STRANGELAND.NET

A ruling came down today in the Nightjack Blogger case in the UK. While this is a UK case and not in US courts, it bears looking into due to the stated use of non-US jurisprudence by certain members of the US Supreme Court (such as departing Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg). While my initial reaction is certainly not a Chicken Little viewpoint like some of the commentators on the article, it is certainly something that should be watched.

There are plenty of bloggers out there who post under a shroud of full or partial anonymity (I don’t use my actual name here, but I also take no real pains to hide the means to find it out). For many of them, their privacy and keeping their identity private is a large issue for them, especially if their blogging deals with sensitive things that certain people may want kept quiet for a variety of reasons. The issue comes into question, however, when you’re dealing with someone who is putting their work out specifically for public consumption, which arguably is the case for any blogger. If someone just wanted to keep a journal, there are better ways to do it than putting something up on the Internet.

When taken down to brass tacks, I agree with the ruling. By putting forward his blog the way he did, he had no reasonable expectation of anonymity. If he wanted to be a whistle-blower but not be subject to outing, then there are other ways to do it. By putting out a blog with the information, there is a certain amount of egotism involved. It is also then purely in the public arena. The Times, from what I’ve read, did nothing illegal to find out his identity. Therefore he doesn’t really have any ground on which to stand.

Where this issue becomes murkier, though, is when you’re dealing with the question of whether a blogger is a journalist or not. As a general rule, I would say they are not. I know I’m certainly not a journalist. At best, I’m a commentator. Much as Talk Radio personalities like Boortz, Hannity, and Limbaugh aren’t journalists, neither are many bloggers currently in operation. A small sub-set out there are journalists, however. This line blurs even more when you consider that a number of reporters today have blogs to go along with their standard reporting duties.

Should this issue come up in the United States, it’s entirely possible you would see a different ruling from the Supreme Court. I do not, though, believe it would be probable. Once you put yourself out in the public realm, you’re generally ceding your right to privacy in regards to your identity.

To take the subject of an older gag cartoon and tack onto it: just because on the Internet no one knows you’re a dog doesn’t protect you from someone finding out and telling everyone.

stranger News, Personal Thought

The last few weeks, I’ve been less than verbose here. Terminally quiet is likely a better way to put it. In many ways, I’ve been watching in horror as the Federal Behemoth rolls along, driving us closer and closer to the Democratic Utopia of a Nanny State. In the last couple of days, something popped up that made me growlly in enough of a different way that I actually felt a need to write something.

It looks like a bill to bill to further limit cigarettes in the US is on its way to the President’s desk. Before anyone starts making assumptions, I don’t smoke and never have (which is saying something, given that I grew up in Winston-Salem, NC, with half my extended family working for RJR). Personally, I think it’s a disgusting, dirty habit that people need to quit. However, I fully support someone’s personal choice to burn their lungs and eventually kill themselves if that’s what they really want to do.

Enter the Federal Government, though, and we have a new law in the offing that would give the FDA unprecedented control over a private industry in determining how they can advertise and how they make their product. Nevermind this is just another step on the Obama road to Economic Fascism. It’s for the good of the people, right?

I’m sure my position on this comes as no surprise to anyone that’s known for a while. I firmly believe that the decision to do drugs of any sort is a personal decision into which no one else needs to be poking their head on a governmental level. And I certainly don’t agree in laws being passed that allow the Government to reach its meddling hands even further into a free market.

Honestly, the tobacco industry is on the decline anyway. Yes, people still smoke, but it’s not the glamorous thing it used to be. City after city are passing laws to restrict what public places are smoking okay (granted, at the end of the day, I’m not that okay with that, either). More people realize that smoking is bad for you and avoiding it is the best option. But that’s not good enough for the current crop of politicians in Washington.

Of course, you also don’t hear anyone up there making the cry of ‘this will cost jobs.’ After all, this is an already denigrated industry, so it’s “safe” to curtail production there and cost jobs. It reminds me of the Denis Leary sketch about animals and which ones are okay to kill for things and which aren’t. For those familiar with it, the tobacco industry is the cow, while the auto industry is the otter.

Do I think this is going to be stopped at this point? No, not really. The big hurdle anymore has been the Senate, and it’s already passed through there before going to the House. This will end up being yet another tick on the checklist being kept somewhere of how to give the Federal Government complete control over the US Economy. But it’s okay, right? After all, we’ll still have American Idol and Survivor to keep people distracted.

stranger Government Outrage

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been giving thought on a fairly regular basis to this question. Much of the thinking was sparked between a combination of a rant Sean Hannity went into on 5/4 and watching general press coverage, especially that hitting on Meghan McCain. After letting it mull a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that the primary issue the Republican Party is having right now is not with their core “public” tenets, but rather with the secondary ones.

Charles Moran of the Log Cabin Republicans is quoted in an article today in the San Francisco Chronicle saying that the core tenets of the Republicans (and much of the Conservative Movement) are personal responsibility, individual freedom and small government. This same line was espoused by Hannity in his rant on 5/4. The problem, however, is in the parts of the Republican Party Agenda (so to speak) that aren’t covered by those three things.

I’m willing to state there are many people out there who are for the ideas of personal responsibility, individual freedom and small government. The issue with the Republican Party, however, is in their push for legally mandated social conservatism. Much of the root for this part of the Party is found in the fertile soil of the Religious Right. Its in this where you find the push for criminalization of abortion and drugs as well as keeping same-sex marriage off the books.

If the Republican Party is going to have any hope at all with maintaining any sort of prominence in the coming decades, they are going to need to realize that smaller government and personal freedom are not compatible with legislated morality. Those issues are the albatross hanging from the party’s neck and what will keep driving the younger generations away from the party.

I’m seeing a noticeable part of the Republican Establishment(tm) attempting to marginalize those who are pushing the Party to recognize this and move past it in an effort to get its core message out to the country. In doing this, I firmly believe they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. I have zero issue with someone wanting to hold to their own personal moral code. My issues comes in when they attempt to legislate that morality and use the force of government to force it on someone else.

Regardless of your opinion of Arlen Specter and his switch to the Democrat Party, he did at least get something right. The Republican Party, in embracing a vocal social conservative minority in its ranks, has all but turned its back on the social moderates in the party. If it continues to do this, it’s going to lose more people that just one Senator whose primary concern is staying in office rather than standing on his principles. That stance is going to drive away the younger generations who are willing to work and revitalize the Party if they are shown there is a place for them. Telling them or implying that there is no place if they’re not a staunch social conservative in addition to being a fiscal conservative isn’t going to cut it. And attacking those who are espousing this viewpoint is only going to further drive the point that the Republican Party has lost its way and is missing the forest for the trees.

Either you’re for smaller government (which includes removing the overt influence of Government in someone’s personal life) or you’re not. You can’t have it both ways. Trying to do so only makes you look like a hypocrite. My only hope is either the Republican Pary establishment will realize this and correct their course, or they’ll fall by the wayside and the media will actually pay attention to a party that does espouse this viewpoint–whether the Libertarian Party or something new that grows.

stranger Government Outrage, Personal Thought