Thank the God of Your Choice that we've still got a few thinking judges on some courts. Slowly, but surely, the rest of American is coming to understand that there is no difference between speech from a mouth, speech on a piece of dessicated dead tree, and speech that is expressed in the Ether of the Intertubes.

Actually, it fascinates me to consider that "some people think" that I should be held responsible for what another person says on my blog. I can sort of understand the legal wrangling to get to that point, but at the same time, it just feels ridiculous to me. Or rather, I think of all the ways in which large corporations aren't responsible for what people do with their products (guns, drugs, cars, etc.) and yet somehow, there was a question about how two strangers interact on the internet and the liability issues that relationship created. If I crayon "Jews Suck!" on a Torah in a synagogue, is the publisher responsible for "leaving it out in public" for anyone to write upon? If I go to a public library and write "kill all the niggers!" in every copy to Toni Morrison's works, is the library responsible for that? Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me, the comparison between those examples and this case are similar.

Freedom of speech! So far, we still have it (mostly), despite Bush's best efforts to silence us. Rejoice, bloggers, commenters, readers, and freedom lovers. You're officially not responsible for the rantings of some stranger a thousand miles away.

Update: Of course, I spoke too soon. Judy, I need some soap! I guess it's still the case that CA is filled with all kinds, including in their court system.

"Josh Wolf is about to set a precedent as the longest reporter held in the United States for refusing to disclose his sources," Says Morillon. "He's not a criminal; he was just protecting his sources which is something many journalists have to do."

Dave Heller of the Media Law Resource Center, a legal organization specializing in First Amendment rights, says the burden should fall on the government to prove that a journalist's materials are absolutely needed for a case. He says Wolfe's jailing is especially troubling.

"The request for information to get his tapes does seem to be somewhat removed from the focus of the investigation, or at least nothing essential to it," says Heller. "In that setting, it's troublesome that the consequence for not cooperating is to be thrown into jail for a lengthy period of time."

I guess we'll have to keep working on that whole "if you're not paid/supported by trust fund money you're not a real journalist" thing.