Web Loggers, or bloggers, have already broken several major stories, including those that led to the resignation of a Virginia congressman, a shake-up at CBS news over the "60 Minutes" Bush National Guard story, the firing of a CNN executive over remarks criticizing the U.S. military, and the White House granting Jeff Gannon inappropriate access to White House daily press briefings.
Unfortunately, today in two separate arenas--campaign finance laws and the legal privileges accorded to journalists to protect confidential sources--bloggers' free speech rights are at risk. It is incumbent on the Federal Election Commission, legislatures, and the courts to ensure these rights are protected for Internet-based media.
The FEC is currently considering bloggers' role as journalists as it intersects with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. Late last year, the District Court for the District of Columbia overturned the FEC's blanket exemption of the Internet from campaign finance law.
The FEC must therefore decide whether to characterize Web reporters as members of the press warranting a BCRA exemption similar to that of the print and broadcast media. I recently wrote a letter along with 13 of my colleagues urging the FEC to apply the press exemption to the Internet, and Sen. Harry Reid has introduced legislation to this effect.
The state courts have also considered the issue of bloggers' First Amendment rights. Last month, Apple Computer sought a California court's permission to serve subpoenas on three Web sites for publishing Apple's trade secrets. Bloggers argued the subpoenas violated their First Amendment rights to maintain confidential sources.
The Superior Court judge eventually ruled against the bloggers, however, and in doing so the court did not reach the issue of whether they should be considered journalists and entitled to First Amendment protection. So the legal issue of journalist privileges for bloggers is still unresolved.
The confluence of these two cases indicates that we are at a turning point in the evolution of Internet-based media. I believe bloggers have shown they warrant First Amendment protection for several reasons.
First, bloggers have become widely accepted as legitimate news gatherers and disseminators. Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that 32 million Americans are currently turning to blogs for their information. Bloggers were granted press passes to both the Democratic and Republican national conventions last summer, and the White House recently approved the first blog press pass to a day's gaggle.
Bloggers should be classified as journalists and given First Amendment protections based on the function they perform, not the form of their transmissions. Properly understood, the First Amendment applies to all those who report with journalistic integrity--offline or online.
In a prescient 1993 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that an author had standing to invoke a reporter's privilege when the court ruled that "what makes journalism journalism is not its format but its content." The same principle and rights should apply to bloggers--if they are producing similar content and using similar journalistic techniques as the mainstream media. Ironically, many of the "established" media outlets have also migrated online, with some even running their own blogs.
 | ||||
|
| | ||
|
Related story FAQ: Blogging on the job  CNET News.com ex- plains the dos and don'ts that could save you from getting fired. |
| ||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
For better or worse, we operate in an environment where major conglomerates such as News Corp., General Electric, Disney, Viacom, Gannett, Knight-Ridder and Clear Channel dominate the nation's airwaves and print media. Whenever a potential story criticizing a powerful political figure or corporate parent is squelched, questions are raised concerning the independence of the mainstream news media. Bloggers, by contrast, are not subject to these same constraints or concerns, and have shown their independence over and over.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson's sentiments when he wrote, "The basis of our government being the opinion of people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
In Jefferson's era, print newspapers revolutionized the way the country read and processed the news. Today we stand on the precipice of a new media revolution with the advent of the Internet. We need to protect bloggers' First Amendment rights so they can help us protect our own citizens' rights.
Biography
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.
See more CNET content tagged:
blogger, First Amendment, journalist, exemption, court
What they do not control is independant people acting as a slueth and posting their findings online. Anything the United Corporate States of America can't control, they supress.
exemption from campaign finance restrictions, I disagree with
the second about the Apple trade secrets case. These lawsuits
are not a First Amendment free speech issue, but a trade law
issue. While your Constitution enshrines free speech, it does not
guarantee entitlement to say whatever you feel like; hence hate
speech, slander, libel, and trade secret laws.
The whole "who is a journalist" argument is a red herring, at
least in the Apple matter. Whether Nick Ciarelli, Jason O'Grady,
and the AppleInsider folks are journalists has NO bearing
whatsoever on the case.
The cogent issue is that you have laws restricting your freedom
of speech, and those laws apply to journalists as well as
everyone else. Despite their vocal defence of bloggers, c|net,
eWeek, the San Jose Mercury News, BusinessWeek, the New York
Times, and other established news organisations NEVER did, and
NEVER would, engage in the kind of NDA-violating rumor
reporting the defendants have done.
If you published an article claiming that an Dan Gillmor said he
would hunt down and shoot me, Gillmor could sue for libel. If
Gillmor remained anonymous in your article, the police
investigation would force you to give up your source of an illegal
death threat. Someone else put it more succintly than I: "My
right to swing my fist ends at the other man's face."
Apple should have a beef with the leaker, and handle it in-house. The people who posted the information signed no NDA, and have no obligation to not make it public.
oh man.....
Come on.....
I find it amazing that someone can put something somewhere online and no one will notice. The very moment that exact same something gets put into what you people call a blog, watch out...it's news.
get a grip people......since blogs can be anything, there is no reason to lend creedance to anything of a serious attitude to them. Giving this much focus on blogging is insane.
- The Press Exemption is Backwards
- by April 12, 2005 12:24 PM PDT
- A heartfelt thanks to Congressman Conyer's for remembering his oath to protect and defend!
- Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)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.
Since corporations do not worship God, can we agree the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of people?
Then it follows that freedom of the press is a right of people and newspapers only enjoy the right because they employ people.
Therefore the New York Times has a right to print a newspaper because a citizen has the right to print a handbill.
The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in federal campaign law! Federal Campaign Law is a violation of 1st Amendment rights!
===================
Lovell v. City of Griffin SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 303 U.S. 444 Argued February 4, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.[note 2]
Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such [http://384 U.S. 214, 219|http://384 U.S. 214, 219] matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.
------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED PRESS et al. Nos. 57, 58 and 59. Argued Dec. 5, 6, 1944. Decided June 18, 1945
It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for freedom of the press which prompted adoption of the First Amendment should be read as a command that the government was without power to protect that freedom. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.
Purpose of Campaign Laws
The need for Federal Campaign reforms hinge on the potential of big contributions to buy influence in public matters. As a consequence, candidates are limited in how much they can accept from any given donor and required to make public reports, at regular intervals, listing the names, occupations, addresses of donors and their amounts. Furthermore, the candidate must provide public reports stating how the funds are spent.
Who is Exempt
The preceding sounds like a reasonable and laudable public goal but who is exempted from contributions that influence public matters?
The Press Exemption:
2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term "expenditure" does not include -
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed
through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper,
magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities
are owned or controlled by any political party, political
committee, or candidate;
Is Corporate Media Unbiased
A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper's income... The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few...that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote...in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).
"It was not until the 1920s that you really get the notion of professional journalists, the way we think about them today," says Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "A lot of different schools of journalism started, codes of ethics were developed, the whole notion of the journalist as objective came into play .... of standing outside the story, telling both sides, of being factual rather than opinionated."
Fact or Fiction ? You Decide
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see Taking the Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)
Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process." Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1907
We all know that, as things actually are, many of the most influential and most highly remunerated members of the Bar in every center of wealth, make it their special task to work out bold and ingenious schemes by which their wealthy clients, individual or corporate, can evade the laws which were made to regulate, in the interests of the public, the uses of great wealth. (T. Roosevelt, 1905, at his Harvard Commencement address).
As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters (President Grover Cleveland, 1888, quoted by Hughes, Jonathan, R. T. The Governmental Habit Redux: Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991, p. 112, citing Swisher, Karl Brent, American Constitutional Development, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1954, p. 422).
"the Supreme Court ruled no such thing in 1886. The 'corporations are persons' ruling was a fiction created by the court's reporter. He simply wrote the words into the headnote of the decision. The words contradict what the court actually said. There is, in fact, in the US National Archives a note by the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time explicitly informing the reporter that the court had not ruled on corporate personhood in the Santa Clara case." -- Thom Hartmann, Dinosaur War, The Ecologist, December/January 2002 Issue
"[http://A U.S.|http://A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Thus corporations were given the same "rights" to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can "donate" millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as "persons," were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of "free speech." -- (Bold Emphasis Added) Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the dollar power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln
Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add... artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. (President Andrew Jackson, veto of national bank bill, July 10, 1832).