Anonymous Electronic Speech

August 10, 2008, 9:00, 10:25 a.m.

[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]

Deliberately mean spirited anonymous comments are finding their way into those newspapers' Web sites that permit readers to post remarks about the online versions of their hard copy stories.

A student directed me to a lengthy New York Times take on "trolling." Mattathias Schwartz, "The Trolls Among Us," New York Times Magazine, August 3, 2008.

This morning the Register turns the inquiry on itself. Rekha Basu, "Spewing Venom; Does Online Anonymity Enhance Valuable Forum, or Encourage Posts that are Rude, Crude, Hateful?" Des Moines Register, August 10, 2008, p. OP1, online as "Stop spewing online venom." She sums up:

As I see it, these are newspapers' alternatives:

1. Do nothing. Continue to block posts that break the rules and let the process regulate itself, so people either become less sensitive or speak out more. The danger is that the civil ones get driven away.

2. Add staff to screen all posts in advance and monitor or moderate discussions - not likely given economic realities.

3. Get rid of newspaper-sponsored chats altogether - a drastic and undesirable move, since they do provide a valuable public forum.

4. Pass new laws to prosecute cyber bullies, like one proposed by Rep. Linda Sanchez of California, making it a federal crime to send a communication with intent to cause substantial emotional distress. That could be hard to determine, and enforce.

5. In my view, the best, most realistic approach, and the one most in keeping with journalistic standards, is to gradually start requiring people to provide their names, and begin matching those to e-mail addresses. It's a safe bet many would stop lobbing missiles in stealth and start being more civil, and the conversations would improve.

I am going to save my own discussion of these issues and options for the Law of Electronic Media classroom this fall -- with, perhaps, some comments here thereafter.

Meanwhile, here are some comments from a family member, entered in another blog, in another context, this past February -- followed with some of his quoted source material:

While it can certainly be abused, the case for anonymity is very strong.

The First Amendment prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech". It certainly does not proscribe anonymous speech or 'pseudonymity'. In fact, "...all of the Federalist Papers were signed by Publius, a pseudonym representing the trio of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay ."[1]

Personal attacks aside, I see no reason why knowing a person's identity is truly important. Even if they claim they are using their real name, how would we know? Chances are, we wouldn't know them anyway. In addition, it is always possible for a person to post as someone else -- anonymity is certainly preferable to that.
Newspapers and private forums certainly have the right to require that people identify themselves, but it seems to me that knowing the identity of every poster is outweighed by the chilling effect it would have. Sure there will be 'trolls' and others who abuse their anonymity, but their posts can be reported to a moderator and deleted, and they can be banned if necessary.

If all online forums required absolute full disclosure of identity, there would be very little online activity. After all, these days just a first and last name is enough for almost anyone to learn your whole life history including your address, phone number, and a map to your house including nice aerial views. Granted, the chance of anything bad happening is slim but why take the chance? Some (reporters, public figures) do -- more power to 'em -- but I certainly wouldn't force anyone to, or insinuate that their opinion doesn't count as much because they post anonymously. After all, many people, businesses and political campaigns rely on polls which are generally anonymous.

It seems to me that the best alternative is to leave it up to the individual.

Quotes and Source Material

"...some users and privacy activists like ACLU believe that Internet users deserve stronger pseudonymity so that they can protect themselves against identity theft, illegal government surveillance, stalking, and other unwelcome consequences of Internet use (including unintentional disclosures of their personal information...). Their views are supported by laws in some nations (such as Canada) that guarantee citizens a right to speak using a pseudonym.[1] This right does not, however, give citizens the right to demand publication of pseudonymous speech on equipment they do not own." [2]

"Pseudonymity is an important component of the reputation systems found in online auction services (such as eBay), discussion sites (such as Slashdot), and collaborative knowledge development sites (such as Wikipedia). A pseudonymous user who has acquired a favorable reputation gains the trust of other reputable users. When users believe that they will be rewarded by acquiring a favorable reputation, they are more likely to behave in accordance with the site's policies." [3]

From the EFF:

"Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.

Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

********

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

********

The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously." [4]

And:

"Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns”. Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Accordingly, "the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.” Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

Courts have determined that strict procedural safeguards must be imposed “as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet." Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001).

“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Otherwise, “[i]f Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.” 2theMart.com, at 1093." [5]
While I can understand why someone who is the victim of a personal attack might want to know the identity of the person attacking them, it seems obvious that outlawing anonymity is not the way to go.

#####

1, 2, 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity

4: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

5: http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity


Other good links:

http://www.eff.org/issues/cyberslapp

###

"The right to engage in anonymous communication is fundamental to a free society," said Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "It's critical that judges resist attempts by anyone -- public officials especially -- to turn courtrooms into vehicles to harass and intimidate people out of speaking their minds. Thankfully, court after court has recognized that a plaintiff doesn't have an automatic right to pierce anonymity just because he doesn't like what someone has said."
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2006/07/18

###

"Powerful entities are learning that they can use the courts to silence their critics. When individuals choose to participate in a public debate anonymously, they should not have to worry that their identities will be divulged to anyone who doesn't like what they have to say."
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/RMC_v_Does/20010207_eff_pressrel.html

###

"Anonymous speech is part of a vaunted American tradition that goes back to the Founders, who often published unsigned political pamphlets," said Megan Gray, Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Yet on the Internet, citizens are forced to depend on Web sites or ISPs to protect their anonymity."

"Anonymous speech on the Internet lets people make criticisms that are difficult to state openly, and share information and support about topics that might be stigmatizing, such as addiction or sexual abuse," said Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Unless online anonymity is protected, whistleblowers who want to criticize their employers, parents who want to criticize the principal of their children's school - and many others - may be afraid to speak out. That would be a loss for our country." Beeson pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that anonymous speech is a right protected by the First Amendment.
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/20020711_eff_pr.html

###

"In their brief filed today, the ACLU and EFF argue that the Court should adopt the same test currently used to determine whether to compel identification of anonymous sources of journalists or members of private organizations. Under that test, the Court must first determine whether the person seeking the protected private information (in this case 2TheMart.com) has a genuine need for the information in the context of the case and cannot discover the information any other way. If so, the Court must then balance the harm to the anonymous speakers against the plaintiff's need to discover the identity of the speaker. Anonymity should be preserved unless the identity of the anonymous person is clearly shown to be of central importance to the case."
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/2TheMart_case/20010226_eff_aclu_2themart_pr.html

# # #

Secrecy, Presidents' Blogs, Paying for Government

January 20, 2008, 11:00 a.m., 12:45 p.m.
[Sexual Assaults; Hogan's Blog; Paying for Government]

Oct. 14, 2007 Events Still Unresolved, Continue to Fester
UI Holds to Secrecy Regarding Adherence to Process
I have written at great length here, in a number of blog entries, about the University of Iowa's handling of the process surrounding the alleged sexual assault some three months ago on its campus. See Nicholas Johnson, "UI, Sexual Assaults and Secrecy," January 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2008 -- along with its links to prior blog entries.

Throughout, I have consistently endeavored to make unambiguously clear a distinction between secrecy regarding

(a) County Attorney and Court actions, evidence, subpoenas, documents or other information that could have an adverse impact on the legitimate privacy interests of the parties, the criminal investigation, and any potential future trial -- as to which I have offered no objection to secrecy -- and

(b) information regarding University administrators' process, communications and actions in following their own procedures that could easily be made available to the media and public (redacted to the extent necessary) with no adverse impact on anything or anyone (except, perhaps, themselves) -- as to which I have seen no legitimate reason for secrecy.

Now it is suggested the reason for the UI's secrecy is that there was a court order preventing them from revealing the existence of, or content of, subpoenas served on the University. Tom Witoskey, "Court Order Keeps a Lid on Alleged U of I Assault," Des Moines Register, January 20, 2008.

1. It is not clear from the story (or those appearing in the Press-Citizen and Gazette) whether the court order (that the subpoenas, and court order forbidding mention of the court order) applied to my category (b), above, or not. Intuitively, I would think it would not have. If that's the case we still have no explanation for the UI's secrecy regarding compliance with its own processes.

2. It may be that the UI, from the moment this court order was issued, tried to get it changed -- to at least permit the University to respond to the public and the media that it was forbidden by court order to comment about the contents of any subpoenas received, the documents or other evidence they produced, or copies of any such documents. But if not, why not?

3. It would seem to me that a simple statement -- "We are bound by court order not to reveal whether we have or have not received subpoenas for documents or evidence regarding this matter, or if there were such subpoenas what they might have contained, or what evidence or documents they might have produced" -- would have saved everyone (parties, County Attorney, University of Iowa, media and the public) a lot of unnecessarily wasted time, effort and stress.

And so the conflict (County Attorney, UI, media; the judge's addition of 60 more days to his 90-day order) goes on from October to November, December, January, and . . ..

Mike Hogan Praised for Blog
The UI's former Provost and Executive Vice President, now President, University of Connecticut, Mike Hogan, is the subject of a Harford Business Journal story tomorrow [Jan. 21] recognizing his leadership among college president bloggers. Sean O'Leary, "College Presidents Slow To Launch Informal Web Format," Hartford Business Journal, January 21, 2008. Of the 31 college presidents with blogs it turns out that there are only four who are presidents of state universities.

The Journal notes that President Hogan and the University of Connecticut have made no effort to hype the blog or make a big public relations deal out of it -- a modesty to which the Journal has contributed by failing to provide a link to the subject of its story. Here, if you're a part of the old "Hogan's Heros" Facebook gang, or otherwise interested, is a link to Mike's blog, the "PresRelease."

“So, how do you want to pay for this?”
The Feds, ignoring what is now roughly $40 trillion in unfunded entitlements, a war the costs of which are already estimated at $2 trillion and climbing (for what Senator John McCain estimates may be another 100 years), a 38% decline in housing values ($12 trillion), and in the value of the dollar (once able to buy a Eurodollar for 95 cents that now costs $1.47) while gold climbs from $200 an ounce to nearly $1000 an ounce, is proposing an "economic stimulus" package involving another $150 billion in debt to be distributed to Americans thought willing to buy stuff from American companies. (Unfortunately, as a "tax rebate" it won't do much for those 45 million Americans who don't earn enough to pay taxes, for seniors on low, fixed incomes, or the unemployed.)

The Iowa Governor is now trying to explain and defend why he doesn't think he has enough money to adequately fund one of Iowa's best hopes for building a skilled workforce, stimulating economic growth, and keeping Iowa's best and brightest young people in Iowa: our community college system. See Nicholas Johnson, "No Time to be Cutting Community Colleges Budgets or Raising Tuition" in "Community Colleges Are Iowa's Answer," January 17, 2008.

And the Iowa City City Council, believing the representations that we need more police and fire fighters, have yet to answer Mayor Reginia Bailey's question with which I headed this comment, "So, how do you want to pay for this?" See Nicholas Johnson, "'How Many Police Officers and Fire Fighters Does It Take To . . .'" in "Rational Thought About Realistic Needs: Police & Fire," January 15, 2008.

Well, I have a couple of suggestions on how we can deal with these public finance challenges.

Stop the talk about "taxes." It drives me nuts that politicians (including those, primarily Republicans, running for president) try to outdo each other over who has been, or promises to become, the biggest tax cutter. Talk about "programs." Which pay back, in future revenue or savings, many times over what we invest in them? Which are essential if we are to continue to represent ourselves to be a humane, civilized country? Which involve essential needs that can only, or most efficiently and effectively, be provided by public rather than for-profit-private efforts?

Eliminate the "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor." For an example of my, perhaps dozens of, comments about "corporate welfare" both before and after the following blog entry see, Nicholas Johnson, "Follow-Up: Corporate Welfare," July 21, 2006 -- and of course this blog's index.

In an op ed column, Nicholas Johnson, "Courage, Councilors," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 3, 2007, I laid out some reasons why public funding of for-profit, private projects doesn't ever make sense for any city (plus some additional reasons why it makes even less sense for Iowa City). The column developed the following sub-heads:

The "opportunity costs" are enormous.

They reek of hypocrisy.

Corporate welfare tilts the playing field.

If the market won’t back a project, why should the public?

It doesn’t work.

“Money can’t buy love.”

The subsidy-grantors' record’s not great.

Alternative approaches do work.

Try “seed funds.”

“Need” is impossible to know.

Lack of transparency.

If you want to know more just click on the column's link, above.

But in addition to those always-applicable reasons for rejecting the tin cup appeals of for-profit businesses for taxpayers' money, another becomes relevant in the context of funding shortages at the federal, state and local level.

When citizens are taxed to fund the government's public programs and projects, at a minimum such money as is collected should first go to fund legitimate public programs and projects. If all those needs have been met, and there's money left over, we can then begin the dialog about the appropriateness of giving it to the for-profit private sector and the wealthy (whether in the form of TIFs and other tax breaks or outright subsidies). But there's absolutely no reason to accept the argument that there's not enough for public programs when the reason there's not enough is the money that's been given away to for-profit, private projects before the public programs were adequately funded.

The Feds can begin by eliminating earmarks (such as the Iowa indoor rain forest, and the Alaska "bridge to nowhere"), the 200 or so "corporate welfare" programs, and tax breaks for business. That would free up more than enough billions for their current "economic stimulus" package.

Iowa could do the same with the millions it passes out to businesses under a variety of names. And we could start taxing Wal-Mart and other major firms on their Iowa earnings, rather than letting large corporations pass big chunks of those earnings, tax free, out of state and onto their bottom line.That single effort could provide enough to build one of the strongest community college programs in the nation -- and the economic growth it would feed -- without raising any Iowan's tax rate.

Ditto for Iowa City. The local Chamber of Commerce recent wish list is a string of creative corporate raids on tax money. Local taxpayers, rather than bar owners, are paying to clean up the vomit left by their under-age illegal patrons from the night before. Major businesses get reduced rates on water consumption. And don't get me started on TIFs. If the City Council would insist that business keep its hand out of the cookie jar there's more than enough money available to the City Council to provide the citizenry the police and fire protection they've already paid for.

And I'd like to see a major task force address the University-City budgeting relationships. (See the comment from "cato's apologist" that inspires this thought on Nicholas Johnson, "Getting Real About Alcohol," January 18, 2008.) Obviously, there would need to be representatives from the University and City who understand these budgets, but I'd like to see it perhaps led by the Iowa Policy Project, and include representation from local citizens groups and whoever the Register, Press-Citizen, and Gazette think are their best investigative reporters. It's my understanding that there are some payments from the University to the City, but -- especially considering how much land and real property the University has taken off the property tax rolls in Johnson County -- are they enough? ("Cato's apologist" suggests this marketplace approach to getting the University's attention, and engagement in addressing the costs associated with the University's failure to do anything meaningful about students' binge drinking.)

# # #

Copyright, Fair Use, Blogging & Other Items

July 13, 2007, 6:00 a.m., 12:15 p.m.

Other Items & Updates, below

Copyright, Fair Use, and Blogging
We are about to lose a very creative and productive blogger from the blogosphere. It appears that his decision to close down the blog may have been prompted by what he may have viewed as an intimidating threat of legal action from an Iowa newspaper.

I don't know what the facts are beyond what the blogger has reported. I don't know the paper's side of the story, and I've never communicated with or even known who the anonymous blogger is anyway. So, as we used to say in Texas, "I don't have a dog in that fight," and I'm deliberately not identifying the parties.

The blogger reprints the email from the newspaper. Here are some excerpts:

"You may link to our site, but you cannot post more than 3-4 sentences of the story on your site.

As the copyright owner of that article, [the paper] has the exclusive right to its reproduction and distribution. We therefore ask that you immediately remove the posted article from your website and cease any and all further use of the material. Any continued posting or use will be considered willful copyright infringement.

Within 24 hours of your receipt of this email, you should . . . [confirm] that: . . . 2) you will not engage in any further unauthorized copying of [this newspaper's] materials.

If you do not take the steps outlined above, this matter will be turned over to our attorneys for further action."

I don't want to get into a lengthy legal analysis about this for a variety of reasons. (a) Even -- or perhaps especially -- from the perspective of the newspaper I think it's in no one's best interest to make a federal case out of this. The issues I find most interesting, and significant, are other than "legal" in the usual sense. (b) If it were to become a legal case the outcome would turn on an interpretation of the "Fair Use" doctrine -- which is notoriously ambiguous and difficult to predict and apply (though my instinct is that the blogger in question is well within its protections). (c) It doesn't make a lot of sense, as the old saying has it, "to get in a fight with someone who buys printer's ink by the barrel."

But a little legal background is necessary to understand the non-legal issues.

Copyright law, with its foundation in the Constitution, is expressed in terms of both an "end" and a "means."

The end, purpose, or goal is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Art. I, Sec. 8. One of the ways in which that progress is promoted is through the ability to use the prior work of others -- a work of history drawing upon prior historical accounts as well as research in original documents; using the story lines and themes from earlier novels or plays; improving upon a prior invention; parodies of songs; scientific research that begins with a survey of pre-existing literature -- and lots of commentary and reviews. So one of the purposes of copyright law, ironically, is to encourage what might appear to some to be a "copyright violation" -- namely, using all or portions of another's work without permission or payment. (To use the work of others without attribution would be plagiarism, but would not necessarily be a copyright violation.)

The "means" the Constitution's drafters chose was "by securing for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their respective writings . . .." The "limited times" was a way to get creative works into "the public domain" where they could be freely used by anyone without obligation to the creator. "Exclusive right" meant that, for a time, the creator could charge for the use of his or her creative and copyrighted work.

The problem potentially arises when the "exclusive right" conflicts with the overall purpose to "promote progress," that is, when the copyright owner refuses to let others make any use at all of her work -- or sets the price for doing so at such high levels as to foreclose use.

Enter "Fair Use." Copyright Act Sec. 107 (embodying an earlier doctrine from the common law). The law mentions four factors to be considered. (It is this multiple-variable analysis that contributes to making predictions of outcome difficult.) The amount used, and whether it is a fictional or non-fictional work are mentioned. But the most important factors go to the economic impact of the use. Is it for "commercial" gain, or for noncommercial "criticism, comment" or "nonprofit educational purposes"? Finally, what is the effect of the use on the "potential market" for the work?

If someone were to sell memberships to a Web site on which they made available every article from every issue of a given newspaper, it would be very difficult for them to claim they were engaged in "Fair Use." The fact that it was news rather than creative fiction would cut in their favor under factor two. But aside from that, the other three factors would cut against them: they are copying the entire paper, they are profiting from selling access to it, and the hits on their Web site could well be from individuals who might otherwise have gone to the newspaper's site (in exchange for a membership fee, or being exposed to advertising providing revenue for the paper). Especially would this be the case if they were doing nothing but reproducing the newspaper -- without commentary or criticism.

Now consider the blogger in question.

I've already said virtually nothing is a "slam dunk" when it comes to Fair Use. But I really think he has the better of the argument here.

He is clearly involved in commentary, which is expressly mentioned by the law.

He is not in the business of selling newspapers -- or even individual stories from newspapers. In fact, he's not in any business -- and certainly not a "commercial" one that profits from the sale of the newspaper's copyrighted stories.

So far as I know, no one -- at least not I -- go to his site to find out what was in the paper that morning. Readers (and his blog notes there are 25,000 unique visitors every month) are primarily interested in what he calls his "insightfully vulgar" commentary -- commentary which most find entertaining and often very funny (sufficiently so that, if they are not thin skinned, they will even continue reading when he appears to be slaughtering their sacred cows).

The material he quotes (and he not only attributes his sources, but often includes a link to the papers' Web site), is a statistically insignificant portion of the morning paper. Seldom (if ever) does he reproduce an entire story.

The paper's threatening email to the blogger refers to a permitted "3-4 sentence" standard. I know of no such rule. (Sometimes a single phrase would not be protected by "Fair Use;" under other circumstances an entire work would be.)

Finally, the only conceivable economic impact of his blog's use of excerpts from the paper's stories, it seems to me, would be to increase the blog reader's (a) inclination to subscribe to the paper, (b) to go to, and see the advertising on, the paper's Web site, and (c) to advertise in the paper. In short, while I can see ways in which "the effect of the use on the potential market for . . . the copyrighted work" would be to enhance that market and increase the paper's profits, it is difficult to see how the paper's "potential market" cold be adversely affected by the blog's limited use of material from its stories. Now I don't think they ought to have to pay him for advertising their paper for them, and increasing their readership, but I certainly don't think they are in a position to argue they should have the legal right to close him down because he has harmed them economically.

I can only hope that the paper was not prompted to play its copyright card because of its being upset, not with the use of its stories, but with the legally appropriate (if "insightfully vulgar") commentary about those stories.

Because -- putting aside the fact that it seems to me a real stretch to try to make a case that the blogger is not well within "Fair Use" -- it strikes me as a little unseemly for a newspaper to be curtailing speech by using threats, perhaps intended to but in any event having the effect of, closing down one of America's most popular blogs. Whatever happened to, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." (Justice Louis Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927).)

Newspapers can be proud of their defense of First Amendment rights in this country. But bloggers are now the modern day equivalent of what mainstream newspapers' ancestors looked like 200 or more years ago. The exchange between the mainstream media and the blogosphere has been good for both -- and for America. While that relationship is still budding and both are trying to find their way is not the time for us to start threatening, suing and trying to silence each other.

Just some thoughts from the sidelines; my obituary for a blog that now leaves a hole in the blogosphere that does the kind of damage to our intellectual lives that holes in the ozone do to our physical lives. Too bad. And especially sorrowful that the murder was committed by a newspaper.

Other Items and Updates
. . . all subjects of prior blog entries

How Not to Buy a College: Wellmark Updates

Editorial, "Gift Offer Protocol Comes Unwound," The Gazette, July 13, 2007, p. A4

"No Other Resignations Over Wellmark Flap: UI," The Gazette, July 13, 2007, p. B3

Brian Morelli, "UI Donor: Rejected Funds Will be Hard to Replace," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 13, 2007, p. A1

Jim Robb, "Wellmark Should be Honest About 'Gift,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 13, 2007, p. A9

But in spite of it all . . .

Hieu Pham, "UIHC at Top of the List Again," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 13, 2007, p. A1

Michael Moore's "Sicko" film's themes resonate with Iowans

Niles Ross, "What's the Cost to Us for Our Health Care?" The Gazette, July 13, 2007, p. A4

"A billion dollars from beer in the till/A billion dollars from beer"

Iowans consumed 4,864,000,000 ounces of beer during the last fiscal year. Had it been served in 12-ounce glasses for $3.00 a glass the retail value would have been $1,216,000,000. And you were wondering why the Iowa City City Council -- and the University of Iowa administration -- seem to consistently support the wishes of the local bar owners to continue taking the money of under-age college students.

"Beer Still No. 1 for Iowans; Liquor Gaining," The Gazette, July 13, 2007, p. B5

"Ask not whether our prisons are 'overcrowded,' ask what you can do to help move the mentally ill into cheaper, more humane and effective institutions."

Peggy Loveless, "Our Overcrowded Prisons," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 13, 2007, p. A9

The Pay Gap Gets Wider for Universities' Coaches, Presidents -- and School Supeintendents

Gregg Hennigan, "Pay Gap Widens Between Teachers, Administrators; Disparity Mostly Marketi-Driven, Officials Say," The Gazette, July 13, 2007, p. A1

Media Barons Continue to Misrepresent the FCC's Old "Fairness Doctrine"

John Seigenthaler, "Revived 'Fairness Doctrine' Would be Anything But Fair," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 13, 2007, p. A9

# # #