SCOTUS on bloggers

Here we go ...

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."

Check out the Chicago Tribune article about the U.S. Supreme Court and bloggers. You can read it here.

Also in the article, "'As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,' 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel."

What's the problem right here in McHenry County? We write about what we know and believe. Those about whom we write would like for our writings to be untrue, and so they accuse us of writing untrue things. But what we write is true.

For example, Sheriff Keith Nygren says he fired Zane Seipler (the first time) for writing bad tickets.

Zane says he was fired for complaining about racial profiling at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.

The Sheriff's own attorney told a Federal Court judge that "Mr. Seipler was fired for complaining about racial profiling." I was standing right next to that attorney, when she made that statement to Magistrate Judge Mahoney. And I wrote down her exact words while I was standing there. (The transcript contains her exact words.)

Now, who is telling the truth? And who is lying?