So I ran across a story on Slashdot about how ABC/Disney had a blog shutdown over the posting of some audio clips from a radio-station affiliate in conjunction with the blogger’s letters to the radio station advertisers over their tacit support of the comments and views of the talk radio hosts on the station.
The Slashdot post linked to a blog posting on the Daily Kos: State of the Nation that had more details.
While I don’t exactly like the idea of corporate America picking on the little guy when their pocketbook is being affected, I wonder at the hoopla that gets kicked up in the liberal ‘Net community everytime something like this happens.
One of the comments on the Daily Kos post stated that this was
this is a really big First Amdendment and Blogger Rights issue
I think that the author of the comment would have had a good point if they had stopped after “First Amendment”.
What is it that makes speech in a blog any different than speech in any other medium? If there are legitimate freedom of speech issues in this particular case, beyond the often confusing interpretation of what constitutes fair use, then that is a valid point. However, just because the post was made on a blog shouldn’t impart any special protection beyond what has been granted in the caselaw surrounding the first amendment protections.
For years, people that have an issue with a particular view expressed through a commercial entity, be it radio, television, or print, have been writing letters to newspaper editors and advertisers. How is this any different now that we have another medium to voice our opinions? Just because the ease of getting the opinion across has been increased with the advent of Internet forums and blogs, does not mean that the same laws concerning freedom of speech or copyright are more or less applicable.
Do we really need a whole raft of new legislation when the medium is digital instead of analog?