Sunday, January 19, 2014

Bloggers are part of free press

I occasionally worry that I might be sued for statements on this blog, such as saying that psychologist Ken Perlmutter is the Jerry Sandusky of the family court. I have First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, of the press; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There has been some legal ambiguity about whether a blogger has the same free press rights as a newspaper, but the federal appeals just ruled that he does.

California law also makes it difficult to shut down a blog with a frivolous lawsuit, as I have noted in Truth is a defense.

You can still be censored by sites like Facebook:
Kang had a different point of view. Writing on Facebook, she declared, “I was a little peeved because while I feel like it’s ok to love and accept your body, I think that we’re normalizing obesity in our society.”

Ridiculously, after a user complained, Kang was temporarily booted from Facebook and her post was removed as “hate speech.” Kang told Yahoo! Shine Monday, “I felt like I’d been sent to the principal’s office and been expelled. We’ve become so sensitive to this weight issue that people who speak out against it are vilified. It’s so backwards to me.”
Yes, it is backwards.

1 comment:

paulmurray said...

It's nuts that this was ever even a question. The freedom of the press doesn't mean that there is this thing, called the press, and it is free. That would be like saying that freedom of association means that anything called 'an association' must be free.

The 'freedom of the press' is the freedom to publish your opinions. Particularly your political opinions. The language comes from an age where you could own your own little press (later a mimeograph machine), and make and distribute bills and pamphlets.

Its a freedom that, under the US constitution, must not be infringed upon by the US government. This includes the modern equivalent of pamphleteering - blogging.