« Balkanize the net |
Main
| Nasty business, this music-sharing »
March 7, 2005
Declan on blog journalism
Posted by Alan Wexelblat
Declan McCullagh's column on Apple vs. the bloggers comes down strongly on the side of bloggers-as-journalists, even invoking the legendary Woodward & Bernstein names. He points out that cases may turn on issues as small-scale as the wording of state laws, and that the "press cartel" have traditionally been mean-spirited and withheld their support from emerging forms of journalism.
He also notes the relationship to the FEC flap and lends support to the view that there may well be regulation coming to this area (Grimmelman et al notwithstanding)
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Oh and by the Way
- › Tor Sees No Increase In Illegal Copies After One Year DRM-Free
- › Free Publication on "Seismic Shift" in CA Copyright Law
- › EFF Challenges Bad Patent Filings - But There's a Bigger Issue
- › Video Game Development Game Ironic Piracy
- › British Photo Copyright Orphans' Concern
- › Mike Masnick Curb-Stomps Jaron Lanier
- › Microsoft Appears Ready to Relent on Xbox DRM
1. James on March 7, 2005 3:28 PM writes...
"[T]he wording of state laws" is "trivial"? Huh? Cases involving billions of dollars, not to mention life and death, are routinely decided based on "the wording of state laws." And the wording of state laws defining who gets protection under press shield laws is decidedly not trivial, given that journalists have already lost the constitutional argument. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). "[T]he wording of state laws" is all that stands between the press and the obligation to respond to subpoenas, just like everyone else.
Permalink to Comment2. Dr. wex on March 7, 2005 4:36 PM writes...
Fair. I'll modify the wording to something less pejorative-sounding.
Permalink to Comment3. James on March 7, 2005 6:47 PM writes...
You don't seem to have understood my point. This has nothing to do with the word "trivial" being "pejorative." The wording of state laws is not "small scale." It is not "trivial." Rather, it is vitally important. Legislatures spend countless hours debating "the wording of state laws." Interest groups spend millions trying to influence just what words state laws will contain. I have no idea why someone debating a matter of state law finds "the wording of state laws" either trivial or small scale. When you're talking about laws, words matter.
Permalink to Comment