California judge said bloggers should not have same protection afforded journalists under US law

Story dated 04 March 2005

Well, that's disturbing. Hopefully, if appealed to a federal court, the ruling will be different. (However, looking at their McCain-Feingold ruling, don't count on the federal judges to have a better understanding of the First Amendment than even you do). Here's the situation: the California Superior court is compelling bloggers to turn over their information sources. So-called 'traditional' journalists are protected form having to reveal their sources. So bloggers don't count as traditional journalists? Apparently the California Superior Court doesn't think so. And lest you believe them, I suggest you read the pamphlets published during the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention. If those aren't blog-like, in character, I don't know what is. It is likely this sort of (blog/opinion) journalism that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the First Amendment segment regarding to the 'freedom of the press'. If web log publishers aren't afforded the same sort of protections as so-called 'traditional journalists', then their monopoly will be strengthened. This is bad. Bloggers have recently played an important role in keeping the so-called traditional journalists honest. Remember Dan Rather? Or how about Eason Jordan of CNN? If not for bloggers, their sort of biased journalism would have no counterpoint and thus would never have been exposed.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 4:32 PM

_____________________________________________