Bloggers Want It Both Ways With 1st Amendment

Ira,

I didnt understand a good deal of your Blog-it wasnt in your typical lucid style.

But what I do know is that Twitter is a bunch of Nonsense and so revenue projections whichever they make also border on the nonsensical.Its a whole bunch of baloney that we shouldnt even be talking about;there are cooler things in the world of security to write about .

Ashish.

Mike,

Thank you, I definitely did some research. You're right; Wikipedia isn't the best source to cite information, but for the purposes of quoting sources, that's the best I was able to come up with at the time. Normally I use Black's Law 8th edition as well as publicly available statutes (Acts), and court cases for sources.

One of my colleagues and I did a bit more research on Common Law and came up with this:

Many insist on using the "common law" to defend themselves. The reason we should not is because, first and foremost, you do not see the term "common law" in scripture. Bond-servants of Christ are only to use God's Law. Secondly, the common law is a commercial law today, created by merchants, influenced by Roman Law, and used for commercial purposes. The following definitions are taken from "A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893."

Custom of merchants: A system of customs, originating among merchants, and allowed for the benefit of trade as part of the common law. Page 303.

Law-merchant; law of merchants: The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and conveniences of the mercantile world. Pages 670-671.

Roman Law: The common law of England has been largely influenced by the Roman law, in several respects: through the development of commercial law. Page 910.

All of man's laws, except for many maxims of law, are commercial in nature. Uniform Commercial Code is a good source for specifics on Commercial Law.

I reiterate this strongly that bloggers could argue that they're protected under the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press, but in order to do this they need to create some standards for journalism though (an independent journalist body), otherwise they will not be considered legitimate sources for information; and only those in the mainstream media will get any attention and respect from the general public.

In the meantime we should all be encouraging mainstream media to improve their journalism and put the "I" back in Integrity. I'm just tired of hearing about what Britney Spears is up to, and about the lives of John and Kate plus 8.

Let's start holding these guys to the proverbial fire, and switching them off when they don't perform properly and do what they should be doing and that is informing the public about issues that are crucial to us.

By acting as "neutral bodies", the mainstream media can help by informing us about public emergencies (acting as a voice for DHS and FEMA; an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security), about when the government is behaving in a corrupt/totalitarian manner, the weather, or issues relating to the stock markets and the economy. By blurring reality and focusing on the entertainment side of media; it shows they're only in it for the rating and sponsorship money and not for the greater good of society - which is where the "I" in Integrity comes into play.

- Nathan Wosnack

We'd all like it both ways with protection and sometimes it's just not possible. Last year, I joined a social network that, at the start, sounded like a great opportunity for networking. In short order, it quickly turned into a "friend everyone you can and get points - the one with the most points wins" adventure. Well, I tolerated the LIONs for a few months, believing maybe, just maybe there was still a chance for some decent honest networking. 

I was wrong - and opted out of the SN with a letter to those I had "friended" in my attempt to assist/offer assistance in their business ventures. I let them know why I was leaving, etc and invited them to continue to stay in touch directly if they so chose. SOme did. 

A few months ago, I discovered that someone on that network found my "ability to play that game" to be something they didn't agree with, blogged about it, etc. Yet didn't tell me about it directly - I only found out through a search for something else that led me to his blog. 

Perhaps I should have just been silent and not say anything. But I didn't. And heavens, what consequence, that has since blown over. Proceed with caution is my only advice - then no, and always. You never know.

very interesting post; I appreciate the time you took to prepare it

> I'm aware that the 14th amendment has been used to apply selected parts of the Bill of Rights to the States -- via "incorporation"

but, on point of clarification, incorporation applies the selected part of the federal constitution against the states; as such it remains constitutional law.

for my purposes I prefer not to discuss "common law" as it is rather un-clear what that means.  what is clear is that we have Constitutional law which defines and authorizes the government -- and specifies the limits of its authority -- and then we have public law -- which results from the acts passed by the proper government and then incorporated into code

whether the Bill of Rights is a codification of pre-existing common law or not is a point that could be debated for some time. It is my impression that the concept in recent times  traces its origin to Magna Carta and then through a great deal of excellent works much of which were used in the creation of the new government for these united States. The practices of the British Crown in the period leading up to the American War for Independence provided an abject lesson in tyranny and underscored the need to prepare the terms for the suppression thereof -- i.e. the Bill of Rights

why the courts feel they can incorporate parts of the Bill of Rights and ignore other parts seems to remain a matter of some discussion. yet, we have to be aware that the courts' interpretation of the law is what is going to be enforced

p.s. I wouldn't cite wikipedia in any discussion.

Mike Acker,

You stated: "The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment is Constitutional law, and part of the federal Constitution. As such it applies to the Federal Government"

-- I hate to be nitpicky but this was amended in the 20th century. "Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state." (Cited Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution")

Not all nation states have codified constitutions, though all such states have a jus commune. Jus commune = common law. Examples First Amendment cases between people and the United States Government and corporations: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/index.aspx.

I agree with you on one point though; this is not the "Common Law".

I do have to disagree with you on one point though; where you state that the Bill of Rights is not common law. It actually is. Please show me otherwise (I mean that respectfully and honorably) because I'm very curious to see where you got this information. I study law (admirality law and common law) in my spare time so I'm just curious. Please cite sources.

Just as the Bill of Rights is common law under The United State of America, the Canadian Bill of Rights is under Common Law in my country of Canada (Canada being the geographic landmass that I stand on physically, not  "Canada", for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada") Interpretation Act ( R.S., 1985, c. I-21 ) - includes means "excludes all else" in the Interpretation Act statute.

Anything that is an "Act" is considered a "Statute" or code and therefore is not common law. A common law man or woman is protected under God's law (common law, the law of the land) but only when they claim their lawful rights. When you submit to a statute, you are falling under that particular jursidiction and statutes are only the rule of a Society that can be acted upon with the force of law.

You stated: "the only action that is apropriate under Constitutional law is to argue that the government has exceeded its authority. It does that all the time but as long as we all think the Constitution is Common Law we are in a lot of trouble."

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Cited Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).

- To reiterate what I stated in my last post yesterday:

"If independent journalists really want to level out the playing field and be taken more seriously, they should be working with each others in their position to create fairer journalistic standards. Standards that are created from truly public and independent bodies."

As a common law man or woman (Living Souls as stated in the Bible; remember we do not want to represent, rather we want to present, our piece of paper "legal persons" - we never want to create a legal "joinder" between our common law selves and our "legal person(s)"), we have the right with a properly filed claim of right, to claim Freedom of the Press under the First Amendment.

Yes, we can use properly cited case law (as I linked to) as a credential for the fight for Freedom of the Press. We need a journalistic standard created by the blogger community (see: the independent journalists with actual journalistic integrity and skills) that a majority can agree with and utilize. Otherwise what are these independent journalists doing? Binding themselves to biased and unfair standards that are working against them, that's what.

"An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. - Orlando A. Battista

- Nathan Wosnack

tds : = "[] until legitimate organizations, press or non-press start acting responsibly, we are never going to move forward as a society and the Internet will never be used to its potential."

that is a Most Excellent post, my dear fellow. it is my understanding that the mission here on IEv is to promote value in use of the internet

I think one of the most valuable things that we have accomplished on the 'Net to date is that we have broken the monopoly of the "Mainstream" press. You can now read all about the Goings On about Town from a wide varity of viewpoints

much has been written about this transition. One essay I particularly liked was The Media Revolution published by Imprimis (Hillsdale College) written John Fund, Editorial Writer, Wall Street Journal .

Remember: Constitutional law applies to the government.

Public law applies to the people or to corporations.

The idea that the Government shall be subject to law is the Spark that Ignites Freedom

William Pitt said "Tyranny begins where the law ends"

The idea in English law originated in large part on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede when the English Barons persuaded King John to sign the Articles -- which became Magna Carta.

Today, the Tenth Amendment movement, on the part of the States, has similar potential in my view.

I am not going to debate the issue of blogger vs. press because I am not a constitutional lawyer. However, as I do consider myself a decent human being, I believe Tech Crunch sold out to sensationalism. I can't really blame them entirely, because they are just feeding the masses, which is pretty much everyone on the Internet. Tech Crunch had a real opportunity to do what was right as opposed to what was popular and announce something like the following:

We have come into possession of documents and data belonging to an employee of twitter that was stolen by a hacker. As a responsible provider of news, we do not condone stealing of information and will not publish this information. We have contacted twitter and are working with the authorities by providing any and all information we have related to this issue. 

I am sure their marketing group could clean it up, but until legitimate organizations, press or non-press start acting responsibly, we are never going to move forward as a society and the Internet will never be used to its potential.

I wouldn't call bloggers part of a larger web ot trust than a newspaper.  Blogs are not peer reviewed.  Blogs dont have editors.  While you could say that bloggers are reviewed by lots of people, bloggers get feedback from people who read their blog, which is a random sampling.  Although it is random to people who follow that blog and probably have their own biases.

If you think that Internet eyes is the web of trust, then consider that publisher news sites have much larger readership than just about any blog out there.

The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment is Constitutional law, and part of the federal Constitution. As such it applies to the Federal Government

now in the matter of the Twitter hack there are legal issues (but not Constitutional ones):

First, un-authorized accessing of a computer is actionable

Second, there may be a copy-right issue. whenever someone writes a blog like this -- someone holds the copyright on it,-- either the service running the blog, or otherwise the author who posted the blog.

the only action that is apropriate under Constitutional law is to argue that the government has exceeded its authority. It does that all the time but as long as we all think the Constitution is Common Law we are in a lot of trouble.

The standards of the individual blogger are much lower than a standard 'newspaper'; however, the blogger is part of a web of trust and review that is much greater and diverse than a standard institutional newspaper.

In that sense, it's not Twitter and TechCrunch, but them and you and me and everyone else's grandma looking over each other's shoulder to try and find (or mold) the truth.