Eugene Volokh litigated the case for the defendant, and so gets the link. From the court’s opinion:So it's having the tools to broadcast (which are essentially free, thanks to Google), and something to say, not ones credentials as part of a media empire that provides the First Amendment protection. Props to the court for
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.Nicely done, Prof. Volokh. I have a feeling this decision will be quoted as persuasive authority when we move to dismiss Brett Kimberlin’s frivolous claims against me. (You are aware that Brett Kimberlin has sued me, in an utterly frivolous set of claims — aren’t you? If not, Ken White has the definitive post. I could still use pro bono local counsel in Maryland, if anyone has any suggestions or contacts.)
Sunday, January 19, 2014
That's Nice! It Turns Out I Have First Amendment Rights, Too!
From Patterico's: Ninth Circuit: Bloggers Get the Same First Amendment Protection As the Press
granting acknowldging constitutional rights to any one who cares to claim them.