January 10, 2006
1/10: Sam And Friends
After months of waiting, the confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito are in full swing. Now the blogosphere is at full attention, watching the proceedings, poring over transcripts, fact-checking and checking the fact-checks. We noted yesterday that the left was lagging behind in posting about the hearings, but that gap has been erased. What was available to cite then was mostly pre-game assessments; perhaps the GOP-leaning bloggers were just more enthusiastic. We've organized our recap with as many notes as possible, but the sheer volume of posts about Alito -- not to mention the volume of the conversations -- may be overwhelming. For example, here's an IceRocket trendline showing how mentions of the word "Alito" have quintupled over the past week:
In other news -- and there's a lot of it: With House GOPers jockeying for position in their upcoming leadership elections, bloggers on both ends of the spectrum are starting to consider who they prefer; WH dep. CoS Karl Rove made a surprise visit with conservative bloggers at an RNC event; the NSA eavesdropping scandal may have taken a back seat to the Alito hearings, but it's still a big topic; not to mention, NBC explains how the rumor about CNN's Amanpour got out; a new Plamegate tidbit involving NBC's Russert surfaces; rumor of another threat to the blogosphere's freedom burns brightly, then burns out; and, we bring you our latest Blogger Spotlight.
THE ALITO NOMINATION: First Day Jitters And Seconded Arguments, Half-Cocked Theories And Full-Bore Rants
Reax from those parked in front of a TV set, plus analysis on the players, the polls and the process:
>> Appraisals of Alito's comments and poise -- At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru appraised Alito's performance: "To the extent his remarks lacked polish, they drew sympathy and helped his basic I'm-one-of-you message. As the hearings go forward, I would not try to press the distinction between his previous job as an advocate and his current one as a judge too hard--at least not if it's done in a way that attempts to distance himself from past stances." 
A key Alito statement from 1/9 was: "A judge can't have an agenda, a judge can't have a preferred outcome. A judge can't have a client." Daily Kos' Armando scoffs that Alito is "run[ning] away from his record": "And we know what his preferred outcomes are. That he does not want to acknowledge them, that his supporters are ashamed of their views and Alito's views, tells all." Ann Althouse, on Alito's statement about the "contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community": "I doubt if he would have liked me or any of the people I hung around with."
>> The inevitable live-blogging -- Fred Smith and Lindsey Powell live-blogged the 2 halves of the hearings for the SCOTUSblog. Between sessions at the RNC blogger event, Blogs for Bush and Suitably Flip live-blogged the 1st session, the latter summarizing the remarks of each senator in chronological order. Liberal Swamp Pundette covered the whole thing, as did Planned Parenthood's SaveRoe.com blog, and Correntewire is said to have (but it wouldn't load for us). Personal Democracy Forum's Micah Sifry comments on the phenomenon: "It will be interesting to watch how this plays out over the course of the hearings, but my guess is the live-bloggers will likely get more traffic than the post-a-couple-times-a-day blogs. That's because people turn to the net for the latest news, not news that's a few hours old. ... Yes, they also look for smart commentary and analysis. But if you're an interest group hoping to affect online perceptions of the Alito hearings, you probably should be live-blogging the event. Or, offering lots of pizza, donuts and coffee to the bloggers who are!" Help for prospective live-bloggers comes from Tim Chapman, who posts the schedule for this week's hearings, plus a tentative list of witnesses, with short bios for each.
>> 2 sens. in particular drew the ire of their blogging opponents -- Conservatives focused on a statement Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) made in his remarks: "In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one." Michelle Malkin points to numerous instances where he did so, and pronounces the claim "complete bull." Hugh Hewitt posts to his blog an exchange from his 1/9 radio show where "way left" Duke law prof Erwin Chemerinsky agrees, with some prodding, that Kennedy was wrong on this point. Meanwhile, the left was buzzing about Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) statement, which touched on "sodomy" and "prostitution" before concluding, "the real debate here is about Roe." Crooks and Liars has video. Firedoglake's ReddHedd: "Is there some other hidden meaning other than Tom Coburn would like Roe overturned and he's willing to talk about whatever else he needs to talk about to do it? No litmus test for him, though. Nuh uh."
>> Commentary on the process itself -- Conservative PoliBlog has had it with both sides' rhetoric: "I have decided that the word 'mainstream' (which is subjective to begin with) has lost all meaning in the context of judicial nomination hearings. Senator Schumer has long politicized the word in this context and now Senators Graham and Cornyn have decided to up the political ante." Watching the 2nd day of proceedings get under way this a.m., liberal Duncan "Atrios" Black wants the "dancing" to stop: "We all know the wingnut code" between Alito and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): "Specter gets Alito to say stare decisis is important. Alito says overturning precedent requires special circumstance. We all know what that means." Liberal Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "In a remarkable evolution of democracy, we have now entered an era in which candidates for the Supreme Court are allowed to glide through their hearings without once giving a straight answer about anything having to do with the laws or constitution of the United States. ... It's yet another sign that the separation of powers envisioned by the founders has slowly morphed into a de facto parliamentary system -- except without any of the institutional means of accountability normally built into a parliamentary system. Someday Congress is going to regret that." Conservative James Joyner at Outside the Beltway agrees with Drum's wider point about Congress' waning influence, but not on this topic. Rather, he blames the lack of substance on the "combination of the intense polarization of the abortion issue, the perfection of the fundraising machinery of both parties, and the live televising of judicial hearings creates a feeding frenzy where Senators are even more inclined to make asses of themselves than usual."
>> Who doesn't like what they're seeing in the polling? Most of the left, and a fair number on the right -- The left swarmed on Washington Post poll showing a majority of Americans now favoring Alito's confirmation. There's some discouragement about this result, but other think the tide will turn -- Echidne of the Snakes chalks it up to Americans having more immediately pressing concerns -- family, health, finances -- than the SCOTUS: "This is how the world crumbles, by the way. Not with a big bang but with a tiny whimper, made up of the millions of uninterested and tired sighs." The Carpetbagger Report agrees: "Republicans are kidding themselves if they think there's any depth to the numbers ... We can only hope the pollsters will do some follow-up work over the next week or so because support will drop once Americans learn more about Alito's record. ... 53% believe he should be confirmed, but that includes 38% of self-identified liberals and 40% of self-identified Democrats." Header at Tennessee Guerrilla Women: "ScAlito Poll: Majority of Americans Brain Dead." They find an unlikely ally in conservative Wizbang, where anonymous contributor Paul writes: "The big media is completely poll obsessed. But the reality is, most of the numbers they produce are meaningless." A concurrent CBS poll appears to show that 77% don't know who Alito is. Conservative Decision '08: "That's such a staggering figure that the credibility of the poll itself must be immediately called into question (unless, of course, the people surveyed were the same people who sat on the Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson juries)."
>> An announcement -- NARAL's Bush v. Choice announces its "Blog for Choice campaign ... bringing together top pro-choice bloggers to speak out on reproductive rights and health issues." Among them, bloggers from Feministe, Pacific Views, Majikthise, and Bitch Ph.D..
>> An argument -- At Balkinization, liberal Robert Gordon makes the "basic case against" confirming Alito. A tiny excerpt from the full argument: "He is in short a judge with an agenda, and the agenda is not 'conservative' but right-wing-Republican. Now of course the liberal lions of the Warren Court -- Warren, Brennan, Black, Douglas, Goldberg, Fortas, Marshall -- were judges with an agenda too. Their agenda was to push the polity toward treating subordinated, excluded and marginalized people with dignity and as civic equals." Jane Hamsher thinks stopping the Alito nod is indeed possible.
>> A theory -- Steven Den Beste wonders if Senate Dems are trying to "annoy" Pres. Bush and Senate GOPers so they respond "emotionally instead of rationally": "So maybe the Democrats are using obstruction and delay of SCOTUS nominees as a way of goading Bush into using recess appointments to fill SCOTUS positions. If they can do that, it's a qualified victory for the Democrats. For one thing, it would make Bush look like he isn't willing to fight it out in the Senate despite his party having a majority there. For another thing, it holds out hope that if the Democrats can move back into the majority in the Senate, that they would have even more leverage over the kinds of candidates who could be approved. I don't think it would break the hearts of Senate Democrats if one or more seats in the Supreme Court actually remained vacant (or were filled by recess appointments) going into the 2008 election cycle because then they could make that a major issue in the campaign."
>> On the lighter side -- Hotline On Call supplied the world with much-needed Alito hearings haiku. MyDD's Chris Bowers explains why Alito fits the classic model of a Freeper -- a denizen of the right-wing message boards at FreeRepublic.com -- and offers $20 to anyone who can come up with the funniest/most fitting handle for Alito. "Samuel Alito" of The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr. exhales after a long day: "So happy to be back at the hotel room, resting the dogs, and putting back a glass of plain tap water after that exhausting day."
EAVESDROPPING I: Where's The Harm?
As we noted last week, Atrios challenged readers: "Explain to me, in your best wingnutnese, how exactly it damages national security to reveal the fact that we spy on people without secret warrants instead of the fact that we spy on people with secret warrants?"
JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire responds at length. First, he points to signs that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), ranking members of their respective Intel Cmtes, and the New York Times indicated opposition, or at least a reticence, to revealing the program. "They know enough about this program to know that there might still be some secrets there." He adds: "Suppose, over the last few years, a few Al Qaeda plots have gone sour due to The Program. The after-action folks at Al Qaeda may wonder What Went Wrong. ... A series of Times front pagers highlighting a successful program of communications intercepts may provide them a helpful clue and let them focus on their real weakness."
Conservative Thoughts Online: "[I]f they already knew (whether for sure or even only as a really good guess) that their conversations were being monitored and were acting accordingly, then there's been no change to the status quo." John Hinderaker: "I would guess that a number of terrorists have been captured precisely because they did not realize how quickly we can follow up on the intelligence we gain, and roll up a terrorist cell." Glenn Greenwald disagrees with Hinderaker: "I don't mean that he's wrong in his analysis or that he's interpreting facts incorrectly. I mean that he's just ignorant of basic, undisputed facts regarding the matter about which he's opining so pedantically."
Time's Joe Klein, typically no favorite of conservative bloggers, has been getting approving nods from them re: his column fact-checking House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's response to the NSA story, and decrying Dems' "civil-liberties fetishism" as a "hangover from the Vietnam era". Decision '08's Mark Coffey: "The article is clear, and so is the message: don't put partisan politics over the national security of our nation." The Strata-Sphere: "Pelosi admits she is being misleading - and obviously doesn't care! Klein is not impressed. And he exposes more of her duplicity." Sister Toldjah: "Make sure to note his information on how there is evidence that, thanks to the leaker as well as the reporting of this story in the NYTimes, that the terrorists are modifying their behavior, which obviously hampers our ability to track them."
The Washington Note's Steve Clemons calls attention to a "bizarrely and inappropriately bold" now-hiring ad for the NSA in the Washington Post.
EAVESDROPPING II: That's All She Wrote ... Er, Said
On 1/9, NBC prod. Lisa Green posted an explanation of the Christiane Amanpour rumor (see 1/5 Blogometer) to NBC News' Daily Nightly blog: "In the course of a long taped interview Andrea [Mitchell] asked [New York Times' James] Risen a question about something that had been picked up by one of our producers, namely that some reporters, including CNN's Christiane Amanpour, may have been spied upon by the National Security Agency. Risen told her he had not heard that. ... 'Nightly News' obviously did not report on this because it was an unsubstantiated tip. ... Unfortunately, without Andrea's approval, the entire transcript was posted on the web, including the brief exchange about Ms. Amanpour. When questions started surfacing in the blogosphere, it became clear that the publication of the transcript had inadvertently called attention to an allegation that had not been verified. We quickly decided to edit out that portion of the Risen transcript while we continued to check out the story. It's no surprise that readers were curious if not suspicious about the whole thing."
PLAMEGATE: This Is A Familiar Phrase To You, Right?
This a.m.'s Washington Post carries a report that NBC's Tim Russert believed his testimony might implicate ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby, and so resisted testifying. So far it hasn't got much response -- clearly, there's a lot going on out there -- but it's only bound to get more attention. Some of the reax already registered -- Liberal Eschaton: "What a f---ing tool. ... The problem isn't that he didn't want to testify -- there are some reasonable arguments for that -- the problem is that he spent two years on 'Meet the Press' covering this story pretending he didn't know things he knew." Conservative Balloon Juice agrees, and even borrows a line often invoked at Eschaton when the MSM gets caught doing something unethical: "Someone convene a panel on blogger ethics." JustOneMinute calls it a "non-story": "Look, either Russert's testimony was going to jibe with Libby's, or it wasn't. It was not much of a guess for Russert's lawyers to imagine that their client might end up as a star witness in a perjury trial."
ABRAMOFF: Alexander And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Think tanker Mark Schmitt offers advice to his fellow Dems on how to frame the Jack Abramoff scandal: "This is not a lobbying scandal. It's a betrayal-of-public-trust scandal. Lobbyists have no power, no influence, until a public servant gives them power. That's what DeLay and the K Street Project was all about. ... But every time we say 'lobbying reform,' we reinforce the idea that it is only the lobbyist who is the wrongdoer." Josh Marshall continues the thought: "And as long as we're discussing it, does anyone notice that every corruption case we're now talking about -- Abramoff, [convicted ex-Rep. Duke] Cunningham, and pretty much all the rest -- either started or shifted into high gear right about the time that George Bush was elected?"
Jeralyn Merritt walks readers through the Washington Post story about the Abramoff-related demise of DC lobby firm Alexander Strategy Group.
HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: The Boehner Of Their Existence?
RedState's pseudonymous GOP consultant Blanton -- who had thrown his support behind not-a-candidate Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) -- is not happy with either current frontrunner: "There are a host of solid conservatives in the House. With Pence out, conservatives should rally around a willing conservative. I vote for John Shadegg [(R-AZ)]. A party man from Arizona, Shadegg was willing to vote against Medicare reform. Shadegg is a past leader of the Republican Study Committee. He is a solid conservative and has also proven his ability to be a team player. Conservatives should not be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. They should choose one of their own -- someone like John Shadegg."
Daily Kos diarist Let's Be Frank notes the difference between Blunt and Boehner's rhetoric on lobbying reform: "I picture Blunt vs. Pelosi as being an argument over who's reform ideas are better. But if it's Boehner vs. Pelosi and Pelosi is arguing in favor of reforms, and Boehner is simply shrugging them off as unnecessary, that is a public relations gravy train for Democrats. So to Republicans, I say, Vote Boehner for Majority Leader!"
At Fired Up! America, Roy Temple summarizes Blunt's "ties to and favors for" Abramoff in a handy chart (PDF) -- mostly in the form of letters written to various agencies at Abramoff's behest.
Wyatt's Torch is keeping track of which GOP reps. have announced their support for Reps. Roy Blunt (20 so far) or John Boehner (15). Note: As of early this p.m., the current number stands at 39-21. See also Hotline On Call for updates.
MIDTERMS: Mr. T
Ankle Biting Pundits reported on 1/9: "A source on Capitol Hill tells me that" the NRSC is "polling feverishly to see if the Senate seat is salvagable should" Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) seek re-election: "The prognosis, I am told, is not good. Enter Congressman Denny Rehberg ... Insiders tell me that Rehberg would be a strong candidate for an open seat and is beginning to be recruited heavily by members of the Upper Chamber and even the White House." However, Burns remains committed to running, telling the Billings Gazette in their 1/10 edition: "Write it down, real quick: I've never had more enthusiasm or higher energy for a campaign in my life than I got right now, OK? End of story. I never had this much enthusiasm in 1988. Take it to the bank. Make book on it."
RedState is sponsoring the Swannblog, dedicated to electing ex-Steelers WR Lynn Swann (R). The site is being handled by RedStater Mark Kilmer; a few recent posts deal with Swann's intent to campaign for support in PA's "conservative T." GOP primary challenger Bill Scrantonhas a blog at his campaign site, although the 1st post from 1/5 remains the only one.
A TPM Cafe contributor suggests the GOP might want to buy Rep. Tom DeLay out of his House seat to save it from flipping to the Dems: "What can they offer him? After all these scandals, it will be harder to funnel a chunk of personal money to him. DeLay never cared much about personal money anyway; just power. But if he's lost the power in any case, money is a fair consolation prize, and he's got a lot of legal bills coming up. A fat legal defense fund and a speaking contract?"
REPUBLICANS: RNC Now Officially Way, Way Out In Front Of DNC In Blogger Outreach
As we mentioned on 1/9, the RNC held an event for conservative bloggers featuring RNC chair Ken Mehlman and others. An unannounced special guest was Karl Rove himself, something those who stayed long enough eagerly reported.
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "He spent quite a bit of time with us discussing different issues, but we did promise to keep the specifics off the record. ... He knew most of our blogs well, and hoped to come up to speed on the rest. He teased me about not being Canadian -- I think I can reveal that much -- and he also mentioned that CQ has a spot on his browser favorites, along with Red State and Town Hall." Matt Margolis posts a picture of Rove, and writes: "Our readers will be pleased to know that Mr. Rove was in fact familiar with Blogs For Bush. Rove, a Mac user, was pleased that I was using a Mac." Another photo at The Political Teen. Justin Hart of Right Side Redux shared his thoughts on the event (and the Alito hearings) in a podcast afterward.
MISCELLANY: You Only Have One Chance To Be Easily Impressed
- Liberal Oliver Willis, on Wall Street's symbolic milestone on 1/9: "I think it's kind of amusing for the media to jump all over the Dow crawling its way above 11,000 without noting that under the Bush administration the market is at about the same level the Clinton administration left it at. I'm also waiting for all of those armchair economists on the right who swore up and down a week ago that the Dow didn't matter to know explain to me that it does matter because... er... well... Bush!"
- TN-based conservative Bill Hobbs announces he is stepping away from the blogosphere, perhaps permanently: "Effective at 8 a.m. Tuesday, Jan. 10, I am suspending publication of BillHobbs.com, after four years and more than 6,200 entries. The site will remain up with all archives available for the foreseeable future ... and there's no way of knowing or predicting if or when I'll return to blogging here in the future or not. A few months ago I ceased doing original reporting and in-depth analysis of the state legislature and various issues before it, but continued to link to news articles and others bloggers' articles that I thought were worth reading on those and other topics. But ... too much else on my plate right now, and too many other possibilities that need pursuing."
- Having previously announced a forthcoming polling project, MyDD's Bowers announces that he's settled on AZ Dem pollster Jim Wright to conduct research for the site: "Before I told him about our project, he stepped right into the conversation and told me he had already read about it on MyDD. Pretty cool."
- AEI scholar Michael Ledeen's latest NRO column is a big deal in the right-blogosphere. He writes, "according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time." Protein Wisdom header: "Usama bin Dirtnappin'?" "Wonkette guest editor Eric Pfeiffer, late of NRO's The Buzz: "Of course, the chances of that proving accurate are about as likely as Tom Cruise auditioning for Brokeback Mountain 2. But wouldn't it be nice? The part about Osama rotting in the Iranian desert, I mean."
- At Crooked Timber, John Quiggin writes, he "didn't want to get into a 'Silence of the Hawks' pointscoring exercise," but he wonders why few pro-war bloggers have commented on news that the U.S. will spend no more on rebuilding Iraqi infrastructre. He singles one blog out in particular: "Winds of Change has done a more reasonable job than many of presenting a case for war, but they've relied heavily on the assumption that the Administration is committed to the task of leaving Iraq, in its own words 'peaceful and prosperous.' Now that the second of these goals has been abandoned, thereby undermining the first (which in any case looks further away than ever), I'd be interested to know if their views have changed." Winds of Change's Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger accepts the critique, and concurs that it's a problem: "I've seen am important part of our role here as keeping the President's butt in the chair, and I certainly don't think that now is the time to stop."
- Freedom Democrats, on IA's efforts to retain its 1st-in-the-nation status on the Dem primary calendar: "It isn't going to matter if the Iowa caucus keeps its first in the nation status in 2008." With Gov.Tom Vilsack (D-IA) "running most candidates will skip the caucus just like they did in 1992."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Erick The Red (Stater)
Today the Blogometer talks to GOP consultant Erick Erickson, a founding member of RedState.
What is your full name?
Erick-Woods Erickson. Everyone got that right until Hillary Rodham Clinton came on the scene and all of a sudden it became Erick Woods-Erickson. For the record, Erick-Woods is my first name, which entailed the combining of my mom's dad and my dad and his dad's first names.
What is your age?
My wife tells me I've finally reached 30, but I remind her I'm still younger than her (by 6 months).
Where did you grow up?
I was born in Jackson, LA, moved to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates when I was five and returned to Jackson when I was 15.
Where do you live now?
I live in Macon, Georgia now and commute to Washington, DC
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I currently work for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association as their "blogmaster." Until three weeks ago I was a practicing attorney and political consultant. I've worked on dozens of races over the past ten years and in November I blogged the election for MSNBC, which was one of the coolest experiences ever.
When did you start blogging and why?
I got started blogging in 2003, during the California recall election. I was posting on several sites and kept having people tell me I should start a blog. I did. It never really grew. Then I got invited to blog at RedState and the rest is history.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I have really enjoyed covering the Supreme Court nominations. It was fun to develop sources and be the first out of the gate with a lot of information.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I keep my RSS reader going all day. I get up at 6 in the morning, surf the headlines and email, feed the baby (she's 3 months), try to get ideas for stories for Peach Pundit, Broadband Blog, RedState, and my own site, and start writing. I try to write everything in the morning, go back to it, review it, and post it incrementally if possible. By 8:30 a.m. I'm focused on work blogging, but keep reviewing the RSS reader to post throughout the day as needed. My computer closes at 11:00 p.m. or when my wife start yelling, whichever is sooner.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
The guys at RedState, from Pat Cleary to Nick Danger to Streiff. They've got great senses of humor and stay on top of the miniscule things. Though sometimes I think you have to be Catholic to understand a lot of them. And Thomas Crown -- his Arthur Miller obituary was a classic.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
George Will.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
Brit Hume's Special Report. Sadly, I've never been invited on (hint, hint, hint), despite my stellar performances on CNN and MSNBC.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
New York Times, Washington Post, National Review, Washington Times, Macon Telegraph, Atlanta Journal, Los Angeles Times, ABCNews, National Journal, and CNN.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Honestly, I have over 200 blogs and other sites in my News Reader. But, I always hit RedState, The Corner, Mark Kilmer, Daily Kos, Townhall.com, National Journal's blogs, Instapundit, Balloon Juice, Polipundit, Wizbang, Michelle Malkin, Decision '08, Kausfiles, Hugh Hewitt, and my guilty pleasure -- The Superficial.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I read Roll Call every day that I'm in DC, because the stingy jerks keep their site subscriber only. I also read The Hill in paper form.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
I think the new media is increasingly going to become the front seat driver when moving stories, but I do not see the old media going anywhere anytime soon. The old media still has more influence in setting the tone and getting stories talked about. I do think the efforts will become both more combative and, at the same time, collaborative.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Rise And Fall Of An Internet Rumor
One of the hottest stories to hit the blogs yesterday turned out to be incorrect. Here's
C|NET's Declan McCullagh reports, "Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. ... This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison." He quotes ACLU counsel Marv Johnson: "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic. What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Responses were typically comprehensive/overheated, depending on how you look at it. Take this response from Bogus Gold: "The government is terrible when they attempt to apply laws to technology they don't understand. Yet, since this is inevitable, I think we should prepare for some regular (hopefully) bipartisan political action on a regular basis peeling back this kind of general nincompoopery from newly passed legislation." Most had every reason to trust the story, and extrapolated. Header on a RedState diary: "Trolling is now a federal offense." Header at BuzzMachine: "98.5% of blog comments now illegal."
Instapundit posted it in the late morning, and by mid-afternoon updated to suggest it was wrong, linking to a skeptical post at Concurring Opinions. Ace of Spades HQ's readers dug a bit deeper: "This is not dispositive, but this version of the s. 113 of the bill does extend the normal federal rules regarding phone calls to the Internet." =
Finally Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr -- also the right-blogosphere's go-to guy on FISA questions -- threw water on it with some authority: "It looks funny if you don't know the relevant case law, but in practice it simply takes the telephone harassment statute we've had for decades and applies it to the Internet." Cal Lanier at Football Fans For Truth concludes the statute is about VOIP.
Total lifespan of the story: About 21 hours.
LEST WE FORGET: It's Not As Bad As The Dogs With The Bees In Their Mouth And When They Bark They Shoot Bees At You
Longtime Instapundit critic Harry Hutton, author of Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry, does his nemesis a favor and suggests ways to better the site. Hutton offers: "I don't know why it should be, but many of his posts could be improved by adding a warning about bees on the end." His given example:
JANUARY 03, 2006
JIM GERAGHTY has much more on the Ukrainian / Russian natural gas imbroglio. I agree that this only makes Gerhard Schroeder look worse.
UPDATE: Run for your life! Bees!
Posted by at January 10, 2006 12:42 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
