Comments on: The First Appearance of the Word “Blog” in a Supreme Court Opinion

By: doctor takapuna

doctor takapuna — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:13:17 +0000

Hey I was just wondering If somebody could help me out with this , I read this blog a fair bit but sometimes the background stuffs up and I cant read the text. PLease help me out

By: Blogs make the big (or small?) time - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Blogs make the big (or small?) time - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:45:44 +0000

[...] “Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech,” – Justice Anthony Kennedy [...]

By: trial offer

trial offer — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:56:24 +0000

Good points…I would note that as someone who really doesn’t write on blogs much (in fact, this may be my first post), I don’t think the term “lurker” is very becoming to a non-posting reader. It’s not your fault really , but perhaps the blogosphere could come up with a better, non-creepy name for the 90% of us that enjoy reading the posts.

By: Mikee

Mikee — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:11 +0000

Please predict when the first Supreme Court uses of the terms LOL, OMG, ROFLMAO and IYKWIMAITYD will occur, and for extra credit predict the date for first appearance of LOLCATS in an opinion.

By: SCOTUSblog » Friday round-up

SCOTUSblog » Friday round-up — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:30:34 +0000

[...] uphold the “disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting” requirement in the BCRA. And Eugene Volokh notes that yesterday was the first time the word “blog” appeared in a Supreme Court [...]

By: Political Activity Law · The Citizens United/lobbying connection

Political Activity Law · The Citizens United/lobbying connection — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:12:25 +0000

[...] the opinion. (It’s the Court’s first use of the term “blog,” according to Volokh.) There’s a lot to [...]

By: JenP

JenP — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:27:44 +0000

Um, HT Josh Blackman who posted this on his blog earlier today… http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=3789. FWIW.

By: 30yearProf

30yearProf — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:54:00 +0000

Does YouTube work? You bet. 7.5 MILLION hits and growing every day.
If the target was a politician he’d be down by 40% and seeking to retire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

By: arbitraryaardvark

arbitraryaardvark — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:14:44 +0000

this post is mentioned in declan mccullough's article on the case http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10439023-38.html

By: Peoples Press Collective » Congress shall make no law: Blogs appear in Supreme Court decision for first time

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:14:41 +0000

[...] The Volokh Conspiracy: Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, [...]

By: lawstudent2

lawstudent2 — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:01:25 +0000

See also, U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 278 n.4 (2005).

By: so and so

so and so — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:44:48 +0000

law student: Youtube also gets a special shoutout in the conclusion:Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits onYoutube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurssolely because a corporation, other than an exempt mediacorporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech.

Darn! I was going to mention this one. It seems to be the first mention of Youtube by SCOTUS as well.

By: AveSharia

AveSharia — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:25:47 +0000

Oh man… Wish I had my 1st Amendment Law final paper from law school handy.

Found the thesis:

The regulations promulgated by the FEC in Federal Reg. Vol. 71, No. 70, violate the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and the press under Amendment I, U.S. Constitution.

I see little rationale for the FEC to regulate the internet beyond paid advertising. The enacted regulations have gone too far in requiring disclosure of wages or salary paid by political campaigns to individual bloggers, and this regulation should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Whatever happened to that proposed Reg., anyway?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:19:12 +0000

So is this simply expanding 1st Amendment rights to corporations because the reality of current communications technology requires it?

By: Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The First Appearance of the Word “Blog” in a Supreme Court Opinion -- Topsy.com

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:20:33 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Chuck Plunkett, Robert Efroymson. Robert Efroymson said: First use of the word "Blog" in a Supreme Court Opinion (per Volokh) http://is.gd/6KKQ9 [...]

By: law student

law student — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:04:54 +0000

Youtube also gets a special shoutout in the conclusion:

Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits onYoutube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurssolely because a corporation, other than an exempt mediacorporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech.

By: 30yearProf

30yearProf — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:57:16 +0000

Political speech IS also “free” speech. It’s about time.

Absent outright bribery (a la $100,000 in the home freezer) and unrepentant publication of knowingly false material statements, Congress should keep its mitts off campaigning.

The inmates can not write fair rules for admittance to the Asylum.

By: ADF Alliance Alert » Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

ADF Alliance Alert » Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:56:54 +0000

[...] Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy: The First Appearance of the Word “Blog” in a Supreme Court Opinion The Scope of the Ban at Issue in Citizens United Citizens United on the Deterrent Effect of Complex [...]

By: TNeloms

TNeloms — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:56:05 +0000

Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues.

Soon? Did Souter ghost-write this?