The good old days?

Back when I was growing up in the People's Republic of Amherst I used to love those stories--since my dad fought there--about Japanese soldiers finally coming out of their caves in far flung South Pacific islands where they hid for decades refusing to believe the Empire had lost.

My bricks-and-mortar friends at the Republican and Gazette report today about a "firestorm" on the Internet yesterday that I somehow managed to miss, involving Cooks Source magazine out of little old Sunderland stealing copy from a blogger without permission and then refusing to pay a token amount (as a donation to the Columbia School of Journalism) saying the writer should be thankful for publication.

Especially thankful, since the kindly old editor, with "30 years experience," had rewritten the piece and in fact should charge the writer. Yikes!

Such arrogance I have not seen, oh, since the rise of the Internet. Back in the day, only 15 or so years ago, the bricks and mortar media were indeed the gatekeepers who "bought ink by the barrel". And could treat writers with complete disdain (many did).

Those days are L-O-N-G gone. Thank God! (or the Internet.)

The LA Times reports

"Watchdog" awakens!

From: amherstac@aol.com

To: Mdechiara@gmail.com; farshidhajir@gmail.com
Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 10:18 pm
Subject: Public Documents Request

In the PDF of the letter signed by five School Committee Chairs sent to the DA requesting a ruling on public officials who have blogs posted on the Shutesbury internet listserve, under the "permissions attached" pages, Farshid Hajir reads: This letter to Cynthia Pepyne looks great; I would like to sign on. My comments:

But then after the colon there are no comments.

Could I please be provided with a copy of those comments which seemed to have disappeared.

Thanks,

Larry Kelley

#####################################
From: amherstac@aol.com
To: newman@lnn-law.com; lesser@inn-law.com
Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 3:02 pm
Subject: The First Amendment and Open Meeting Law in the modern age

I certainly hope the local ACLU will weigh in on this 'Only in Amherst' tempest in a teapot I first railed about on my blog 6 days ago but now prominently displayed on the Front Page of the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

As a long-time insider of all things politics in the People's Republic I can assure you this effort to involve the DA ruling about blogs is an orchestrated (local) government attempt to quash Catherine Sanderson's First Amendment rights simply because she (very publicly) "calls 'em as she sees 'em".

And is not that what the First Amendment is all about?

Larry Kelley (concerned that I will be next)

########################################

So six days after it first hit the blogosphere (my piece of it anyway), the Daily Hampshire Gazette covers the story of five School Committee Chairs sending a letter of request to the District Attorney for legal clarification on blogs and the Open Meeting Law. Front Page. Above the fold no less.

The Gazette, finally, reports

And you would think, since that letter was instantly forwarded to the Gazette last week (in hopes of getting the headline they indeed got) with all this time to hash out the story, they could have done a better job.

Don't mind me, I'm just pissed off that I was referred to as "Larry Kelley, a Amherst watchdog blogger who posts frequently about "The Vagina Monlogues" and "West Side Story," is also a member of the town's Redevelopment Authority."

Besides misspelling "Monologues", the proper name for my committee is Amherst Redevelopment Authority, a quasi-state, independent body with four members elected by town voters and one appointed by the Governor. The only entity in town besides Town Meeting/Selectboard with the power of eminent domain.

And I have not posted about 'VM' or 'WSS' in over a year.

Details, details.

Obviously the problem, as the Old Guard sees it, is Catherine Sanderson and her School Committee blog. Because she is not afraid to speak her mind openly, in public, at all hours of the day and night. That should be encouraged, not threatened.

As the ACLU says about the First Amendment: The way to deal with bad speech is with more good speech--not censorship.

Mr Hood Commented on this blog a few days ago that his blog (still in its rookie year) garnered 129 unique visitors last week. This blog was almost 500. And Ms. Sanderson's open public sitemeter tells me she was about 33% over this blog last week, so I would guess her unique visitors were somewhere in the neighborhood of 700. Thus I would hardly lump Mr. Hood in the same category as Sanderson's "that see large volumes of web traffic."

Of course law is always going to lag behind technology. The Mass State Legislature recently tweaked a law to include text messages because some pedophile sending explicit messages to a minor got off because the original law talked dealt with graphic material being disseminated but did not clearly spell out "text messaging". Now it does. And of course we now have a law saying you can't text message while driving (who would have thought you need to make that a law.)

But what never changes is the intent/spirit of the law. And clearly the Open Meeting Law, enacted before the Internet revolution, simply wants to keep public matters kept public. And you don't get any more public than a blog.
#####################################

It will be interesting to see if the Gazette or Bulletin issues an editorial on this issue.