A ray of hope for US freedom — “Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections.”

First Amendment FlagFrom the Associated Press:


GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

At first blush, good news for our First Amendment overall.  I have had concerns for quite some time, relating to our foundational freedoms — most recently by writing this post regarding Demorats wanting to expand so-called “hate speech” — and their ability to thrive and continue in a “Progressive” and “politically correct” world.

Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

“It’s not a special right to the news media,” he said. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

Is it possible the nation is beginning to realize that “breaking news” is no longer continuously and regularly broken by staid and old media outlets but, occasionally, by those persons and concerns who have an immediate and compelling presence in the blogosphere and the internet in toto?

“It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists,” he (UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh) said. “There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers.”

This is the same Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy site, an older and respected blog in the digital ether with millions of hits extant.

A plus for bloggers; like myself and my cohorts.

One win this week.  Is it enough?

BZ

 

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech

Muzzling Free SpeechOnce again, the Demorats are going after our freedoms.  It is clear they do not understand the foundational documents of this nation.

The First Amendment was crafted not to protect speech of Jello, but challenging speech.

From TheHill.com:

by Pete Kasperowicz

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The Hate Crime Reporting Act, H.R. 3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

Let me state the obvious, if I might refer to a phrase used in another venue, applicable here: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

As in: “one man’s hate speech is another man’s freedom of expression and opinion.”

Any fool can see that.

Texas Fred recently wrote about the corrupting and acidic nature of political correctness.

That and the push to eliminate so-called “hate speech” is a push to eliminate and cast aside the very freedoms that make us the most sought-after nation on the planet.  But those freedoms are dwindling monthly and yearly.

I submit we need to be reminded, again, of what hate speech laws have done to the United Kingdom, as I wrote here on December 27th, one mere month ago:

That said, can you imagine this in the United States:

  • A man given four months in prison for a “racist rant” on a commuter train;
  • 54 days in prison for “racist Tweets”;
  • 21 weeks in prison for a “racist rant” on another train;
  • 18 months in prison for singing a “racist song”;
  • 8 months in prison for sending four “racist texts”;
  • 4 months in prison for posting “Islamophobic remarks” on Facebook;
  • 16 weeks for more “racist” texts;
  • Prison time for being “Islamophobic” on the internet;
  • 8 months for inciting “hatred” of Catholics on Facebook;
  • 15 months in prison for uploading “racist” clips on YouTube;
  • 2 weeks in jail for shouting at some “foreign people” on a commuter train;
  • A man slammed in a cell for having a “potentially racist” ring-tone;
  • A man got jail time for revving his car in a “racist” manner;
  • A male who got three months in prison for “impersonating a monkey” in the direction of a Senegalise soccer player;

If Americans were locked up for any of these alleged “violations,” what would you think or do?

Please allow me to make three immediate observations:

1) “Racism” and “offense” can easily exist in the mind of the beholder and nowhere else in reality;
2) The day that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is abrogated in any fashion to the above, predicated upon #1 — that is the day that this country is lighted aflame.  Trust me on this.
3) Certain groups can never commit “hate” crimes or speech or thoughts or acts?  That is hypocritical and offensive and wrong.  Racism CAN come in the color of dark and terrorism CAN come from Islam.  I say again and again: “Islam IS as Islam DOES.”

You think this kind of thing can’t happen here in America?  You’re quite wrong.

The push is here.  The push is now.

BZ

 

 

Michael Savage wins landmark radio contractual civil case in federal court

Michael SavageI’ve listened to Michael Savage (born in 1942, true name: Michael Alan Weiner, now 71) on and off for a number of years.  I used to listen to him broadcast on a local Sacramento station (KSTE) from his San Francisco-based studio at KSFO during PM drive.

I agreed wholeheartedly with his basic premise, which supported Borders, Language and Culture in the United States.

I believed he had a great  Message.  I also believed he was predominantly the wrong Messenger.

I thought that, as a Messenger, he mostly sucked.  I tired quickly of his forced laughs, his abuse of callers for sometimes little reason and, mostly — because I was in radio myself — his abuse of his local radio staff to include his producer, his interns, the board operators.  He had no relationship with his producers and support staff whatsoever.  They were nothing to him.  He denigrated them whenever they couldn’t yield whatever effect or cut or sound he demanded in seconds.  He would call for music then demand it to be shut down. His producers and staff had no names.  They were there to serve and serve only.

Limbaugh has a a relationship with Snerdley.  Hewitt has a relationship with Generalissimo.  Savage, like cats, simply had Staff.  And apparently poor ones at that.  Would I have worked for Savage, had I the current skills (as opposed to the remarkable skills I did possess in the analog age of the Production Room early 70s)?  Hell no.  I likely would have told him to go to Hell or given him a throat punch.  I would have taken his shit once and then left.  My guess: he went through producers like toilet paper.  Which is the reason, I’m guessing, that his producers were faceless.

He was a small man — physically — in a position of power and it showed.

There was little in him that was spontaneous.  His laughs were false, his umbrage was false, but his abuse of those immediately around him was true.

Some people liked him.  Frankly, I tired of him quickly, and the callers who did their level best to suck up to him.  In an absolutely unprecedented and naked way.  Because if you didn’t defer to him, you were toast.  He brooked little adversity.

That said, he didn’t acquire what he did via simpering and sniveling “consensus.”  He took the radio format by its neck and thrashed it to the point where he was the Number 3 broadcaster in the nation by 2006.

Since 2009, Savage has been barred from entering the United Kingdom, for allegedly “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred“.[11][12][13][14Frankly, a bullshit claim by a weak nation immersed in politically correct pablum.

He left the general syndicated air in September of 2012 whilst in the throes of a lawsuit against his then-syndicator.

On May 2nd, he won his court case.

From WND.com:

In a ruling that is being compared to the case that led to free agency in baseball, a federal judge in California upheld an arbitration panel’s decision to release talk-radio host Michael Savage from a contract with his former syndicator, Talk Radio Network.

Savage’s lawyer, Dan Horowitz, called it a landmark case for talk radio.

“Michael is to talk radio what Curt Flood was to Major League Baseball,” Horowitz told WND, referring to the player who challenged baseball’s reserve clause, which kept a player bound to his team even after fulfillment of his contract.

Savage told WND the ruling “should free talent from the threats and extortionist behavior of ruthless Old-Hollywood types who can still be found in the corners of the radio industry.”

“For me, personally, it finalizes a struggle to perform for my audience in an atmosphere of freedom, not working on a ‘radio plantation,’” he said.

The federal court order is here.

WND writes:

Radio hosts, he (Dan Horowitz, attorney for Savage) explained, have been bound by restrictive clauses in their contracts that treat them like businesses instead of regular employees. The law, therefore, has allowed the networks to enforce non-compete agreements with radio hosts that would be illegal if applied to individual employees.

I say to Michael Savage: good for you.  Frankly, I’m glad you won your suit.  I won’t be listening to you any more, should you re-acquire terrestrial radio, because I immensely dislike you personally.  But, as an adherent of the First Amendment, I will always support your ability to say what you will.  And, as a cop, I will fight to the death for your ability to do so in my country, because I am an Oathkeeper.

I don’t have to like the Messenger.  But, Michael Savage, I will absolutely support your Message.

BZ

P.S.
In the meantime, HD radio continues to fail:

HD Radio Fails