Saturday, April 28, 2012

Blogs are Media, Bloggers are Journalists, Blogs are Real News about what is Really Happening. Protect your Voice.

"Just two weeks ago while attending a local court hearing, Estate of Denial® was singled out by an attorney who in cross-examination asked a witness who we were and if we had some media capacity. This particular incident struck us as a When ‘goofy’ goes to court moment.

 That said, the comment in the context of the hearing suggested concern that despite the (likely welcomed) absence of “traditional” media sources, details of this public proceeding could still surface via new media platforms, platforms which the public increasingly views as sources for accurate, credibly-delivered news and information.

“Goofy” isn’t alone in wanting to silence a movement that is bringing transparency and accountability to public discourse like never before. For those of us who generate content, protecting our voices is critical. For those who consume the content, protecting your access to this information is also critical."

Source of Post and Full Article

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Eugene Volokh Article on Freedom of the Press As An Industry, or For the Press as a Technology? From The Framing to Today.

"“[T]he freedom . . . of the press” specially protects the press as an industry, which is to say newspapers, television stations, and the like - so have argued some judges and scholars, such as the Citizens United v. FEC dissenters and Justices Stewart, Powell, and Douglas.

This argument is made in many contexts: election-related speech, libel law, the journalist’s privilege, access to government property, and more.

Some lower courts have indeed concluded that some First Amendment constitutional protections apply only to the institutional press, and not to book authors, political advertisers, writers of letters to the editor, professors who post material on their websites, or people who
are interviewed by newspaper reporters.

Sometimes, this argument is used to support weaker protection for non-institutional-press speakers than is already given to institutional-press speakers. At other times, it is used to support greater protection for institutional-press speakers than they already get. The argument in the latter set of cases is that the greater protection can be limited to institutionalpress speakers, and so will undermine rival government interests less than if the greater protection were extended to all speakers."


"Of course, the Supreme Court has never limited itself to analyzing constitutional provisions based solely on historical sources. Justices remain free to decide for themselves what they think best serves the values they deem protected by constitutional provisions.

The goal of this Article is simply to say that an argument for a press-as-industry interpretation of the Free Press Clause must rely on something other than original meaning, text, purpose, tradition, or precedent."

Source of Quote and Full Eugene Volokh Article on Freedom of the Press

Custody Order Violates First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

"In a Family Courtroom in Bucks County, PA, Judge Diane E. Gibbons recently ordered a father to take down a website, a blog actually, called: A portion of this site is dedicated to telling a story, based on true events, regarding a very contentious divorce and custody battle with this ex-wife. The purpose of the website was to attract others going through similarly difficult divorce and custody situations in order to help them manage theirs better. The Father, in this case, was ordered to shut it down under threat of incarceration and/or risk losing custody of his children.

Judge Diane E. Gibbons has violated the father’s civil rights by ordering him to remove the blog. Fact is, he neither owns the website nor the content. The existence of the website, in and of itself, has no affect on his children. It would forever remain so, provided both parents monitor the children’s computer usage as any good parent should."

You can read the full transcript of Judge Diane E. Gibbons orders here.

Source of Above Quote and lot's more on this Case Click Below

Motion for Reconsideration

Boycott Big Media, Blogs are the Real News. Citizen Journalists are the Real News. Support Bloggers Rights.

"First Circuit Court of Appeals case on this subject, here's the link.

Case Name US Court of Appeals First Circuit:
Glik v. Cunniffe:
Court Rules Recording Cops OK (August 26, 2011)

Protection extends not only to network journalists, as wished by the elitist New York Times and some elitist liberal alternative weekly writers, but to all citizens. The key is obtaining information under the First Amendment. Videotaping of a public meeting in a public building is protected under this decision.

Appeals Court Rules It Is Not Illegal To Film Police
Americans still being arrested for recording cops as a consequence of mass hoax
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, September 1, 2011

* * *

Dec 7, 8:39 PM EST
Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist
Associated Press

Roy Bercaw - Editor
Cambridge MA USA "