Truer Speech When More Are Speaking
Julie Hilden's piece today in FindLaw's Writ ("The First Amendment And The Internet: Why Traditional Legal Doctrines Apply Differently In Cyberspace") takes a thought provoking look at how premises and assumptions in First Amendment jurisprudence can be turned topsy-turvy by interactions on the Internet. Even so, Hilden believes further regulation is not necessary and that the truth-sifting effect of democratized Internet speech may be an appropriate new factor in the analysis.

"A Web Of Trust;" GrepLaw
Martin Wolk's MSNBC article today considers blogs and businesses, with perspectives from Ernie Svenson, Evan Williams, John Robb and Dan Gillmor, among others. Ernie focuses on symbiosis, interaction and trust - all of which should help propel blogging across the individual/institutional divide. (Thanks, Buzz.)

Speaking of which: seen this yet? "GrepLaw: Geeks. Laws. Everything In Between." (Part of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.)

Notes From A Busy Weekend
In the course of journeying to and from the southeastern U.S. in too little time, I caught Saturday's BookTV broadcast on C-SPAN 2, featuring Michael Moore (Stupid White Men), Benjamin Cheever (Selling Ben Cheever) and Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickel And Dimed). I had hoped to link to the online version, but unfortunately this one's not on the list. It was excellent - all of the writers were articulate and funny, and offered unique perspectives on economic realities.

Time's side-by-side articles, Making Time For Baby and The Cost Of Starting Families had my head whipsawing like a Wimbeldon spectator's. Conclusion: it's never easy. My admiration for those managing families, at any age, knows no bounds.

Finally, on a lighter note (ha), it seems California is one of the twenty-seven U.S. states without a single Waffle House. For those so unfortunately situated, the Web offers the look and sound, but not the "scattered, smothered, chunked, topped, diced & peppered" hashbrowns.

Are You A "Public Figure?"
The convergence of these items prompts me to pose the question -

• John Hiler's article about, and proposed Code Of Ethics for, weblog "journalists." ("Sometimes a blog is just a blog. But sometimes it's not.")

• Chris Pirillo's recent troubles, and Eric Norlin's observations about "super node status."

• Attorney Richard Sprague's agreement to be treated as a "limited purpose" public figure in his libel lawsuit against the ABA, stemming from an ABA Journal article that dubbed him "perhaps the most powerful lawyer-cum-fixer in the state" (Sprague doesn't like the "fixer" part, because it could imply he improperly manipulates the outcome of cases). [Law.com]

As illustrated by Richard Sprague's suit against the ABA, "public figure" status makes it more difficult to bring and win a defamation case. See also The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse ("The degree of protection [against a defamation claim] generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule, when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is also public, the plaintiff must prove 'malice' on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence;" emphasis added).

The proliferation of weblogs is bound to add twists to this area of law. Traditionally (and logically), public figure status has turned on "prominence," and can attach to those who, for example, "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974). Can the day be far off when a blogger will attempt to answer libel allegations (see John Hiler's article) by pointing to the subject's Daypop and Blogdex numbers?

Urgent Fax
California Senator Debra Bowen's Anti-Fax Spam Bill (SB 1358) cleared committee this week. [Newsbytes, via llrx] Says Bowen, “Junk faxes aren’t just an annoying invasion of privacy, they also force people to foot the advertising costs of fax advertisers trying to hock wireless phone services, office equipment, vacation packages, and more. I put a survey up on my website in January to ask people about junk faxes and virtually all of the more than 400 people who have taken the survey said they – not some marketing company – should have the right to decide what gets sent to their fax machine.” I subscribe to a Web based fax service and get tons of the stuff. Bowen also spearheaded the 1998 amendment to California Business and Professions Code Section 17538.4, regarding unsolicited faxes and email. (As of this morning, 207 addresses are being filtered from my work email account alone.)