The First Amendment extends into cyberspace
We editors rightfully defend the First Amendment and the free flow of information as bedrocks of an open democracy.
It is a core right for all people that distinguishes us from countries that censor such as China, North Korea and Cuba.
Editors wax passionately about our role as journalists who ferret out information valuable to the public and shed light on people and institutions that must be held accountable. Those twin roles remain vital today although the way we perform journalism has morphed into a hydra in cyberspace - blogs, comments to online stories, video, instant polls and reader-submitted content.
The landscape for traditional media such as newspapers continues to evolve as journalists post real-time information using Twitter, chats, forums or web feeds. Some old newspaper fogies would say that is using technology but not journalism.
The First Amendment and free speech in our country extends to all people - not the select few such as journalists. Now the freedom to comment, react or ventilate on any subject is a mouse click away for all Americans. Journalists are but a small sliver exercising those rights.
All of this change has happened so fast that the legal system is lagging with the redefining environment.
Rules governing the intersection of the free-form Internet culture with longstanding government rights and protections is still murky. And where better to look for a murky legal tangle than in the courts of Madison County, Illinois?
A case is pending there in which prosecutors have subpoenaed information from the Alton Telegraph newspaper about five people who posted comments on the Telegraph’s website about the September beating death of a 5-year-old Cottage Hills boy.
Forcing the disclosure of the commenters’ identities would chill the expectations of a free-flowing online commentary and could intimidate other people from participating in online dialogues elsewhere.
Officials subpoenaing stores, notes and photographs from news organizations is somewhat common. But unlike Missouri, Illinois has a Shield Law that protects journalists from being forced to divulge their sources except in very rare circumstances.
The Illinois Shield Law can be overridden only if two high standards are met: If the sourced information is essential to the case and if authorities have exhausted all other ways to obtain that information. Neither threshold is reached in the Alton case, which has been thoroughly investigated. The prosecutors have not demonstrated how testimony from the anonymous commenters would enhance their case.
This pending court ruling will be another sign post that defines how cyberspace knits with established legal systems.
The identities of those online commenters to the Alton newspaper should remain confidential.
First Amendment rights for all — citizens and the news media — should be protected in all but the most limited of circumstances. A free flow of information is essential for a democracy — including online democracy — to thrive.
Gilbert Bailon has been editor of the P-D editorial pages since November 2007. Previously, he worked as a reporter, editor and executive editor for The Dallas Morning News and its daily Spanish-language newspaper, Al Dia. He still harbors a passion for all things Tex-Mex: food, music, language, boots and border culture. And yes he has found some of that in the Midwest. 
‘
So you want the First Amendment/Freedom of Speech concept for yourselves … but yet not a peep from you as you watch the slow strangulation of a free & fair press in Venezuela.
http://www.asne.org/venezuela2008 … (see picture #3)
Too, too much.
===
Private citizens, exercising their right of free speech anonymously, are not under the same ethical constraints as persons making a living (however tenuous) as journalists, bloggers or commentators. The line between private citizen comment and journalist is crossed when the writer is paid for his/her words, and thereby subject to a higher standard of conduct. Even a “journalist” has an area of private speech, and a right to free speech as a private citizen, as long as he/she isn’t trading on his or her public reputation to lend more credence to their words.
In short: a journalist is under an ethical/legal standard not to lie when engaged in the activity which makes them a living. While everyone is constrained by the laws of slander or libel from malicious/false accusations, this standard is much lessened when it is just some fellow shooting off his mouth at a bar, or posting anonymous comments to the Internet without substantiation, than someone employed as a journalist.
“Feedback commenters” are not journalists, nor should they be treated as such. Their identities should not be revealed, because they are private citizens, acting as private citizens. The lawyers should take their fishing trip elsewhere.
BobZ.-I’m not sure what the Venezuela has to do with a theoretical limiting of First Amendment rights in the US, other than the fact that Bailon was the president of the ASNE in 2007-2008 and went on the trip. Did the US annex Venezuela and I missed the news? Otherwise, why would rights guaranteed under the US Constitution have any relation to Chavez and his attitude towards the press?
I don’t believe I agree with the prosecutors in Madison County, not because of the “journalist”, “source”, or “private citizen” concept, but rather the question of why? Why these five specific individuals-which could be one person with several email addresses (I myself have more than one email). What information do prosecutors think these people are privy to based on their comments? Reading some of the comments on the P-D site makes me question the motives of some individuals, but is that a valid reason to fill suit to discover their names?
How amusing to have the Editorial Page address free speech. I have been regularly edited off the website because the editors did not like my speech - namely Fascist Eddie for one. I was not name-calling, but did not share his views - so I was eliminated. Yet I have been called names by so-called liberals and those comments have remained. There are no hard and fast guidelines for what constitutes free speech on the Platform or any PD blog. It is totally at the discretion of the editor. Interesting!
DIRECT CHALLEGE to Gilbert Bailon —
is it hypocritical for “We Editors” to champion Freedom of Speech in your backyard but not champion those same freedom’s in your neighbor’s yard.
===
With the publishing of this editorial, we now know that the PD editorial board will vehemently oppose reenactment of the ‘fairness doctrine’. That is good to know.
Still wonder why the editorial board saw fit to limit free speech by not printing Mr. Charles Krauthammer’s regular commentary column just prior to the November election? Surely it had nothing to do with his opinions about various candidates running for office.
“First Amendment rights for all — citizens and the news media — should be protected in all but the most limited of circumstances. A free flow of information is essential for a democracy — including online democracy — to thrive.”
Could you expand on those limited circumstances? At what point does one sacrifice those rights? Missouri recently enacted a law that requires registering online IDs before engaging in Internet speech under threat of criminal penalty for using a non-registered online ID. The registered online ID is then sold by the state to third parties that control access to and interaction with the Internet. Said third parties are allowed to deny access to the Internet on their belief the individual is a registered sex offender, with no access to the courts for redress. This applies to those no longer on conditional release with court ordered restrictions, as well as those who do not have computer crimes. And what is the Post’s position on this? Who knows—it was totally ignored by the so called defenders of free speech.
But it is known that MSM is getting crushed by citizen journalists, who embraced the limitless potential of the Internet long before the MSM. We do know that the MSM views the Internet much like the government, something that needs to be demonized in an effort to control its power. Restricting the free speech rights of disfavored citizens is one way to accomplish that goal. The Post’s silence on the issue undercuts the quoted statement and calls into question their response to queries from LE about registered online IDs.
I have no problem with Freedom of the Press. But I do have a problem with reporters wanting special rights. They should have to obey the exact same laws as anyone else. I don’t know what the exact law is as far as the police subpoenaing the average citizen to obtain information. But whatever the law is, reporters shouldn’t have any extra, special rights. They have the freedom to print whatever they want. Just don’t expect anything extra along with that right.
“You can chat with or challenge an editorial board member directly”
But do editorial board members respond to a challenge?