READER COMMENTS ON
"Blogging Without a Net..."
(30 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 2:15 pm PT...
I'm sorry for being a little dense- what does MSM stand for?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 2:53 pm PT...
MSM means Main Stream Media. Dnacing is spelled Dancing
This is an opportunity to give some US law 101.
It depends upon the circuit one is living in as to what law applies.
There are several Federal Circuits (1-11, plus the Federal Circuit, and the Dist. of Columbia Circuit).
These circuits do not have the same federal law as a matter of course. The law in the 9th Circuit is different than the law in the 1st Circuit, for example.
I have read some decisions that have accounted bloggers worthy of protections journalists have, and there are differing opinions in other circuits.
The laws in the 50 states can be different too. Even within a state there are cases when there are multiple judicial districts, that the law can be different in different parts of the state.
Counties can have different laws from other counties.
So when you contemplate the law that applies to you, be sure you take into account the jurisdiction when discussing what the law is.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 3:39 pm PT...
Follow-up to #2
It is also important to remember that the two reporters ordered to testify or face jail are involved in a criminal case, which is a much different situation than speaking about one's opinion or talking about public policy, politics, the law, or the news.
Ministers, psychologists, teachers, lawyers, and others who have a right to confidentiality, loose those rights in various degrees when the issue is a crime having been committed.
All these things must be taken into consideration when discussing matters of rights of bloggers, journalist bloggers, and/or MSM journalists.
It would not hurt to do some advocacy in the state legislatures to have some additional blogger protection laws passed.
Since the congress is controled by the right wing at this time, I do not forsee federal legislation for blog protection going as far is it could in the state legislatures.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 3:41 pm PT...
Mainstream Media (MSM)
Good point Brad!
This all goes back to a time long long ago in a galaxy of cyber space far far away (about a month ago) when I warned of the encroaching powers of government through FEMA, NSA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and a worse case scenario come true, John Negraponte as Intelligence Czar!
Czar being an apt operative word!
It also, to refresh the memory, reminds me of my commentary about how laws are written by corporations, for corporations, and of corporations. In other words, corporate America's take over of our country is in line with not violating the law, but controlling it, by controlling the White House, the Congress, the Courts, and the mainstream media.
Right-wing facsism does not have to come through military might. It can come quietly in the night, while you were sleeping, through election fraud, media control consolidation, centralizing wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, and expanded use of intelligence and law enforcement powers that are silently used to suppress dissidents and left-wing political opposition groups through the fog creeping in all around us.
Like the exploitation of the fear of terrorism, the fear of corporate controlled governments and laws will change the behavior of most people. Fear of losing in court. Fear of losing your job. Fear of losing your family or what little freedoms you have left. Fear of centralized data banks now loading up information on every American...indeed...every world citizen.
All of these fears can envelope you into a state of see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil as was the case in the 1950's McCarthy Era. And when that becomes the state of our nation, that is when the nation we once knew is a nation no more.
They want you to fear their courts and laws. That is how ultimately they will control by creating legal and law enforcement situations that will have a chilling effect on your ability to speak, write, and think freely. As an example, George W. Bush on Friday signed into law right-wing legislation to protect corporate America from class action law suits. One more business victory over the people and their ability to seek redress from corporate negligence and crimes.
So while they want laws and courts to protect corporate interests, they will also use those same laws and courts to punish and sanction those who attempt to oppose corporate domination and power. Including the use of laws and legal harrassment against those who simply exercise their right to free speech, thought, or expression. Governments and corporations are very large institutions and they have the power, money, and attorneys to crush an individual with paper and process. It makes you wonder just how free we really are?
George W. Bush claims he wants to spread freedom and democracy around the world! Of course he does! Our type of freedom and democracy! A controlled, corrupted, and exploited freedom and democracy operated on behalf of those with wealth and power, and on behalf of a globalized corporate America. The freedom to continue the exploitation of the human and natural resources of the world without any opposition, politically, militarily, or economically.
Welcome to the new USA! Corporate world headquarters providing the security, military, and intelligence for corporate globalization exploiting oil and gas, cheap labor, rainforests, and the list goes on and on, just like a copy of George Bush's campaign donations.
So...take it from Freebird...tweet...tweet:
Have the courage of your convictions! Otherwise, you along with the rest of us may disappear into the fog!
Viva la Revolucion!
Freebird...and this bird you cannot chain!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 4:19 pm PT...
I tend to think of it as the old USA. The ghost of Senator Joe McCarthy walks the hallways of the Capitol Hill.
The whole "you're anti-American/you're either with us or against us" neconservative baiting was alive and well back then. Different politicians, same old shit scheme. They bankrupted many in Hollywood and drove Lenny Bruce to his grave. Have no fear, but be aware. Fight the smart fight.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 4:20 pm PT...
Hi, Freebird - that was some vacation, man...missed you...Welcome back!
I'm particularly annoyed that Novak was not forced to reveal his sources or go to jail. What's with that? Can we make a huge noise and get him brought before the courts? Actually, I'm not particularly annoyed - I'm furious!!!!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 4:26 pm PT...
Yah! How come Novak gets off the hook?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/20/2005 @ 5:17 pm PT...
Freebird has it right. Another way to put it is, "For Bush, FREEDOM means FREE ENTERPRISE." The real distinction is between FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
LIBERTY means the FREEDOM to reject the Western model of free market global capitalism. But Bush doesn't want to permit Iraq, Iran, etc. that choice.
The Judith Miller case is a rare conflict between a reporter's right to protect sources (an extension of freedom of the press) and the right of our criminal justice system to require testimony from those with crucial information. It's a close call, but I stand with the government on this one.
Suppose Judith Miller (or any reporter) knew that the 2004 election had been stolen, but chose to say nothing in order to "protect" her source, an Ohio election official who knew the whole story but was afraid to go public with it. Does the reporter's right to protect that source supersede the public interest in knowing that the wrong person was elected? Who draws the line here...an executive editor at the New York Times?
The media are defending Judith Miller on the grounds that if reporters can't protect sources, then they can't investigate wrongdoing without fearing retaliation. But it cuts both ways, doesn't it? If reporters are able to protect sources no matter what, then two people, the reporter and the source, are in control of information the public is entitled to. And if Judith Miller is beholden to the White House for any reason (she often acts as if she were), then SHE PROTECTS THEM EVEN AS SHE CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT SOURCES.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 6:31 pm PT...
Robert Lockwood Mills #8
Slippery slopes as far as the eye can see. Instinct compels me to agree with you, but at the same time causes concern that if Miller is forced to reveal her sources, a precedent will be set that will fundementally change the balance between independant media and the government. All it takes is one instance, and every prosecutor from here on out will use it as a tool.
Maybe the solution would be to have stronger whistle blower protections for thiose who witness crimes or corruption, so that they wouldn't have to worry about retribution from those that they were whistle blowing on. If the source of the information was going to use the reporter to attack someone, then maybe knowing that their anonimity was no longer automatically protected would make them think twice before releasing malicious information.
Anyway you look at it, one principal must be sacrificed for the other.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 7:59 pm PT...
Follow-up to #2
It is also important to keep in mind that blogs reach across state lines, so the state or circuit in which the blogger sits (or the blogger's computer sits) is not necessarily the jurisdiction where the lawsuit would be brought, or the jurisdiction whose laws apply.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 8:29 pm PT...
There is some speculation that Novak was not told Plame was UC and that Miller and Cooper were told that. That does not mean that Novak didn't know. I would think he would have, but he is definitely protected by this admin.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2005 @ 9:35 pm PT...
I happen to side with Robert on this issue. When a reporter is shielding a criminal, it is a priori criminal to protect the source. I happen to believe that this whole "protect the source at all costs" blowup is a right-wing attempt to obscure a major, treasonous crime.
And even the more "liberal" members of the "media establishment" have gotten on their very high horses to "protect" these poor, precious obfuscators. Even Bill Maher, if you can believe it!
Disgusting. Where are people's moral priorities in this morally seasick year?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/21/2005 @ 3:07 am PT...
To Peg C: It's interesting, isn't it? The mainstream press is in high dudgeon over the right of reporters to protect sources, on the grounds that without such protection, these reporters couldn't expose government corruption, as it did with Watergate.
But this same mainstream press has been grossly negligent in doing this...regarding 9/11 neglect on the part of the Bush administration, regarding W.M.D. and the war in Iraq, and regarding the stolen election of 2004. Sounds like a case of crying wolf to me...and I don't mean Wolf Blitzer.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 7:46 am PT...
I for one invite Jeff Gannon to sue me for libel or slander.
I will have a wonderful time during the discovery phase of the litigation.
I would focus very, very much on who got him the passes for two years during two press secretaries.
I would subpoena Karl Rove, Ari Fleisher, and Scot McClellan to sworn depositions.
To the extent it was relevant, I would subpoena three real journalists, and one not-so-real journalist.
Novak, the two ordered to testify before the grand jury, and Gannon. Not necessarily in that order.
It would be delicious! Bring it on Jeffie. Your controllers would kick your ass if you bring such a lawsuit against the bloggers. What power you would give them!!!!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 8:15 am PT...
Whoaaaa... he's going out on a limb!
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 8:40 am PT...
Cheryl #15 ... yes ...
Since it is the "worst", I will wait in line. Gannon should sue him first. (But don't forget me Jeff).
I have tried to stay within the confines of reportable material. If anything I have posted is untrue then I invite Jeff, Ari, Scott, or Karl to let me know and supply me with the evidence to the contrary. Then I would gladly post the results.
Leave the speculation to others ... even if it is realistic speculation.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 10:46 am PT...
Hi Peggy and all! Keep slogging through the mud, there's got to be a clean spot somewhere! LOL
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 10:55 am PT...
Sorry if this is off topic. Wanted to get it posted somewhere else before it disappears altogether. Don't know anything about the truth of this article. Better leave it to some to some professionals to find out whether or not it's spurious.
Got the text from www.newshounds.us. The original article linked to by Raw Story had been taken down from the UPPC website and a dummy page posted in its place.
Ain't it enough to make you wanna cry?
February 20, 2005
Scott Ritter Says US Will Attack Iran in June
From United for Peace of Pierce County, WA.
(Scott) Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iranís alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million --- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism...
...Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.
Write your representatives, your newspaper and email everyone you can think of who might take up the cause of peace.
Contact your Senators
Contact your Representative
Reported by ellen at February 20, 2005 08:57 PM TrackBack
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 11:42 am PT...
Why is there nothing about the iraqi elections on this site. I thought liberals cared about freedom.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 11:42 am PT...
Why is there nothing about the iraqi elections on this site. I thought liberals cared about freedom.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
Terri in S. FL
said on 2/21/2005 @ 11:44 am PT...
Speaking of Scott Ritter, the idiot subbing for Limpbaugh just mentioned him and said that Ritter did an about face regarding WMD's because Ritter was on the take in the Oil for Food mess.
Anyone have any info on this? The GOPers love to target Ritter and I'd be hard pressed to believe anything they say without solid proof.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
riddle me this
said on 2/21/2005 @ 1:36 pm PT...
Peter: if a country under military occupation has an election in which the candidates do not allow their names to be announced in public for fear of assassination, how does that have anything to do with freedom?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 1:45 pm PT...
Scott Ritter knows what he's talking about, period. Anyone who hasn't caught that yet should go rove, where the buffaloes roam. Let's get mobilized now, people!
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 3:57 pm PT...
Thanks for all the MSM clarifications- and Dredd- I like to spell as creatively as I dnace
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 6:24 pm PT...
Dnacing Bear-I knida like the way yuo speel Dancing!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2005 @ 11:28 pm PT...
Ok now for one other incredibly important comment from Dnacing bear- how do you get a funny face to show up by your message?- I tried to get the dude with the shades and all I got was the word " ". If it's too much to explain don't bother- I'll jut remain a faceless creative dancer & speller.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2005 @ 8:35 am PT...
Dnacing Bear #26. Thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid you might be bushy.
Since you are just casting a spell the way you want, ok by me.
It has been explained in several threads. Search on Winter Patriot, Cheryl, or Dredd. One of those messages will explain it.
If that is too harsh, ask here again and one of us will splain it two yu.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2005 @ 12:15 pm PT...
Peter #19 and #20 - Sweety, if you hit the button more than once you double post. Just be patient and we'll all be able to read what you have to say
And, since I just KNOW you're sincere and not just trolling, I'll try to help. You're not looking back far enough. The Iraqi election was at the end of January, there is an open thread on the topic on January 28 in the archives. Happy reading!
Bless your heart.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 2/24/2005 @ 11:14 am PT...
One of the journalists involved in the order to talk has won the right not to talk in another case, link here, where the journalist refused to disclose a confidential source.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 5/13/2005 @ 8:45 pm PT...
Has John Kerry won Ohio yet???