Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 2, 2004 11:33 PM. The previous post in this blog was No more shirts-and-skins here. The next post in this blog is Mutual Admiration Society. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, December 2, 2004

Blogs as a threat to freedom

Mark it on your calendars. Today was a big day in the history of the blogosphere. My blogfather, Eugene Volokh, had a piece published on the New York Times op-ed page, where he was identified as a blogger (with his site named) as well as a law professor at UCLA. And the point of his article illustrated with rare clarity how blogs have changed forever the landscape of journalism, and the role of media in society.

Any vicarious thrill I felt as a blogger, however, was more than counteracted by the chill in my bones caused by reflection on the implications of Volokh's article.

His focus was on the issue whether journalists should enjoy a First Amendment privilege to shield the identities of their sources. There are several cases pending around the country in which journalists are being threatened with jail time for refusing to reveal who disclosed certain information to them. Volokh argues, pretty persuasively, that the presence of blogs changes the framework within which the legal battles are being waged. He asserts that, under the Constitution, no legal distinction can be made between mainstream media, with audiences in the millions, and home-grown internet pundits, with audiences in the thousands or even hundreds:

Because of the Internet, anyone can be a journalist. Some so-called Weblogs -- Internet-based opinion columns published by ordinary people -- have hundreds of thousands of readers. I run a blog with more than 10,000 daily readers. We often publish news tips from friends or readers, some of which come with a condition of confidentiality.

The First Amendment can't give special rights to the established news media and not to upstart outlets like ours. Freedom of the press should apply to people equally, regardless of who they are, why they write or how popular they are.

Yet when everyone is a journalist, a broad journalist's privilege becomes especially costly. The I.R.S. agent [who wishes to leak someone's tax return illegally], for example, no longer needs to risk approaching many mainstream journalists, some of whom may turn him in. He can just ask a friend who has a blog and a political ax to grind. The friend can then post the leaked information and claim the journalist's privilege to prevent the agent from being identified. If the privilege is upheld, the friend and the agent will be safe -- but our privacy will be lost.

Volokh concludes that only a very limited journalist's privilege should be allowed. He draws the line between "leakers who lawfully reveal information" and "a leaker [who] tries to use a journalist as part of an illegal act -- for example, by disclosing a tax return or the name of a C.I.A. agent so that it can be published." I'm very uncomfortable with that line -- there's nothing except politics to stop Congress and the legislatures from arbitrarily declaring illegal a disclosure that causes little or no harm but advances justice or the legitimate political process. But Volokh's got a point: It will be awfullly difficult to extract from the current Constitution any distinction between big media and blogs, particularly given the current literalist mindset of many neocon judges, with whom I suspect Volokh sympathizes. The lack of such a distinction in turn poses a host of policy, and legal, problems. And those problems seem unlikely ever to be resolved in favor of the civil libertarians.

In some ways, the privilege issues are a symptom of the all-encompassing challenges that technology, and the internet in particular, pose to our traditional notions of government. Take the Freedom of Information Act and its state and local counterparts, for example. Several decades back, when these laws first required that government records be opened to anyone who asked to see them, we all applauded. But when someone decided to request and get the entire files of a state motor vehicle agency and post them on the internet, many people didn't like that. And so, rightly or wrongly, we started stepping back.

In the old days of paper records and photocopies, there used to be a certain "practical inaccessibility" to many public records, even those that were technically, legally available. There was simply no one (except the rare crusader such as b!X) who had the time to make the requests, spend the time, and pay the fees that it took to obtain, and sort out, meaningful information buried in voluminous public records. Of course, the computer changed all that. If you can get the records in a decent file format, you can now learn in minutes, without leaving home, what it used to take months to find out. When the computer eliminated the important practical barriers between the public records and the public, our ideas about what should be open changed.

The problem is that when the file drawers are closed to keep their contents off the internet, they're also closed to the folks who want to make an occasional request for a single record that's quite important to them. Technology blows things wide open for a short time, but then information is sealed more tightly than it ever was before. It's an alarming trend, but alas, not one that we're likely to see the end of any time soon.

Comments (9)

Yes, those 'neocon judges' -- I hear they hold mass sacrifices to Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol late at night in some federal courthouses.

'Neocon' has become devoid of meaning except "this new thing on the Right that I dislike."

Yes. Things like your comment.

You'd prefer a more descriptive term, like "arch-conservative" or "wingnut"?

I agreed with Volokh's idea of how a journalistic privilege should work. I wrote about it on my own blog, saying: "if the very act of revealing certain information is illegal, then why shouldn't a journalist be compelled to reveal the source?

Now, whether this applies to the journalists who have been found in contempt and threatened with jail time in the Plame case, I don't know, because I don't know the details of what information they are being asked to reveal. From what I understand, they are not the original receivers of the illegally-leaked information.

As for Robert Novak, who IS the person to whom the information was initially leaked, go ahead and throw him in jail if he won't talk. He became implicated in the crime, as far as I'm concerned, when he chose to print the information. Allowing him to conceal his source is allowing him to protect a criminal and conceal a criminal act."

I am an ardent supporter of the First Amendment, so I'm still mulling this issue over, but those were my thoughts yesterday.

I understand your discomfort with Volokh's idea, but I also feel like it's at least in the right ballpark.
I think it's a given that there will have to be some distinction between where to apply and where not to apply the journalist's privilege, and that distinction has to be made in kind and not degree. In other words, I'm not comfortable making that line between bloggers with 1,000 readers and a Times writer with 1,000,000, but I am comfortable making it between illegal disclosures and legal ones.
You're right that Congress could arbitrarily make any disclosure illegal, that makes me just as uncomfortable as it apparently does you, but my gut feeling is "too bad." We, as the electorate, are supposed to have a Congress that does what we want. If we allow them to write those arbitrary laws, they will. If we don't want those arbitrary laws, then it's up to us to do something about it and toss the bastards out. The root of your worry comes down not on what Congress might do but on what The People will let them do.

This really isn't a new issue. I remember wrestling with it when I was a journalism major at the UO in the early 1970s. My conclusion then (and now) is that there is no constitutional right of a reporter to protect his or her sources. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment (or Oregon's Article I, Section 8) that can reasonably be interpreted to grant such a right to an "established" or "official" press representative.

The freedom of the press applies to everyone, not just newspapers, radio stations and tv stations. If statutory reporter shield laws are passed by Congress or the states I believe they can pass constitutional scrutiny provided they don't represent content-based discrimination against certain media, but I just don't think you can make a good argument that a NY Times reporter is constitutionally protected from divulging his sources while a blogger or home newsletter publisher is not.

After all, Thomas Paine had far more in common with today's blogger than with either today's CBS or Fox News.

In journalism school they always taught us that the difference between mainstream media and your average Joe spilling gossip by publishing it on the web or otherwise, is basically nothing. So long as you can prove that at least one other person read the material and that there was malicious intent, you can sue for libel. If a journalist or a blogger "leaks" something by publishing it, they legally are no different (at least under my interpretation of the law). If a business or organization published a false claim in their newsletter, they could be sued for libel. It doesn't matter who or what their job description is, it just matters how many read it and if it was done in malice.

The issue with not disclosing sources, has always been argued. Whether it is The New York Times or a blog, I think it comes down to credibility and whether you trust the author to not make up fake sources to validate their point. You should always be skeptical when the writer quotes an unidentified source, no matter what the publication or prestige it might carry with it.

Talk about a threat to freedom: In today's Tribune, Nick Fish says to read Jack Bog's Blog.

Run for the hills!

Whenever a court subpoenas a reporter to reveal a confidential source, people get outraged when the reporter faces repercussions for failing to obey the court. People have this Woodward & Bernstein-induced romanticism toward "freedom of the press". They think the First Amendment supplies them with a blessed crucifix bathed in holy water whenever the evil judge orders them to reveal a source.

"Who gave you those documentssssss? Who told you that? Sssss..."

"Back, vile demon! And tell Hugo Black we miss him."

It's hogwash. The press gets very little constitutional protection beyond what Joe Blow gets. I'm not aware of any case (though I'm not aware of them all) where the USSC said, "Yeah, you're right. Tell the trial court to pound sand for asking about the source." But there are a few saying otherwise.

In Branzburg v. Hayes, the opinion Volokh refers to but didn’t mention, the USSC said the following:

"The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do, and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime. Citizens generally are not constitutionally immune from grand jury subpoenas, and neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional provision protects the average citizen from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in confidence. [n21] The claim is, however, that reporters are exempt from these obligations...

[W]e cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof..."

I believe those states offering reprieve do so through statutes, not their constitutions. Constitutionally, there isn’t protection stopping a reporter from being compelled to reveal a source in grand jury regarding criminal conduct. It sure sounds like the lower courts Volokh mentions are making up law and using dicta in a concurring opinion for their rationale. How hugely lame. One can imagine the lower court judge’s thought process: “Hmm, here’s the result I wish to achieve. Now what justification, however legally asinine, can lead me there?”

It was a Constitutional Law professor at Jack's skool who said in class there simply wasn't a freedom of the press. Hyperbole, no doubt, but point made.

In a big case where the reporter refuses to identify the source, the court typically finds him in contempt and either imposes a daily fine, jail or both. The reporter then just needs to not give in. The remedy for the reporter's refusal is considered incentive--not a penalty. Therefore, when the court realizes the reporter will not comply despite the fine/jail it stops the fine/opens the jailhouse door, takes its ball and goes home.

This is all somewhat off-topic but journalists' failed understanding of the law, especially that which they hold dear, annoys me. Isn't it their job to know these things?

I was taught that there really is no constitutional privilege of the press in law school as well. It is also my understanding that some states do shield journalists with statutory protection from some disclosures in response to a subpeona. I tend to think that this is a good idea. It is possible that the privilege will be abused, as any privilege is likely to be, but the benefits to citizen control of government is well worth any trouble.

I think Volohk is, as usual, on the wrong side of the issue. Instead of remedying his hypo with the destruction of journalism, we should greatly strengthen privacy rights. We shoud make it far easier to maintain a suit for intentional invasion of privacy against members of the press, including bloggers. You discourage personal hits such as Volohk uses as his straw man, and you don't have to eviscerate the ability of the traditional press to hold government accountable through whistleblowing and leaks.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
MarchigĂĽe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
GascĂłn, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
MarchigĂĽe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria DermoČ—t - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics