Looking Back: Rankled Local Officials vs. Anonymous Bloggers

I’ve been thinking back over the last year, Blog Law Blog’s first year, and trying to figure out what broad lessons there are to be learned about blog law. The most striking thing to me, I think, is the tremendous number of altercations we’ve seen between local officials and bloggers.

In both Canada and the United States, it seems like local government officials are highly intolerant of harsh criticism. They try to unmask anonymous bloggers and commenters. They use town counsel money and subpoenas to get at their tormentors.

Where do local officials get off thinking they should be able to silence online critics? What’s a bit puzzling is that the behavior exhibited by local officials toward the online press is something you would never see either (1) by federal or higher-level state politicians and officials, or (2) by local officials against the traditional media. Well, you might see it very rarely. But not with the frequency and abandon with which town politicos go after laptop-wielding gadflies.

So what accounts for the difference?

I think a big part of it is that local officials aren’t used to the heat. National politicians have always put up with vitriol. For them, the internet has perhaps added to the number of hecklers, but the phenomenon is not utterly new for elite officials.

But on the local level, blogs have propelled brickbats into a void. It’s all new for local officials. And the do not like it.

Much of the blog activity that leads to lawsuits is mean-spirited and nothing to cheer about. Nonetheless, you can’t deny that this is participatory democracy. I can’t help but think that when blogging comes to town hall, it is perhaps the greatest fulfillment of the vision the forefathers had for the First Amendment. This is the core within the core of free speech. I think Jefferson, Madison, and the rest would say this is exactly what democracy and freedom of press are all about.

That said, I get that it hurts. A big part of what drives local officials to get lawyered up is the anonymity blogs allow. People are mean anonymously in a way the would never be with their name attached. There’s no doubt about that.

Another part of the story is that the criticism is in print. No doubt local officials have always been subject to mean-spirited gossip. But gossip uttered on the air is less hurtful than font-rendered invective. It goes back to the traditional legal difference between slander and libel – that is, oral vs. written defamation. The common law’s distinction no doubt grows from an important difference in how we perceive the harmfulness of ephemeral speech versus inky text.

Here are posts from BLB where local officials use the law to attack blogs in 2010:

Tags: ,

One Response to “Looking Back: Rankled Local Officials vs. Anonymous Bloggers”

  1. Steve Stern says:

    In the interest of full disclosure, I was a reporter for a major national newspaper for more than two decades out of DC. That said, first, I don’t believe that any comments on any blog, most “serious” blogs about “serious” issues should be anonymous. I don’t allow any on mine, as I don’t want to engage in colloquy.

    My view is simple: If you believe enough in a subject to have an opinion or view, and your view is serious, do it under your name. Let’s face it, most commenters aren’t William Sydney Porter, Ricardo Eliecer Neftal? Reyes Basoalto or Benjamin Franklin, for that matter.

    It’s ironic for me, however, that I believe differently with regard to newspapers, which now print bylines for virtually every story. There was a time when a byline was almost literally “awarded” for an exclusive, or scoop or particularly outstanding piece of reporting. I don’t really care who writes a pedestrian daily piece of “breaking news,” which, of course now is generally 8 hours old before it hits print (yes, the Internet has changed that, but the same holds for me).

    I enjoy your work and feel free to “spike” this comment.