Federal court rules bloggers have first amendment right and protections

 Today a Federal Appeals Court ruled that bloggers do indeed have protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution:

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

  Here is what Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press had to say about this decision:

“It’s not a special right to the news media,” he said. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.

  He is spot on and of course he is right about the First Amendment. Naturally bloggers should be protected under the First Amendment for the first amendment applies to everyone, the Federal government should not be able to pick and chose who has rights and who does not.

    In my opinion this should not have been an issue which needed to be decided in the courts but unfortunately the Senate Judiciary Committee, and people like Dianne Feinstein, see it differently for they passed a bill which redefined journalists in a way which would exclude bloggers from First Amendment protections.

  Here is what Dianne Feinstein had to say last September when the Media Shield Act was being debated:

defined for the first time what constitutes a “real reporter” deserving of extra protection versus what Sen. Dianne Feinstein called a “17-year-old blogger” who doesn’t deserve a legal shield.

  But the most troubling aspect of this law was cemented in a quote from Sheldon Whitehouse who said the following:

All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D) of Rhode Island

  What he basically is saying is that changing the First Amendment by giving people rights they are not giving to others is not an issue. This reeks of Animal Farm’s mantra that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” And we are supposed to believe him when he says there is no Constitutional threat with this legislation? And what gives the legislature the right to change an amendment in the first place?

  As I stated when I first covered this story; I am not a journalist and I do not pretend to be. I have no sources and I am simply a man writing my opinions on the issues of the day.

  I feel as if I must now change my opinion to state that if writing my opinions on a small blog solidifies my journalistic credentials than I am guilty as charged and naturally I have the First Amendment right to state my opinion publicly. 

  This issue has nothing to do with protecting journalists for it is really all about control. Democrats, such as Dianne Feinstein are only interested in one thing and one thing only and that is control. The Democrats understand that controlling the message equals controlling the masses and that is what this is all about. The Democrats have the mainstream media in their back pockets and they know they can rely on the mainstream media to promote their radical agenda. In the past this meant they controlled the message, but they no longer control the message because they do not have control over the new alternative media and that is something they loath and long to change.

  This ruling is a step in the right direction but the fight is not over for it is sure to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and then all bets are off.