Dateline was sued in civil court for violating the employees’ privacy.

Where in the Constitution is the right to privacy? What do you guys think the ruling was in this case?

i was just very confused where the boundaries are set although i did some research i could only find that if its political speech it is strongly protected and other unrelated privacys are protected like search and seizure and of course 1st amenment but nothing dealing with peoples idenity related to revealing some sort of facts…….

And your journalistic experience is irrelivant, except journalists think bloggers are kind like them. No they are not.
People pay a buck to get a professional level of fact checking,

Blogs are diarys that people share. They are private thoughts that are shared.
If you’d done some fact checking you’d know that.
Sorry for the anonymous sniping, but I’m right.

The 1st but 14th Amendments make anonymous speech a constitutional right, whether YOU use it or not.

As a blogger and former 15-year journalist, I always put my name on my articles. When I have something to say, I always put my name on it. Anonymous bloggers are craven cowards.

No blogger has the right to libel and defame people without taking responsibility. And they have no right to privacy when the make thier posts PUBLIC. If the post is public, the blogger’s name should be too.

Larry Bodine, Esq.

[...] anonymous speech in the USA is supposedly a protected right.

Not ‘supposedly’- really. See Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)

Over petitioner’s protest that it invaded his freedom of speech and press in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the Federal Constitution, he was convicted of violating a city ordinance which forbade distribution, in any place under any circumstances, of any handbill which did not have printed thereon the name and address of the person who prepared, distributed or sponsored it.

Held: the ordinance is void on its face, and the conviction is reversed. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444. Pp. 362 U. S. 60-66.

172 Cal.App.2d Supp. 797, 332 P.2d 447, reversed.

As it stands, IMHO the outing of this blogger was a violation of her civil rights. I shall be watching to see what comes next.

Next question?

We all know the limits of free speech. We can not maliciously hurt others or deny them their safety and their rights, nor can we engage in sedition or libel.

If a blogger libels another then by all means get a court order and make them answer to their crime. But there’s no reason to violate privacy otherwise.

In practice there are lots of people who can hack computers and pick door locks. Doesn’t make it right.
Yes I want privacy. I’m an American and I’ll fight for it if I have to.
And I don’t need to use juvenile insults to make my point.

All rights need to have limits. Hate Speech and racism are where freedom of speech and freedom of expression end (both are technically not the same).

Do I have a right to say that Lorelle as a woman should stay in the kitchen and do her “duties” as a woman? I grew up in a culture where the father earned the bacon and the mother took care of the house and children, I can express how I might believe on that.

Can I say: Lorelle being a should not use the computer because all should never touch computers…………….this is crossing the line.

If I accuse Lorelle of copying my work….Can I make a post on my site about it without posting proof? no.

In North America and western Europe where we are democratic…the burden of proof is on the accusser to proof guilt.

In the Lorelle stealing my content example: I made a post about Lorelle copying my content without permission, I would have to provide proof of her guilt, not her provide proof of her innocence.

So if a blogger accusses a politician or an actor or whomever of him/her saying/doing something, that blogger needs to provide proof. Also the accused has the right to face his accuser.

If any of my writers accuse a person of something, that person comes to me with a lawsuit, I will go to my writer and demand proof of the accusation’s validity.

There is no such thing as privacy on the internet. With Google and Woopra Analytics, I know where you are coming from, your browser, resolution, language, o/s, and a lot more.

If you want privacy, put your left thumb in your mouth and suck it, then put your right thumb up your ass. and go to bed,

And as for the arguments that you “Take your chances” or
You lose privacy as soon as you become very popular…
try applying that to a pretty woman’s woman’s right to appear in public without being accosted.

Blogs are diaries that you get the privilege to look at.
Don’t abuse the privilege by imposing your own values on the author.
And like other rights, as long as you’re not breaking the law or violating someone else’s rights, you have the right to do as you please.

Here is part of the original post from Mudflats on the “outing”; a reference to Mudflats’ start in the blogging biz:

” …But I knew some things about her (Gov. Sarah Palin), and her policies and positions that others might not be able to find out so easily. I decided to write my opinion….”

I think the question should hinge on whether a private citizen claims to “know” things that “others” may not have access to, intimating the access is special and privileged.

This is not a journalist protecting a “source”.

Blogging is not “reporting”, no matter how many Bloggers pretend (or want to pretend) they are reporters.

When a Blogger (as so many of us do) crosses the line from opinion to stating supposed fact based on claims of privileged information, that Blogger has lost any expectation of legal protection of their identity.

IMNSHO, if you claim special access, privilege and expertise not available to the general public, expect to get outed.

If this blogger really felt so strong about their opinions, how about coming clean with a name? And don’t give me that rubbish about stalking. That’s a thin veil.

Understand that I’m no fan of Doogan. He is one of the leftest leaning socialists that ever came down the pike. His column in the Anchorage Daily News was one of the prime reasons I stopped even looking at that socialist rag.

Signed,

NOT anonymous, George

I the specific case of Doogie v. AKM, if she cares to press the point, she could do Doogan for a violation of her (1st Amend) rights to anon speech, primarily because Doog is part of the govt. She probably would not have as strong a recourse against a private citizen who did the same thing. If Dungheap had been a smart cookie (obviously ain’t), he’d have frobbed up a blogspot or other freeb blogsite and did the outing that way, but nooooooo….. this clown has left his pink bits legally exposed for some whacking civil suit goodness.

Thanks for the incisive and extensively researched bit.