FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS

    Among other things, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Since ratified, Supreme Courts have explored the limits of Free Speech. In 1919, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes uttered the famous statement that the amendment would not protect a man who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theatre and created a panic. 

     I have always thought that an injured person deserves relief. In that regard, Federal Judge William Bertelsman of Kentucky allowed a suit brought by Sarah Jones, a former school teacher and former cheerleader for a professional football team, to proceed against Nik Ritchie of Orange County, California, the publisher of a certain kind of website, in Internet slang, called a Blog (Web Log), titled "The Dirty." 

    Ritchie's blog permits users to submit posts anonymously. If it appeared in a magazine, it would probably be classified as a gossip column. Ritchie says he screens all posts and often makes comments himself.

    In 2012, Jones claimed that untrue posts were made about her and her ex-husband's sexual history. She also said she was falsely accused by having sex with a teenager. She proved her case to a jury of her peers. The jurors agreed with her and awarded her $338,000 in damages.

     Ritchie says he is protected by the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1999, intended to substantiate free speech on the Internet. Ritchie contends that the law provides immunity from liability to websites for content posted by their users. Actually, as I read it, the act was intended to promote "self-policing" by website owners.

   Ritchie is appealing to the 6th Federal District Court, hoping it will overturn the verdict by ruling that Judge Bertelsman should never have permitted the case to be tried.

    He is being backed in his contention by the giants of the digital world: Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter - all saying that the case undermines First Amendment Rights and Judge Bertelsman should have never let the case be heard by a jury. Do they truly mean that if I attack you saying any kind of malicious, injurious lie about you that you shouldn't be allowed to sue me? C'mon! Let's be real.

    Of course, if I was a lawyer, I would suggest that the operative word here is "malicious." 

    Let's wait and see what the people in the black robes who sit on the Federal 6th District bench feel about Mr. Ritchie's appeal.

                                                                                ------

    I recently received a suggestion from reader F.C. Tucker of Tucson who wishes us to explore the topic: "What constitutes an acceptable or 'true conservative,' these days?"  Additionally, Tucker asks, "Who do you think is qualified to become "acceptable to the Republican Party leadership." 

    He threw out some names: Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, poor beleagured John Bohner?  Who?

    We will explore what Mr. Tucker suggests are the requirement to be a "true conservative" these days next week. In the meantime, you might suggest a candidate for that honor and the reasons for doing so.

    As for me. I just don't know. I once thought I was a conservative who stood to the right of Genghis Khan, but a couple of years ago, I became so confused I left the GOP after more than 60 years and became a registered Independent. I'm now beginning to believe that I had been slowly turning into one beginning just before the Nixon resignation. 

 Phil Richardson, Observer and Storyteller. 

Wish to respond: Return to the eMail that carried the link to this page and click "Reply."

Had enough" Do the same and insert "Delete Me" on the Subject line.

Phil's current post can be read at:  http://www.imrightagain.com

If you wish to comment, Phil can be reached at:  

k7os (at) comcast (dot) net

"AgainRight"