It's not unusual for them for claim it's their First Amendment right.
They become experts about the complexity of the First Amendment and how people don't have the right to say this, or say that, or be critical of someone or something.
As a public service, here is the First Amendment -- in its entirety.
Here goes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it - -the entire First Amendment.
The issue of the First Amendment as it may relate to the village of Buffalo Grove recently came to light when the The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Media Freedom and Information Access Practicum (MFIA) at Yale Law School jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging the Illinois Court of Appeals to block the unmasking of an anonymous online critic of a local political candidate.
A little background. This in response to the filing of a complaint seeking the person behind the name "hipcheck16" who posted a comment in response to an article in the Daily Herald during the campaign.
According to an EFF press release, "Because of the enormous potential for abuse, the First Amendment requires litigants to demonstrate that they have a legitimate case before they can use the courts to unmask anonymous online critics," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Insults are not enough, especially when the conversation takes place in the context of a political campaign."
Margot Kaminski said in the release that "Lisa Stone is now a person of political power in the community. She does not have a blank check to pry into someone's life just because he said something she didn't like. We hope the Court of Appeals will recognize the importance that anonymous speech plays in the free and robust political debate generated by newspapers online."
Kaminski is a cofounder of the MFIA.
Most people are probably expecting another blog chiding Stone for her antics. Brace yourself -- not quite.
Kaminski's point that Stone is a person of "political power" is another was of saying she is a public official who, by virtue of her participation in open meetings, has made her a public figure. That dubious honor puts a target on your back and makes anything you say and due public.
Stone doesn't like that. No one likes to be criticized are ridiculed. Where she raises a good point is that it's unfair to go after someone's family -- especially children. If Lisa says something, wait not if, when, Lisa says something it's her saying it -- not her kids. If they come to a public meeting and saying something, then what they say at the meeting is news.
The reality is, however, once elected or selected for the spotlight, you need to get used to the heat.
Stone wants the Herald to reveal the name of Hipcheck16 - -whoever he or she is -- and I do not know. Her real argument should be with the Daily Herald for not following its own "Terms and Conditions" for posting comments. You would think that a comment about a public official's family would violate the TOS. Guess not.
Herein lies the argument -- people who post to blogs or make comments at media sites have First Amendment rights. Can they abuse those rights? Probably.
An effort to unmask anonymous posters does little than satisfy someone's desire to see who it is a possibly seek retaliation -- I am not suggesting that Stone is seeking retaliation -- she's a mother who is protecting her children.
Anonymous sources have been part of the media for years. It is a bit of a dichotomy that some newspapers verify letters to the editor, but let people vent anonymously on blogs and in comments. as a high school journalism teacher, my students know they cannot use anonymous sources -- they can, however, use unnamed sources. We also do not accept unsigned letters to the editor.
The EFF and MFIA raise some good points -- not because they disagree with Lisa Stone -- but because they are supporting the a person's rights detailed in the First Amendment.
If we choose to disagree with how a person exercises his or her First Amendment rights, it's important to note to realize that it's the First Amendment that gives us that right to disagree.
For public officials and public figures, as noted before, it's part of the territory -- all 45 words of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment