« The Trashing Of The Blogosphere | Main | The First Blog Scandal Of Campaign 2008 »

Anti-Blog Hysteria In The State Capitols

First Texas, now Tennessee. There's something strange in the state legisaltive air, as lawmakers keep introducing anti-blog bills and then backing down when bloggers start screaming.

I mentioned the Texas story in passing a couple of months ago in one of my blog bits roundups. In that instance, state Rep. Vicki Truitt pre-filed a bill that would have specified that defamatory statements online are subject to libel law.

Bloggers interpreted the measure as a threat against them and started ridiculing Truitt before any statute said they couldn't. The outcry prompted Truitt to say she would narrow the bill.

This week, the anti-blog sentiment surfaced again in Tennessee. Blogger Bill Hobbs repoted that state Rep. Rob Briley and state Sen. Jamie Woodson also had proposed legislation aimed at online defamation. Hobbs said the bill would require bloggers and others who write or publish content online to remove allegedly defamatory comment within two days lest they "create a presumption of malice intent."

It didn't take long for a blog swarm to materialize in the Volunteer State, either, with popular Knoxville, Tenn.-based blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit joining the critics. Before long, Riley had posted a comment to Hobbs' blog, stating that he would withdraw his bill immediately.

The anti-blog front appears to be moving northeast. Will my home state of West Virginia be hit next? As I recall from my time as an intern at the Capitol in Charleston, there's still time left in this year's session for one of my hillbilly brethren to turn against the blogosphere.

UPDATE: Balkanization and TalkLeft, two blogs written by lawyers, explain why the anti-blog bills seem to be constitutionally doomed, even if legislators decide to pursue them. Plus the latest news on Tennessee's bill, via Instapundit.

Posted by Danny | 11:07 PM

Comments

Dang. The idea that ordinary people can criticise and be HEARD seems to really disturb the Powers That Be.

Bill

Bill McNutt | 02.02.07 11:09 AM

The true Freedom of Speech inherent in the easy citizen access to blogs is poison to the entitlement mentality of entrenched career politicians, and clearly must be curtailed if they are to survive with their jobs intact. And after all, their jobs are FAR more important than our formerly (back when we couldn't exercise them quite so freely) inalienable rights.

Daveg | 02.02.07 11:14 AM

Clearly, free, unfettered discourse needs to be protected and such attempts to abridge must be reacted to quickly.

Although, it is not too hard to imagine these legislative gambits are not so much about "flaming" as this is really about the burgeoning informational power and clout of the blogs.

casual_observer | 02.02.07 02:23 PM

This is incredible. The debate that led to these measures must have been brilliant, without a single constitutional expert within 100 miles of where it was taking place.

Thought police - rounding up the rabble for a weekly virtual bonfire.

deadissue | 02.02.07 03:47 PM

They can't figure out a way to tax the blogosphere, so they have to try to put some kind of noose around it to keep it from biting them. And any activity by the "powers that be" to control the blogosphere just makes them bigger targets for the proverbial bite.

Freedom of Speech was never more free than in the blogosphere.

Coosa | 02.02.07 07:49 PM

This type of oppression of free speech is the kind of thing Obama would have learned at that madrassa.

Tank | 02.02.07 08:27 PM

I might be in favor of some such bill under some circumstances. But bloggers, and email, etc. are already subject to libel law. So you have to wonder what the point is of making libel laws specific to bloggers. For example, is the real point to make the host liable for a post's libel, even if he didn't write it? And who thinks there wouldn't be a major outcry if Bush wanted a bill saying "defamatory statements in newspapers are subject to libel law" -- even though that is also already the case?

David Pittelli | 02.02.07 09:37 PM

Ultimately, what they call libel is the truth that will rightfully and intentionally destroy their kingdom of lies.

richard kobzey | 02.04.07 02:28 PM

Post a Comment