Blog Feed
Twitter
LAW PUNDIT Friday, September 24, 2004 9/24/2004 08:42:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Journalists, Blogs and Freedom of Speech
Journalists, Blogs and Freedom of Speech
Here is a case for 1st Amendment buffs.
It is a posting from The Sciolist, a newspaper employee who exercises editorial functions and whose blogging has effectively been prohibited - as one can read below.
"Got this in my work mailbox today. Hand delivered.
'----- Newspaper policy on personal Web sites and Web logs (blogs)
Editorial staffers (editors, reporters, and photographers) may operate personal Web sites, Web logs (blogs) or chat rooms only with the prior approval of their editor. Such Web sites, blogs and chat rooms may not contain content dealing in any way with the subject areas that the employees cover or reasonably might be expected to cover. The editor may withdraw approval of an editorial staffer's operation of a Web site, blog or chat room at any time.
It is especially important that editorial staffers do not express personal opinions - on their Web sites or in their blogs or chat rooms - on news subjects or issues that they cover. Such publication of personal opinion casts doubt on their impartiality, ultimately calling into question the newspaper's commitment to fairness.
Editorial staffers who operate their own Web sites, blogs or chat rooms may not use ----- Newspaper computers or other office facilities for that purpose. They may not work on their Web sites, blogs or chat rooms during office work hours.
Editorial staffers who operate their own Web sites, blogs or chat rooms are not permitted to trade on their newspaper positions. They may not lingk [sic] their personal sites, blogs or chat rooms to the ----- Newspapers' Web site nor to ------ Newspapers' articles. Personal Web sites, blogs or chat rooms may not use column names or any other identifying information or wording that connects the writer to ----- Newspapers.
Editorial staffers who have their own Web sites, blogs or chat rooms must notify their newspaper editor of the existence and the address of these Web publications. Staff members and correspondents agree that ----- Newspapers can access and review these personal Web sites, blogs or chat rooms at any time. Editorial staffers will, when requested to do so, provide reasonable assistance to ----- Newspapers in retrieving any archived or deleted materials from such Web sites, blogs or chat rooms.
An editorial staffer who violates this policy will face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.'
Well, that's the end of the line for me. Since I often sit at the wire desk and make decisions about which national and international news stories get published in the next day's edition of the ------ ------, the line about "may not contain content dealing in any way with the subject areas that the employees cover or reasonably might be expected to cover" precludes me from writing about current events in any form.
It's been nice knowing you all."
Is this a case for the ACLU?
If employers can permit or forbid the expression of "personal opinions" outside the work place, then is freedom of speech effectively at an end? Most people work for someone, do they not? Good reasons why an employee should not express his or her personal opinions outside of the workplace can always be found by any employer, in any industry, in any profession, in any job.
We are amused by the justifications alleged for this newspaper's policy which are phrased as follows:
... publication of personal opinion casts doubt on ... impartiality, ultimately calling into question the newspaper's commitment to fairness.
Frankly, we have yet to read ANY impartial newspaper or one that shows any perceptible "commitment to fairness", whatever that may be viewed to be. Every news media has its own political direction and its own particular agenda. Most readers, in fact, know what that agenda is and choose their newspaper accordingly.
Is this newspaper's policy unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
We think it is unconstitutional as a prior restraint on the freedom of speech.
Your opinion?
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/24/2004 08:42:00 PM
Journalists, Blogs and Freedom of Speech
Journalists, Blogs and Freedom of Speech
Here is a case for 1st Amendment buffs.
It is a posting from The Sciolist, a newspaper employee who exercises editorial functions and whose blogging has effectively been prohibited - as one can read below.
"Got this in my work mailbox today. Hand delivered.
'----- Newspaper policy on personal Web sites and Web logs (blogs)
Editorial staffers (editors, reporters, and photographers) may operate personal Web sites, Web logs (blogs) or chat rooms only with the prior approval of their editor. Such Web sites, blogs and chat rooms may not contain content dealing in any way with the subject areas that the employees cover or reasonably might be expected to cover. The editor may withdraw approval of an editorial staffer's operation of a Web site, blog or chat room at any time.
It is especially important that editorial staffers do not express personal opinions - on their Web sites or in their blogs or chat rooms - on news subjects or issues that they cover. Such publication of personal opinion casts doubt on their impartiality, ultimately calling into question the newspaper's commitment to fairness.
Editorial staffers who operate their own Web sites, blogs or chat rooms may not use ----- Newspaper computers or other office facilities for that purpose. They may not work on their Web sites, blogs or chat rooms during office work hours.
Editorial staffers who operate their own Web sites, blogs or chat rooms are not permitted to trade on their newspaper positions. They may not lingk [sic] their personal sites, blogs or chat rooms to the ----- Newspapers' Web site nor to ------ Newspapers' articles. Personal Web sites, blogs or chat rooms may not use column names or any other identifying information or wording that connects the writer to ----- Newspapers.
Editorial staffers who have their own Web sites, blogs or chat rooms must notify their newspaper editor of the existence and the address of these Web publications. Staff members and correspondents agree that ----- Newspapers can access and review these personal Web sites, blogs or chat rooms at any time. Editorial staffers will, when requested to do so, provide reasonable assistance to ----- Newspapers in retrieving any archived or deleted materials from such Web sites, blogs or chat rooms.
An editorial staffer who violates this policy will face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.'
Well, that's the end of the line for me. Since I often sit at the wire desk and make decisions about which national and international news stories get published in the next day's edition of the ------ ------, the line about "may not contain content dealing in any way with the subject areas that the employees cover or reasonably might be expected to cover" precludes me from writing about current events in any form.
It's been nice knowing you all."
Is this a case for the ACLU?
If employers can permit or forbid the expression of "personal opinions" outside the work place, then is freedom of speech effectively at an end? Most people work for someone, do they not? Good reasons why an employee should not express his or her personal opinions outside of the workplace can always be found by any employer, in any industry, in any profession, in any job.
We are amused by the justifications alleged for this newspaper's policy which are phrased as follows:
... publication of personal opinion casts doubt on ... impartiality, ultimately calling into question the newspaper's commitment to fairness.
Frankly, we have yet to read ANY impartial newspaper or one that shows any perceptible "commitment to fairness", whatever that may be viewed to be. Every news media has its own political direction and its own particular agenda. Most readers, in fact, know what that agenda is and choose their newspaper accordingly.
Is this newspaper's policy unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
We think it is unconstitutional as a prior restraint on the freedom of speech.
Your opinion?
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/24/2004 08:42:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Monday, September 20, 2004 9/20/2004 04:01:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Buckhead, Forged Documents and the US President
Buckhead, Forged Documents and the US President
Via Michelle Malkin we are led to the Concord Monitor Online and an article by Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times reporting that a Net-izen named Buckhead brought to light the fact that the Killian papers touted as legitimate by CBS News in its TV program "60 Minutes" - allegedly proving that President George W. Bush used influence to get in the National Guard - are forgeries and just plain untrue.
There is some evidence that the first person to post to the internet about the forgeries, writing under the alias Buckhead, who has since been identified as Atlanta lawyer Harry W. MacDougald, might have been tipped off about the forgery by higher places in the GOP. After all, besides Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the alleged writer of the documents, who passed away in 1984, there is one person who would know for sure that the documents were forgeries, and that is George W. Bush.
What about the name Buckhead? A "jewel" of Atlanta is the affluent area of Buckhead, which is surely the more logical explanation for the Buckhead alias, since MacDougald is an attorney in Atlanta.
The name "Buckhead" might also by chance relate to a motto applied to the Office of the Presidency of the United States since the days of President Truman:
"the Buck stops here", i.e. the "head of the buck". But this appears to be a curious coincidence, much as the name of one of the figures involved, Walter "Buck" Staudt.
One source on the chain of events to the forged documents may have been identified according to this article at CNSNews, the Cybercast News Service.
The role of CBS anchorman Dan Rather in the use of the forged documents on national TV to discredit an incumbent President can only be described as inexcusably and disgustingly partisan, especially in light of his subsequent behavior in the aftermath of the forgery disclosure. The "Rather Standard" is that the non-authenticity of the documents must FIRST be proven, and not the other way around. Here is a news "reporter" who has lost complete sight of his societal responsibility and the purpose of his profession.
All of these events show why the handling of evidence in such cases is at best placed in the responsibility of legal professionals trained in the subject and not left in the hands of people who have no training in the evaluation of proof, a major problem which also exists in many of the humanities, such as Archaeology or Egyptology, where the "diggers" also want to be the ones to interpret the finds, a policy which has often led to similar disasters with misinterpretations and forgeries frequently being found in these disciplines. Unfortunately, there are not enough Buckheads around to keep these things from happening, time and again.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/20/2004 04:01:00 PM
Buckhead, Forged Documents and the US President
Buckhead, Forged Documents and the US President
Via Michelle Malkin we are led to the Concord Monitor Online and an article by Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times reporting that a Net-izen named Buckhead brought to light the fact that the Killian papers touted as legitimate by CBS News in its TV program "60 Minutes" - allegedly proving that President George W. Bush used influence to get in the National Guard - are forgeries and just plain untrue.
There is some evidence that the first person to post to the internet about the forgeries, writing under the alias Buckhead, who has since been identified as Atlanta lawyer Harry W. MacDougald, might have been tipped off about the forgery by higher places in the GOP. After all, besides Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the alleged writer of the documents, who passed away in 1984, there is one person who would know for sure that the documents were forgeries, and that is George W. Bush.
What about the name Buckhead? A "jewel" of Atlanta is the affluent area of Buckhead, which is surely the more logical explanation for the Buckhead alias, since MacDougald is an attorney in Atlanta.
The name "Buckhead" might also by chance relate to a motto applied to the Office of the Presidency of the United States since the days of President Truman:
"the Buck stops here", i.e. the "head of the buck". But this appears to be a curious coincidence, much as the name of one of the figures involved, Walter "Buck" Staudt.
One source on the chain of events to the forged documents may have been identified according to this article at CNSNews, the Cybercast News Service.
The role of CBS anchorman Dan Rather in the use of the forged documents on national TV to discredit an incumbent President can only be described as inexcusably and disgustingly partisan, especially in light of his subsequent behavior in the aftermath of the forgery disclosure. The "Rather Standard" is that the non-authenticity of the documents must FIRST be proven, and not the other way around. Here is a news "reporter" who has lost complete sight of his societal responsibility and the purpose of his profession.
All of these events show why the handling of evidence in such cases is at best placed in the responsibility of legal professionals trained in the subject and not left in the hands of people who have no training in the evaluation of proof, a major problem which also exists in many of the humanities, such as Archaeology or Egyptology, where the "diggers" also want to be the ones to interpret the finds, a policy which has often led to similar disasters with misinterpretations and forgeries frequently being found in these disciplines. Unfortunately, there are not enough Buckheads around to keep these things from happening, time and again.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/20/2004 04:01:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 9/20/2004 01:02:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Law, Bloggers, Truth and Legitimacy
Law, Bloggers, Truth and Legitimacy
Via the incomparably informed and erudite Belmont Club: we discover that "Glenn Reynolds provides the key insight" to the idea that "The Truth Shall Set You Free" in this quote from InstaPundit:
The Internet, on the other hand, is a low-trust environment. Ironically, that probably makes it more trustworthy.
That's because, while arguments from authority are hard on the Internet, substantiating arguments is easy, thanks to the miracle of hyperlinks. And, where things aren't linkable, you can post actual images. You can spell out your thinking, and you can back it up with lots of facts, which people then (thanks to Google, et al.) find it easy to check. And the links mean that you can do that without cluttering up your narrative too much, usually, something that's impossible on TV and nearly so in a newspaper.
(This is actually a lot like the world lawyers live in -- nobody trusts us enough to take our word for, well, much of anything, so we back things up with lots of footnotes, citations, and exhibits. Legal citation systems are even like a primitive form of hypertext, really, one that's been around for six or eight hundred years. But I digress -- except that this perhaps explains why so many lawyers take naturally to blogging).
You can also refine your arguments, updating -- and even abandoning them -- in realtime as new facts or arguments appear. It's part of the deal.
This also means admitting when you're wrong. And that's another difference. When you're a blogger, you present ideas and arguments, and see how they do. You have a reputation, and it matters, but the reputation is for playing it straight with the facts you present, not necessarily the conclusions you reach. And a big part of the reputation's component involves being willing to admit you're wrong when you present wrong facts, and to make a quick and prominent correction."
Although we agree with the above fully on the surface, we are a bit more sceptical than Glenn about the deeper world of "truth" and "trustworthiness". See "what is truth?" and/or enter the search queries define:truth or define:trustworthiness in Google.
20 bishops swearing on a Bible would not make a thing true if the actual facts were otherwise. The trouble is, most people in their respective cultures or professional disciplines believe what the "bishops" or "mullahs" or "gurus" or "authorities" tell them, rather than looking to the actual evidence for truth or untruth themselves.
The internet is no exception in this regard, and it is a new information source through which people primarily follow the trends of the mainstream, especially those which are of their own persuasion. This applies both to politics and fashion.
As far as the truth of disparate environments is concerned, in our experience "everyone" - on the internet or off - has an agenda of some kind, whether serious or frivolous, drastic or sublime, hidden or open. I am reminded that the name of the former Soviet newspaper Pravda meant "truth", which was in reality seldom found in its pages. The "real truth" is an elusive entity, and, as one of my acquaintances once opined: "the world often WANTS to be lied to". That is one of the secrets to becoming monetarily rich or politically powerful - you give or sell the masses what they want, many of them lies.
Indeed, in the blogging or journalistic world, just as in the law, arrival at the "truth" is often not the actual objective of internet discussions or their holders, but rather "legitimacy" of opinion is the issue, i.e. "legitimate results", (at the least, results that are legitimate in the "eyes of the beholder"). See here for example the discussion in Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr."The New Legal Process: Games People Play and the Quest for Legitimate Judicial Decision Making", Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 77, Number 4, 1999.
On a higher level of philosophy, we can look to "the truth" as discussed by Martin Heidegger in Hegel and the Greeks, where he writes about historical (and thus political) truth:
"But every historical statement and legitimization itself moves within a certain relation to history. Prior to a decision as to the historical correctness of the representation it is therefore necessary to consider if and how history is experienced, from whence does it determine its fundamental traits."
This statement brings us to Heidegger's analysis of Plato's Doctrine of Truth, translated there out of the German by Thomas Sheehan, where Heidegger writes:
"The story recounted in [Plato's] "allegory of the cave" provides a glimpse of what is really happening in the history of Western humanity, both now and in the future: Taking the essence of truth as the correctness of the representation, one thinks of all beings according to "ideas" and evaluates all reality according to "values." That which alone and first of all is decisive is not which ideas and which values are posited, but rather the fact that the real is interpreted at all according to "ideas," that the "world" is weighed at all according to "values."
Heidegger concludes:
What always gets "clarified" is merely some essential consequence of the uncomprehended essence of unhiddenness ... the original essence of truth still lies in its hidden origin."
Therefore do not ask whether the internet brings us "the real truth and nothing but the truth", for the answer is surely no ... regardless of what we read.
At best, we are only getting a part of the entire picture.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/20/2004 01:02:00 PM
Law, Bloggers, Truth and Legitimacy
Law, Bloggers, Truth and Legitimacy
Via the incomparably informed and erudite Belmont Club: we discover that "Glenn Reynolds provides the key insight" to the idea that "The Truth Shall Set You Free" in this quote from InstaPundit:
The Internet, on the other hand, is a low-trust environment. Ironically, that probably makes it more trustworthy.
That's because, while arguments from authority are hard on the Internet, substantiating arguments is easy, thanks to the miracle of hyperlinks. And, where things aren't linkable, you can post actual images. You can spell out your thinking, and you can back it up with lots of facts, which people then (thanks to Google, et al.) find it easy to check. And the links mean that you can do that without cluttering up your narrative too much, usually, something that's impossible on TV and nearly so in a newspaper.
(This is actually a lot like the world lawyers live in -- nobody trusts us enough to take our word for, well, much of anything, so we back things up with lots of footnotes, citations, and exhibits. Legal citation systems are even like a primitive form of hypertext, really, one that's been around for six or eight hundred years. But I digress -- except that this perhaps explains why so many lawyers take naturally to blogging).
You can also refine your arguments, updating -- and even abandoning them -- in realtime as new facts or arguments appear. It's part of the deal.
This also means admitting when you're wrong. And that's another difference. When you're a blogger, you present ideas and arguments, and see how they do. You have a reputation, and it matters, but the reputation is for playing it straight with the facts you present, not necessarily the conclusions you reach. And a big part of the reputation's component involves being willing to admit you're wrong when you present wrong facts, and to make a quick and prominent correction."
Although we agree with the above fully on the surface, we are a bit more sceptical than Glenn about the deeper world of "truth" and "trustworthiness". See "what is truth?" and/or enter the search queries define:truth or define:trustworthiness in Google.
20 bishops swearing on a Bible would not make a thing true if the actual facts were otherwise. The trouble is, most people in their respective cultures or professional disciplines believe what the "bishops" or "mullahs" or "gurus" or "authorities" tell them, rather than looking to the actual evidence for truth or untruth themselves.
The internet is no exception in this regard, and it is a new information source through which people primarily follow the trends of the mainstream, especially those which are of their own persuasion. This applies both to politics and fashion.
As far as the truth of disparate environments is concerned, in our experience "everyone" - on the internet or off - has an agenda of some kind, whether serious or frivolous, drastic or sublime, hidden or open. I am reminded that the name of the former Soviet newspaper Pravda meant "truth", which was in reality seldom found in its pages. The "real truth" is an elusive entity, and, as one of my acquaintances once opined: "the world often WANTS to be lied to". That is one of the secrets to becoming monetarily rich or politically powerful - you give or sell the masses what they want, many of them lies.
Indeed, in the blogging or journalistic world, just as in the law, arrival at the "truth" is often not the actual objective of internet discussions or their holders, but rather "legitimacy" of opinion is the issue, i.e. "legitimate results", (at the least, results that are legitimate in the "eyes of the beholder"). See here for example the discussion in Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr."The New Legal Process: Games People Play and the Quest for Legitimate Judicial Decision Making", Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 77, Number 4, 1999.
On a higher level of philosophy, we can look to "the truth" as discussed by Martin Heidegger in Hegel and the Greeks, where he writes about historical (and thus political) truth:
"But every historical statement and legitimization itself moves within a certain relation to history. Prior to a decision as to the historical correctness of the representation it is therefore necessary to consider if and how history is experienced, from whence does it determine its fundamental traits."
This statement brings us to Heidegger's analysis of Plato's Doctrine of Truth, translated there out of the German by Thomas Sheehan, where Heidegger writes:
"The story recounted in [Plato's] "allegory of the cave" provides a glimpse of what is really happening in the history of Western humanity, both now and in the future: Taking the essence of truth as the correctness of the representation, one thinks of all beings according to "ideas" and evaluates all reality according to "values." That which alone and first of all is decisive is not which ideas and which values are posited, but rather the fact that the real is interpreted at all according to "ideas," that the "world" is weighed at all according to "values."
Heidegger concludes:
What always gets "clarified" is merely some essential consequence of the uncomprehended essence of unhiddenness ... the original essence of truth still lies in its hidden origin."
Therefore do not ask whether the internet brings us "the real truth and nothing but the truth", for the answer is surely no ... regardless of what we read.
At best, we are only getting a part of the entire picture.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/20/2004 01:02:00 PM
......Creative Commons License