hung upon the walls of the "Ready Room".  It said: 

"FIRST TO GO, LAST TO KNOW, We Will Defend To The Death Your Right To Be Misinformed" UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

In a nutshell, that's what freedom of speech means.  You have the right to be misinformed.  That being said, you don't have the right to keep OTHERS from being misinformed either.

Earlier this year, Senator Charles Schummer, D-NY, introduced a bill that  would have the effect of stiffling political speech.  His bill, The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”), would in his words,

“Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide … so I think there’ll be many fewer of them.”

The reality is that by forcing everyone (businesses, etc) to disclose whom they are contributing money to, would have a chilling effect upon political speech. 

Their solution was the DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation that creates a burdensome new regulatory scheme as well as requires that political ads feature disclaimers which may be as long as 14 seconds in length. This will increase the costs to small businesses and membership based organizations that seek to have a voice – many won’t be able to afford the additional compliance costs and will have their voices silenced.

This of course would add not just regulations, but would have the additional effect of having to hire more governmental workers to ENFORCE the act...thus adding yet more to the size and scope  of government at a time when we need just the opposite.  The time has come for us, as a nation to roll back, not just this attempt to further expance the size and scope of government, but to down size the government, just as many companies have reduced their work forces.

We don't need more regulations that muzzle our natural right to free expression.  We need to stand up and fight yet more attempts to reduce the people of this country to servitude to the government.

FTC Seeks To Federalize News Media

In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission began a staff study on how to "save journalism". This week, the FTC released a 35 page document that purports to show how the Federal Government can "save journalism" by taking it over and regulating it.

Under the proposed guidelines it will be possible to "own facts" just as it's possible to own a patent, or a piece of propety. This is perposterous! Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine says,

What disturbs me most in this section is that the FTC frets about “difficult line-drawing being proprietary facts and those in the public domain.” Proprietary facts? Is it starting down a road of trying to enable someone to own a fact the way the patent office lets someone own a method or our DNA? Good God, that’s dangerous.

Mark Tapscott, in the Washington Examiner gives three examples why this is a very dangerous proposition;

* Journalists must understand that there is no way the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press will survive if the federal government regulates the news industry as envisioned by the FTC. Those who accept at face value protests to the contrary or the professions of pure intentions by advocates of government takeover of the news business are, at best, incredibly naive.

* Journalists who remain silent or apathetic about what is being prepared by the FTC for their profession become unintentional accessories in the strangulation of independent journalism.

* Journalists who support or assist, for any reason, the FTC process are accomplices in the strangulation of independent journalism.

Freedom of the press, is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What the Obama Administration and the FTC seek to do is to eliminate this freedom through regulation by the Federal Government. Doing so would effectively prevent bloggers like me, and just about anyone else from ever being able to speak freely or comment on news of the day. This would have the end result of eliminating any opposition to this Administration or any other.

As it is, many on the left, such as the Governor of Massachusetts have proposed that speaking out against the Obama Administration is "dangerously near sedition." The last time I looked up that word it meant "incitement to or insurrection against lawful authority." Speaking out in opposition to the government is our guaranteed right, not sedition.

Mr. Tapscotts conclusion is illuminating and spot on,

Elected officials' first thought is always about re-election, while career government workers' is job security. A journalist's first thought is supposed to be getting the facts. To that end, we're supposed to be adversaries, not co-conspirators, partners, favored "stakeholders," or beneficiaries. That's why the Constitution made us independent.

The proposed regulations would make our news media...a state run and regulated enterprise wherein journalists would only report what the government wanted reported. It didn't work all that well in the Soviet Union (which no longer exists) and doesn't work well in either China or Iran. Instead of news, we'd only havew propoganda organs...and while the left leaning media isn't too far from that, they are still independent and have begun to finally do their job, a la the Obama Administration by asking those difficult questions that they have refused to ask of this Administration or his campaign over the past 2 years.

Awesome Senior Moment

This was sent to me by Al Garza, a friend and reader,

Here's a quote from a government employee who witnessed a recent inter-action between an elderly woman and an antiwar protester in a Metro station in DC. There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets, on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one.

The elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20-ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined. The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and, in a very soft voice, the young lady said, "Lady, don't you care about the children of Iraq?"

The old woman looked up at her and said, "Honey, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea, and a son in Vietnam. All three died so you could have the right to stand here and badmouth our country. If you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it."

Maryland Police Say Its Illegal to Tape Them In Public

There's a debate that's beginning to heat up here in the Police State of Maryland.  Police officers here are telling people that it's illegal to tape them in public.  Unfortunately, it's permissible for police to tape YOU on their dashboard cameras.  However, several legal organizations say that's wrong,

"For the government to be saying it has the power to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling, and particularly in the case of Maryland, simply flat-out wrong," said David Roach, ACLU.

And then there's this,

"When you tell me to turn it off because it's against the law, you've proven to me that I'm not secretly taping you," said law professor Byron Warnken. "He doesn't have the right to say, if you don't stop recording me, I'm going to arrest you."

Delegate Sandy Rosenberg, D-Dist 41, Baltimore City, is pushing the Maryland Attorney General to render an opinion on whether or not it's "permissible", as if an AG can say you have a right that's already implied under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, and has been ruled such in a number of states already.  But if the AG advises otherwise, Mr. Rosenberg plans to introduce legislation the specifically permits such recordings in public of public officials.

Why Appeasement Fails...

Here is a terrific article on why appeasement of Islamic radicals who constantly protest western concepts...such as freedom of speech fail. 

The evangelical Arabic satellite station, al-Haya (Life TV), regularly takes the Muslim prophet to task, especially on two weekly programs: Hiwar al-Haq (Truth Talk), hosted by Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros, and Su’al Jari’ (Daring Question), hosted by ex-Muslim Rashid. Both shows revolve around asking uncomfortable questions about Islam and its founder in an effort to prompt Muslims to reconsider the legitimacy of their faith. (It is on these shows that the aforementioned, unflattering assertions of Muhammad originate; see here and here for English summaries.)...Far from being cowed by the daily death threats, however, Life TV and its unrepentant hosts have responded by upping the ante and providing even more anecdotes discrediting Muhammad. Rashid recently examined the theological implications of Muhammad’s hatred for the gecko lizard,...Needless to say, Life TV’s hosts — especially the flamboyant Fr. Zakaria — are hated by Muslims around the world. But to the careful observer, the outrage appears to be subsiding, ostensibly replaced by apathy — that is, the default strategy when threats and displays of indignation fail. Most callers are now Muslim converts to Christianity, who encourage and thank Fr. Zakaria and Rashid (often in tears)...Now, back to our original observation: how can Life TV get away with outlandish weekly disparagements concerning Muhammad, whereas Western cartoons spark widespread outrage? Considering that millions of more Muslims watch Life TV than have ever heard of South Park makes the question doubly puzzling.

The answer is simple: the South Park incident is less a reflection of Muslim anger and more of Western appeasement. By constantly buckling in to the slightest Muslim displeasure — whether by altering films, removing museum art, or canceling book launches — the West has perpetuated a vicious cycle wherein Muslim sensitivities are ever heightened and outraged at the slightest slight, and Western freedoms of expression are correspondingly diminished and trampled upon. What’s worse, such self-imposed censorship falls right into the hands of homegrown Islamists actively working to subvert Western civilization from within.

By appeasing those who oppose freedom of speech, we are giving away our fundamental rights...which is a  very sad thing.  As Glen Reynolds would say...READ THE WHOLE THING!

But then, this is why I will participate in May Draw Muhammad cartoon day...

Hat Tip:  Instapundit

Religion of Peace & Freedom of Speech

At a speech on Freedom of Speech in Sweden, Lars Vilks, who drew Mohamad as a dog was assaulted by raging  Muslim students...



This is what happens when you permit one faith to hijack freedom...Here's AP's report

A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday while giving a university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.


Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during a lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn’t immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog’s body, but Tuesday’s incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.

Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself “Jihad Jane,” and who now faces life in prison. She had pleaded not guilty.

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident at Uppsala University.

Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said, describing the scene as “complete chaos.”

“A man ran up and threw himself over me. I was head-butted and my glasses were broken,” Vilks said before hanging up for questioning by police.

Islam and Freedom of Speech it seems aren't compatible in Western Society.

H/T Instapundit

Roger Ebert & Cinco de Mayo

Last Wednesday...5 students at a high school in California were sent home for  wearing either t-shirts or bandana's that bore the American flag.  Roger Ebert, that paragon of American patrioism and virtue equated those young men to...communists who wave a hammer and sickle on July 4th. 

@ebertchicago Kids who wear American Flag T-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.

Personally, I think Mr. Ebert is an idiot...but to say that these young men are...the same as those who wear communist symbols, is stupid and ignorant. Now...that being said, this particular photograph really pisses me off.



 
Mr. Ebert...you are an ignorant man.   But who is truly ignorant is the principal of the High School involved.  He basically told those young men that they could NOT EXPRESS AMERICAN PATRIOTISM IN A CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL   More importantly, that principal has admited that he may have acted prcipitously...

The Morgan Hill Unified School District has launched an investigation into the matter, and the school's principal has since apologized. "In this situation, I may have moved too quickly in drawing the line of when to take preventative action," Nick Boden, Live Oak High School's principal, said at a press conference May 7. 

For those decisions, both the pricipal and the assitant pricipal should lose their jobs.  More over, Mr. Ebert...

Writing on his blog Sunday, Ebert expounded on what he had meant in his original tweet. "The question is obviously not whether Americans, or anyone else, has the right to wear our flag on their T-shirts," Ebert said. "

So...wearing an American Flag t-shirt is not acceptable on a...non existent "Mexican-American" holiday (um...Cinco de Mayo celebrates a battle in the Mexican/Franco War, NOT Mexican Independence Day-which is Sep 15, NOT May 5)...Mr. Ebert, you are wrong.  Both, in your precept that it is not acceptable to display an American flag on a holiday that doesn't exist.  What you are espousing is throttling Freedom of Speech...which last I checked you made a living from...

South Park...Jon Stewart and Free Speech

Hillbuzz Bloggers Under Attack By Chicago/Obama Machine

Hillbuzz.org a group of Gay bloggers in Chicago who were originally supporters of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election cycle are now under attack by the Chicago/Obama political machine. This link will take you to their blog post about the attack. They have slowly morphed over the past 2 years from committed Democrats to Libertarian/Moderates who support Sarah Palin among others who are most assuredly NOT liberals.

They are being slurred across the 'net as being racists, and having their identities exposed (they blog anonymously). While I choose not to be anonymous, I fully support those who blog so because of their particular situation...as long as they don't hurl invective around that is...but these guys are paying a very heavy price for using their 1st amendment right of free speech. Do what ever you can to help them...

Thanks,

Rich

crossposted at conservativefirestorm