Blogger's rights

Arrington takes Steven Frischling to task for "caving." Yet Frischling's own attorney advised him that he had no legal basis for hiding his source.

I imagine that Arrington's own attorney would advise him essentially the same way. I assume that Arrington and his company would comply with all other types of subpoenas; assuming similar legal advice in a similar situation it's hard to see why he would refuse to comply with this particular type of subpoena.

Bloggers may look like journalists to many of us, and many bloggers may feel like journalists, but at least at present, as I understand it, bloggers are not journalists in the eyes of the court. Bloggers are merely average Joes with no special status. That should probably change, but we're far from there yet.

Essentially, Arrington is blaming the victim. I suppose Frischling should have worn a more modest constitutional dress if he didn't want to be raped by the TSA. And yes, I consider threatening someone with the loss of their job to be rape-like, and certainly far outside the bounds of professional law enforcement conduct.

By the way, Chris Elliot, the other threatened blogger, wrote a very classy thank you to all the people who helped him through the episode. He has nothing but good words for Steven Frischling, and for the professional conduct of the DHS agent who served the subpoena.

http://www.elliott.org/blog/to-the-team-of-friends-allies-an...