The Stolen Valor Case

The Supreme Court apparently is going to take up another controversial First Amendment case that pits those who want to punish people falsely claiming military honors against those who believe free speech should have few limits.

I'm inclined to go with public shaming when someone falsely claims to have won a Medal of Honor or suffered as a prisoner of war.  Anyone who sees old vets sit around telling literal war stories knows how they get embellished after a while, so I've never understood how the atrociously named Stolen Valor Act (it's not the valor that's stolen; it's the honor) could be applied. Just where's the line?

That's not to say we should excuse people who stand up at public meetings or run for office while claiming credit for service they didn't render or awards they didn't earn. There's where public shaming comes in. Thanks to the internet, there's plenty of ways to track down every POW, every Medal of Honor winner, even everyone who ever made it to SEAL training.

No need for a federal law. Let the First Amendment prevail. And maybe a set of stocks for those who are legends in their own minds.

When Freedom Isn't Free of Plurals

I was recently whining about the increasing use of "freedoms" where we used to just say "freedom," as in "Freedom isn't free." I believe it started during the Bush Administration for some reason but I'm not sure. As in, "the terrorists want to take away our freedoms."

Then this appeared today, in a story about a Louisiana newspaper responding to a complaint about its coverage of one of Sen. David Vitter's aides:

According to Redman, The Advocate's counsel informed Vitter "we're exercising our First Amendment freedoms..."

Stop, stop, stop.

A. I don't think you really exercise a freedom.  You exercise a right.
B. While it is indeed true that multiple kinds of rights are protected by the First Amendment, there's only one in play here, and that has to do with the rights of the press.

Too often lately, newspapers have picked up the language of political hacks and their followers protesting in the streets, while discussing the Constitution.  Ordinarily, I'd say give the guy some slack and maybe he spoke a little carelessly. But he's a lawyer.

Rules We Can Live With

John McIntyre writes about blog comments and the need to police them. I couldn't agree more, having been on the receiving end of some of the abuse he mentions but also as a reader of many blogs.

There's something odd that happens when people are commenting anonymously. Some of them turn into lunatics. (UPDATE: ABC has this story about a criminal libel case involving Craigslist.)

An auto writer I know came in for a great deal of abuse a few months ago when he wrote about Steve McQueen and his car in the movie "Bullitt" and mentioned McQueen's co-star. The abusive commenter sent him some of the nastiest, ugliest remarks to the effect that the writer was stupid,ignorant, shouldn't be writing, etc., etc., because McQueen didn't have a co-star. To which the reporter calmly replied by noting that the "co-star" he referred to was the car (which was quite clear to anyone who read the column.) The abuser's reply? "Oh, okay."

And I just this morning removed a comment from another blog unrelated to this one that called someone, by name, a child abuser and gay basher.

So, yes, bring on some controls because this wide-open system is foolish. I don't know how people have the time to seize on postings the minute they go up and post their useless and ugly remarks--though I suspect some political organizations are paying people to watch and post on certain blogs--but they add nothing to the value of the discussion.

And yes, I know about that pesky First Amendment thing. Get your own blog; we don't owe you a platform.

Onward and Downward.

UPDATED. I gotta say, this really pisses me off. Someone who does work for Poynter says "it's fine by me" if copy editor jobs are outsourced.

Amy Gahran says here: I think this international copyediting outsourcing experiment is an idea that needs to be tried.And as with any experiment, don't expect the first attempt to be flawless. If the Indian copyeditors can learn to do the job, then fine by me. Go for it.

I have an idea, Amy. How about if we ask Poynter to take away all the consultant gigs and outsource them? You know, YOUR job? I'd be willing to bet a bunch of those folks over there know a HELL of a lot more than you do about e-media issues. And they work for a hell of a lot less. Win win, I'd say. Yes, of course, it might not be a perfect experiment, but what the heck. It's only a paycheck, right?

Amy Gahran is a conversational media consultant and content strategist based in Boulder, CO. She edits Poynter's group weblog E-Media Tidbits.

Since 1997 she’s worked independently, managing content projects and helping individuals, media, and organizations participate in the public conversation.

A former full-time journalist, editor, and managing editor, Amy’s work mainly involves conversational online media (weblogs, forums, wikis, e-mail lists) as well as feeds, podcasting, and e-learning (including some courses on Poynter's NewsU.org).

Note, Jeffrey Rubin has been fighting the good fight, almost single-handedly, for quite a while. He could use some help.
--------
Not that I'm advocating it--really--but Reason Enough raises a good question about the next step in outsourcing.

And I wonder, too, about First Amendment issues--how might a jury respond in a libel case involving outsourced workers? Of course, papers stooping to this idea probably aren't doing deep investigative projects that open themselves to libel lawsuits. And Reuters is already writing a lot of little business stuff from Bangalore. Still, this move by the OC Register seems to have brought the newsroom-staffing crisis to another level.

Fading to Black has been tracking some of the carnage.

J-Department Chairman

If this is really about poor management of the department, the timing really stinks. If not, it's a great First Amendment case.

Long Beach university removes journalism chairman


The Associated Press

LONG BEACH, Calif.—The chairman of the journalism department at California State University, Long Beach, lost his position after criticizing a plan to end print editions of the campus newspaper.

William Babcock was removed from the post he has held since 2001 because of "ineffective" leadership, Gerry Riposa, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, told journalism faculty on Friday.

The department lacks accreditation and has been unable to meet its budget, university spokeswoman Toni Beron said.

The student newspaper, the Daily Forty-Niner, has been running in the red. Riposa has sought a feasibility study of a cost-saving proposal to eliminate the print newspaper while retaining the online edition.

Babcock published an article in the Long Beach Press-Telegram on Sept. 15 that criticized the idea.

After the faculty meeting, Babcock said enrollment and faculty scholarship have increased under his tenure.

"At no time has Gerry Riposa ever indicated to me that my leadership has in any way been ineffective," Babcock said.

Babcock remains at the school as a tenured professor. Associate Professor Raul Reis was named department chairman until faculty elections to fill the post are held next spring.