Regardless of your political affiliations or even the topics you blog about or comment on this legislation ought to be of huge concern to you. The Senate is attempting to make any blogger with more than 500 readers who comments on politics issues register with the government as a lobbyist. (See here and here) To give you an idea of the size that includes, that would mean I'd have to register since I regularly have more than 500 readers.
Fortunately Sen. Bennett of Utah is promoting legislation to remove this. Read the whole law listed in the first link. This would criminalize people exercising their First Ammendment rights. I've been, I think, equally critical of both parties. And I was deeply cynical of what Democrats would do when they took power (largely born out by their attempted acts, fortunately primarily kept in check by public opposition) But this surprised even me. Wow.
Note that the Bennett bill passed, so Reid's anti-blogger law is dead. There is some discussion that the interpretation was bogus. But it sure looked legit from the text of the law I read.
So do you also object to getting a driver's license, business license, or needing to get a permit before holding a demonstration?
Fact is, blogging has run amok and needs some kind of accountability or control. I'm not sure that bill was the best remedy, but a simple registration process doesn't seem too onerous to me. If someone is going to advocate a policy, it seems reasonable to consider that person a lobbyist, when they have the capacity to influence so many people/voters.
I guess I was made keenly aware of the dark side of blogging a few months back, when Christian Cardall decided to criticize the report on Iraqi deaths published in the Lancet. But wait, he had not even read the report (which was made available online, with excellent methodological details), nor had he even read the full newspaper article. Yet he had no compunction about criticizing the study, and medical researchers in general.
As it happens, I am a health services researcher. I don't personally know the authors of that study; I do know people who served as peer reviewers. Every professional I talked to (and you can imagine it was a hot topic on research listservs) was very respectful of the work--perhaps debating a few details, but here and there, but never arguing with the range estimate.
Cardall explained he "didn't have time" to actually read the report, but still felt entitled to comment on it. This is a point of view and would not be allowed in MSM. Laugh at the dinosaurs all you want, media ethics have served the public well by a system of editors and procedures that gets the facts right more often than not.
It is true that occasionally people have been able to successfully sue bloggers for libel. But that puts a huge burden on the plaintiff, and may be impossible if the real identity/location of the blogger is not known.
Which is exactly the kind of thing that registration would help with.
"Fact is, blogging has run amok and needs some kind of accountability or control."
You honestly believe that?
"So do you also object to getting a driver's license, business license, or needing to get a permit before holding a demonstration?"
No, but that's a non-issue since none relate to my civil rights in the way being able to talk about politics does.
I think requiring a permit to be able to express myself on a forum where others come to me is ridiculous and totalitarian in nature. One can justify demonstration permits because one is doing things like interrupting traffic. One also demands that the city provide security for such events, which requires planning. So it really isn't an analogous situation.
"I guess I was made keenly aware of the dark side of blogging a few months back, when Christian Cardall decided to criticize the report on Iraqi deaths published in the Lancet."
How is someone criticizing a report and being wrong a "dark side of blogging?"
If you were talking about someone doing papparizzi like activities violating people's privacy then I think you might have a point. But the ability to engage in debate and be wrong seems to me to be what the first amendment is all about. Heaven help us if speech is regulated so that only "correct" speech is allowed.
"Laugh at the dinosaurs all you want, media ethics have served the public well by a system of editors and procedures that gets the facts right more often than not."
This presumes that blogs in general don't get the facts right more often than not. Do you have statistical justification for that or just the basis of a few anecdotal stories of mistakes? I know there have been a few studies along these lines, albeit more targeting things like wikis, and they found they were as accurate if not more accurate than traditional media.
Further even if blogs are inaccurate, to what do we compare? After all traditional media ranges from the National Enquirer to the New York Times. Blogs do as well. One can't make a wide range for blogs and not do so for traditional media.
"You honestly believe that?"
Yes, I think the direction is in that trend. I think that by 2008, we will definitely start to see more attempts at either external control, like that bill, or better, a movement by bloggers to regulate and set standards from within, in order to prevent the former.
"I think requiring a permit to be able to express myself on a forum where others come to me is ridiculous and totalitarian in nature."
Just expressing yourself is not a problem. Expressing yourself on issues of public policy to a large group is of course is lobbying and should be registered. I guess it depends on your state's lobbying laws and what you are used to, but this certainly seems like a natural extension of the lobbying laws in my state.
"How is someone criticizing a report and being wrong a "dark side of blogging?"
I think the willful ignorance and lack of ethical standards demonstrated therein is dark indeed. I first became a working journalist in the mid-70s following Watergate. In MSM, even in opinion-writing where I spent much of my career, we have always been required to actually read the report and provide references to editors before engaging in assasination of professionalism like this blogger did. Clearly the standards are different.
"If you were talking about someone doing papparizzi like activities violating people's privacy then I think you might have a point."
He was smearing the professionalism of dedicated scientists, without even bothering to read their work, or even read a report of their work. That's okay with you? So there are no standards to blogging, and I can just say that Clark Goble is a homesexual, Clark Goble beats his wife, Clark Goble writes bad checks.
How wonderfully freeing to be able to say whatever I want. Thanks for showing me the way, Clark.
Ethics, schmethics. Who needs facts? This is great.
"After all traditional media ranges from the National Enquirer to the New York Times. Blogs do as well. One can't make a wide range for blogs and not do so for traditional media."
The idea of a range is important, but if one graphs the ethical standards of all blogs and the ethical standards of traditional media, I still think that overall the blogs would bleed out several standard deviations on one end.
The National Enquirer is still forced to follow certain standards. Their most outrageous claims tend to be from paid subjects, who make a choice to be the subject of an aticle when they accept payment.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I would say that any standard that applies to bloggers ought apply to the MSM. Do you think it right to demand all political opinion writers (and thus the editors of all papers) to be registered with the government to be allowed to speak freely?
Newman: I guess I was made keenly aware of the dark side of blogging a few months back, when Christian Cardall decided to criticize the report on Iraqi deaths published in the Lancet. But wait, he had not even read the report (which was made available online, with excellent methodological details), nor had he even read the full newspaper article. Yet he had no compunction about criticizing the study, and medical researchers in general.
I almost broke out laughing when I read that. Newman must have missed the memo. The study is bogus! The researchers selected 33 equal-sized communities across Iraq. One of the communities was Fallujah, the most fought over community in Iraq. Two-thirds of the casualties counted in the survey were from this one community. Yet it was only 1 of 33 communities in which the study collected casualty figures. What the report implied was the casualties in Fallujah were representative of casualties all around Iraq. That’s absurd.
There were some communities the researchers couldn’t get to so went to those they could. In other communities which didn’t have enough people reporting casualties they combined other communities. Both of these decisions destroyed the randomness of the study. In the end, the study reported “We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8,000-194,000) during the post-war period.” In other words they were 95% confident that the casualties were in the range of between 8,000 and 198,000 casualties! This is not a research study. It is a joke.
I don't personally know the authors of that study; I do know people who served as peer reviewers.
And do you know their politics as well? It looks like they passed it because it was what they wanted to believe. Had they taken a serious look at the research methods that report would never have been published.
At this same time there was a non-partisan group trying to collect actual casualty counts all over Iraq. The Iraq Body Count estimated that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. These are not deaths solely inflicted by the Allied forces but all deaths regardless of who caused those deaths. A lot of those deaths were Iraqis killing Iraqis.
What bothers me is not Newman’s ignorance but his willingness to try to control the free flow of ideas because some of those ideas disagrees with what he believes (regardless of the ignorance of his beliefs). This is truly scary. The first thing the Nazis did when they took control of a country was to make the Jews register. The blogosphere is self-correcting. If something appears in a blog that is bogus, others will point it out. It doesn’t need the state to dictate what is appropriate and what is not.
If someone is going to advocate a policy, it seems reasonable to consider that person a lobbyist, when they have the capacity to influence so many people/voters.
No Newman. Newspapers, magazine, radio programs or TV programs who advocate a policy or a candidate don’t need a permit. It’s called freedom of the press. Just for your information, lobbyist are people who try to influence our government representatives. Individuals who speak to the voters are called conscientious citizens.
Newman evidently doesn’t understand the report he endorses, he doesn’t know what a lobbyist is and he doesn’t understand freedom of the press or the free flow of ideas. And yet he wants controls on free expression. He is one scary dude. This is truly the dark side.
Rich
Expressing yourself on issues of public policy to a large group is of course is lobbying and should be registered.
I cannot imagine a sentiment more antithetical to the First Amendment.
Expressing yourself about issues of public policy is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. Whether you are talking to your spouse, your neighbor, at a town meeting of hundreds of people, or on the internet where millions can read it, requiring "registration" to express your views is absolutely ridiculous.
Rich I don't have much to say about the particular study one way or an other. I personally suspect it's figures aren't that far out of line but then wouldn't be surprised if there are problems. But outside of a few sows on NPR interviewing folks about the study I'm simply too ignorant to have an informed opinion.
I do believe, however, that the methodology of The Iraq Body Count is to go to media reports of casualties which seems problematic on many levels. It's almost certain to underestimate deaths.
But let's not get this off into the tangent of the Lancet study.
There was something you said that was interesting:
Newspapers, magazine, radio programs or TV programs who advocate a policy or a candidate don’t need a permit. It’s called freedom of the press. Just for your information, lobbyist are people who try to influence our government representatives. Individuals who speak to the voters are called conscientious citizens.
Sadly, thanks to the McCain/Feingold bill this distinction has been significantly blurred. I'm all for open information about folks lobbying congress. But the line has always been rather blurry to me. For instance if I go out 4 wheeling with my Congressman and talk politics, am I lobbying?
The basis of many recent "reforms" and apparently endorsed by Naismith is the idea that attempting to persuade the public on anything is no different from what lobbyists do. I find that deeply troubling since it seems to suggest that the exchange of ideas has to be regulated by Big Brother.
Now registration might seem "innoculous" but can have a chilling effect - especially if there are criminal consequences for not doing it right. (For some reason some of Kafka's stories come to mind, as do some of the "errors" on the no-fly list only here the limit isn't flying commercial jets but being able to speak!) However if the registration includes a fee then that's horribly anti-democratic. It entails that to share my ideas with other I have to pay a fee to the government.
Of course the biggest problem is trying to enforce anything like this assuming it would be judged constitutional - which I doubt. I can't see the Court saying that someone like the Daily Kos or Instapundit is somehow different from the New York Times and somehow less deserving of the protections on the press. But I've been wrong before (witness McCain/Feingold). But even if they do this to "enforce" some odd protection from "bad" ideas. Would everyone simply go to overseas servers where this law doesn't apply?
I am Canadian; however, the way I read the legislation in question is that it applied to those bloggers who earn more than $25,000 per quarter from their website.
This is certainly a limit to free speech. The real legal question if this was taking place in Canada would be whether such a restriction is in keeping with a 'free and democratic society.' That is a question is that beyond a cursory consideration here.
The secondary issue aside is the fact that this particular section was jointly sponsored by both the senate majority and minority leaders. The credit / discredit for the bill is certainly equal on both parties.
As an aside, I would think that blogs can be distinguished from newspapers for a number of reasons having to do with professional ethics that apply (at least theoretically) to Newspapers, and not to those on the internet.
Hmm. As a Canadian, albeit one who hasn't lived there for a while, I seem to recall lots of infringements on free speech up there. It really used to annoy me. Some I could understand the motivations. (i.e. Canadian content rules on entertainment) Others seemed a bit odd to me. (i.e. some restrictions on Evangelical broadcasts - even though I'm definitely no fan of the televangelist) Others I was more mixed on, such as laws against "hate speech." I could understand the motivation but would have preferred allowing speech I dislike. The case I was thinking of was the New Brunswick holocaust denier. There are even stronger infringements on free speech in Europe. While I may decry the speech, I tend to think it important to allow unpopular speech because I see the enforcement as being far too easy to abuse.
Regarding professional ethics. I guess I'm just too cynical about how they operate in practice in the main stream media. Don't get me wrong, I'll decry hack-blogs and typically (although not always) favor the ethics guidelines. I'm just not at all convinced they are followed as much as they ought. Further if a particular blog follows those sorts of guidelines, can the distinction be held?
The problem is that the medium is being conflated with those using the media. It's as if one would say, "well folks using printed words are OK, but not those using electronic means." But that's a very problematic approach. Further there are bloggers associated or quasi-associated with MSM, such as Andrew Sullivan. But why should Andrew Sullivan get a pass while Glen Reynolds doesn't? It's pretty hard for me to see a way to make a distinction that works.
Regarding credit/discredit by party. I should note that I lost most respect over the past few years for the Republican leadership. Republicans squandered most good will I had for them. I'm just equally cynical about Democrats. I predicted, amongst all the fanfare, that in practice it would be business as usual. And, with a few exceptions, it has been. I've pretty much arrived at the "a pox on both their houses" stance and favor promoting good folks on either side of the aisle.
The Canadian case law on free speech is heavily based on American jurisprudence. Our constitution is only 25 years old and the court tried to balance the American court with the 'demonstrable' limits of section one (the limits I mentioned earlier).
The devil, as they say, is always in the details - and case law is no exception. I am familiar with some of the cases you are referring, although I haven't looked at some of them since Constitutional law class. Applicable to the situation described, the court decided that free speech is of two kinds: individual and commercial. Sophisticated market actors, particularly those with significant financial resources have the ability to 'punch above their weight' by saturating the marketplace of ideas, and through vexation litigation. I assume the legislature in this case placed an arbitrary income to determine who a 'sophisticated market actor' is; however, I understand and to some extent sympathize with the intention - despite the poor drafting that doesn't distinguish between Sullivans and the Reynolds of the internet.
Back on the Ernie Zundel case (the hate-speech case), I will admit that outright prohibitions are more than counterproductive as shown by the Headscarf bans in France and the Nazi bans in Germany. The Canadian case is based on Mr. Zundel's criminal code conviction for spreading a story that the person knows to be false with the object of harming the public interest. This is where the American and Canadian approaches diverge. The object of Canadian Confederation is "Peace, Order and Good Government"; the object of American Independence is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property (or Happiness - take your pick)." Therefore Zundel is out.
The whole case is very interesting for those so inclined: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1992/1992scc72.html
I think that's a good summary of differences between Canada and the US. I've not followed recent news so I don't know how (or if) the recent Conservative victory is changing things. But certainly in the era from say the "birth" of Canada as Canada in 1967 to the end of the Liberal dynasty I think that "peace and order" over individual freedoms was the song of the day.
Of course Americans can overstate this a tad, such as over issues regarding wiretapping, search and seizure and a few others things that aren't overtly discussed in the Canadian constitution. But I'm not sure in practice if things are that different since American law official often find ways "around" such protections.
Still, while I'm anything but a Libertarian, I'll be the first to admit that the Canadian model bothered me. Enough that I'm down here now, even though I still love Canada. I suspect that it was free speech that drove me most ideologically. Some of the muzzle laws for court cases and government deliberation really struck me as limiting any kind of check or balance on government.
I understand and can sympathize with some complaints with the Canadian model of government although my discontent is with the system of representation and the first past the post system.
I have lived and worked in Utah and served by mission in Virginia and West Virginia and return to visit the in-laws in your neighborhood regularly. My anecdotal evidence is that a diversity of opinions is more accessible in Canada. I am not familiar with the muzzle laws of which you refer. You mentioned some censoring of evangelicals - a situation I am not familiar with at all.
The problem with any debate that grows from the law is that most information in the press (or in a blog) is really the distribution of sound bites. The truth is always more detailed, nuanced and often far less controversial.
I wonder about this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200312020910.asp
It's from a clearly partisan source, but if what he describes is accurate, Canada doesn't seem to appreciate diversity of views at all.
One quote:
Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.
In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
Also, Canada has even threatened to go after bloggers:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004239.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004225.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004305.php
A human rights board of inquiry found that the appellant, Hugh Owens, contravened s. 14(1)(b) by publishing a newspaper advertisement which reflected his Biblically-based views about homosexuality. That result was upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr. Owens was successful on appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
This is the benefit of Judicial oversight of Administrative tribunals.
As for the publication bans violated by the media during the Gomery Commission, I find that case much easier to swallow than the case above - leaking information to the public before a number of criminal trials could take place. These leaks can be found to be unduely prejudicial: resulting an a case being thrown out.
When free exchange of information can be clearly linked to an existing specific criminal charge, the effect is to provide complete disclosure to those who have not yet been charged.
So while Captain's Quarter wishes that the government would fight corruption, he fails to see that that is exactly what the government is trying to do.
I am not here to defend some of the bad case law that inevitably comes out of any legal system. I meant only to raise questions about the quality of the sources relied on for this string, to point out the limited scope of the proposed legislation, to lend some support to one of the few LDS Democratic Senators, and to provide some insight from north of the boarder.
The muzzle laws are that in Canada a judge can muzzle the press about covering the case. The most famous example of this was the trial of two people in Ontario in the early 90's who had raped, tortured and murdered several people. The lurid case was reported in the US but was blacked out in Canada. The Canadian government even censored feeds coming across the border, blacking them out.
The problem with this type of process is that it removes from public scrutiny the activities of the government.
Diversity is a more complex thing. On some issues Canada is more diverse. But there's definitely a range of acceptable speech which is simply different than in the US. The US uses a melting pot metaphor whereas Canada since the 70's promotes the multiculturalism approach. Both have pluses and minuses. I think though that diversity tends to coordinate with the diversity of the population. Utah is probably fairly unique in the country for being almost entirely suburban middle class white folks, largely of the same religion. Even the more "diverse" areas in Salt Lake are far less diverse than you'd find in most other American cities of the same size.
I'd be cautious about drawing too many opinions from ones mission. (I went to Louisiana, which was quite a shock given the racial polarization there which was alien to any thing I'd seen in Canada) There's too much self-selection at work which makes discerning diversity difficult.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble