MY RESPONSE TO BLOIS' OP-ED
Anonymous blogs are emerging as a tactic comparable to the 527 groups in 2004.
[Blois, this is a stretch, even for you.]
Truth and free speech should matter to Minnesota politics. The media's role is to ensure that our candidates and elected officials are held accountable. Such should also be the case for the emerging medium of news dissemination, web logs or blogs.
It is important that, to protect individuals and companies, bloggers practice some standards in the dissemination of information, and that bloggers, anonymous or not, be held accountable when wrong.
Blogs are best known for their role in breaking and shaping news stories in the political arena. During the 2004 presidential race, the locally run blog http://www.powerlineblog.com/ received national attention when it became instrumental in proving that National Guard records given to CBS News' "60 Minutes" had been forged. Powerline is viewed as credible because the authors identify themselves and are willing to decline funding sources that might influence their posts while standing behind the accuracy of their content.
[Politics In Minnesota accepts funding. Aside from a legal defense fund, I have never made any money from blogging. I don't sell ads. Politics In Minnesota sells ads.]
However, not all blogs hold the same credibility. After the 2004 election in South Dakota, it was revealed that anti-Tom Daschle bloggers were actually paid by the John Thune campaign, a fact that the public should have had the right to know. Apparently the bloggers who were advocating for "free speech" weren't working for "free."
[I agree Blois. That is why I beleive you should have informed the public that one of your employees, Buck Humphrey, solicited business from Coleen Rowley's campaign. Until I posted it on Minnesota Democrats Exposed, the public didn't know.]
Now, as Minnesota gears up for a competitive campaign season, anonymous blogs are emerging as a tactic comparable to the 527 groups of the 2004 election. The difference between the two tactics is that anyone can start a blog in 10 minutes, while not just anyone can buy millions of dollars in television ads. Another difference is that television and radio stations reserve the right to refuse ads that aren't supported with documentable facts; there is no check to balance the mistakes of a blogger.
[Blois, yes there is. I posted your response refuting the claims made in my post. Anyone can post on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Even you.]
When credible liberal or conservative media make a mistake, they are willing to retract or correct it. When bloggers are wrong, they should similarly correct themselves. Like the media, they should be able to keep anonymous sources, but they should learn when to trust them.
In the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed, a former GOP research director has written anonymously for the last year and a half attacking Democrats at every turn. Only recently did he reveal his identity. His actions came after he posted defamatory statements about me and my company, New School Communications. We took legal action after he refused to retract the statements or even have a dialogue about them.
[Now Blois, let's not re-create history. We exchanged emails and you can post anytime you want on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. If you wish to have a dialogue, send me an email or give me a call.]
None of this is about partisan politics, or liberal and conservative ideology. It is about the truth and making sure that free speech isn't threatened by speech that is untrue. The facts too often get glossed over in modern politics, but ultimately they are what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment.[Blois, you are a Democrat and I am a Republican. Your lawsuit is about partisan politics and everybody knows it.]
It shouldn't take a lawsuit to keep bloggers accountable for the truth, just as it shouldn't take press coverage to keep politicians accountable, but sometimes it does.
[Blois wants there to be a dialogue, but the only format he uses to communicate requires days to respond. Blogging allows for a real-time public dialogue.]
5 Comments:
I have a response to it too.
Unfolded Like a Cheap Suit
I stand with MDE.
Bloise writes: "It is about the truth and making sure that free speech isn't threatened by speech that is untrue."
What a bunch of crap. Free speech isn't free if we limit it. If I want to write that I was kidnapped by Martians who did unimaginable medical experiments on me so that my DNA is a left twist instead of a right twist that is what the 1st amendment is all about. Even, maybe especially if it is untrue.
I worry about these "holier than thou" journalists who decide what is true (Dan Rather, Mary Mapes anyone?) and that anyone who disagrees with them is either a charlatan or a blogger.
Sheesh Bloise, I use my real name and it's on my blog as well. Care to include me in your damn speech squelching law suit? Basta~
It's only free speech when you agree with them. Anything else is either wrong or legally actionable. I hope they lose this stupid case and waste a lot of money doing it. Can you get them to pay your legal expenses when (not if) they lose?
Anyway, great site- I plan to be a regular reader from now on.
P.S. Blois is a whiny poopy-head.
If anyone knows Blois Olson, you might want to tell him to just cut his losses. He has lost MASSIVE credibility with many individuals.
Blois needs to answer two simple questions.
Did Buck Humphrey attempt to solicit business from the Rowley campaign?
If so, was their rejection of his solication a factor in Olson's attacks on the Rowley campaign?
Simple questions. Seems he could answer them. Blois suing people instead of answer questions is destroying his credibility....bigtime.
Michael,
Thank you for your wonderful blog.
Perhaps after you win against Bois, you can sue for a frivolous lawsuit being filed and argue Blois destroyed your anonymity maliciously.
Maybe Minnesota would then join New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania in condemning repression of anonymous criticism of public officials.
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/06/criticizing-politicos-anonymously/
The decision agrees with most other courts that a plaintiff should not be allowed to identify his critics unless he presents evidence to support
his defamation claims. This is the third appellate court in the country to weigh in on the topic, and all of them -- the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in Melvin v Doe, New Jersey's Superior Court, Appellate Division in Dendrite v Doe, and now the Delaware Supreme Court -- have required the
presentation of evidence before a Doe defendant may be deprived of his right to remain anonymous.
The decision is available at
http://www.citizen.org/documents/DoevCahillSupremeCourtOpinion.pdf
The brief is available at
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Appellate%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/litigation
Best Wishes,
MN1
Post a Comment
<< Home