... by Eugene Volokh as quoted by EdCone.com.
Q: Does the First Amendment cover weblogs?
Eugene Volokh: Absolutely, just like it covers newspapers, magazines, and the like.
Q. What protections afforded to print and TV journalists might not apply to bloggers?
Volokh: Hard to tell for sure. There are some statutes and state constitutional provisions that provide journalists *more* protection than is required by the First Amendment, and some of these statutes are by their terms limited to certain media. The hard question is whether these terms should be read as covering blogging and the Web generally, which didn't exist when many of the provisions were written. A lot depends on the particular terms of the statutes, and, when the statutes are vague, on the views of the judges. I discuss some examples -- especially retraction statutes that can decrease the liability for libel, reporter's privilege statutes, and press credentials -- here: http://techcentralstation.com/120502B.html.
Q: What other implications under press and copyright laws do weblogs raise?
Volokh: By and large, the same ones that other media -- books, newspapers, magazines, and so on -- raise. Generally speaking, the issue under most such laws is the message, not the medium. If you can say something in a newspaper, you can say it in a blog. If it violates the law in a newspaper (for instance, if it's libelous, a copyright infringement, false advertising, a threat, and so on), then it violates the law in a blog, too. There are some exceptions, but this is the general rule.
I'm just thinking about the four fair-use factors... I wonder how copying HTML will stand up to such an analysis. I know you, Mary, copy HTML for news sites that sunset their stories, and I would like to hear more about your rationale... as well, I know Lisa Rein ( http://onlisareinsradar.com/ ) archives Daily Show clips...
Posted by: joe on October 13, 2003 10:47 AM