Monsanto Paid Female Bloggers to Attend Panel

Heather Callaghan

Writers are often barraged with email invites to attend conferences to become better writers with promises that, in time, their efforts will produce a lucrative income. There are niche writing workshops as well, such as "food blogging." The hitch, of course, is that one must pay for tickets to enter said workshop.

In a notable flipside, however, Monsanto recently paid female bloggers $150 if they attended "an intimate and interactive panel." The goal here not being a way to a successful writing career, but rather an incentivized way to shape public opinion.

The invite target? Women ... Perhaps those of the ever-growing "Mommy Blogger" persuasion?

Congress and the Justice Dept's Dangerous Attempts to Define “Journalist” Threaten to Exclude Bloggers

Morgan Weiland
EFF

Lawmakers in Washington are again weighing in on who should and should not qualify as a journalist—and the outcome looks pretty grim for bloggers, freelancers, and other non-salaried journalists.

On July 12, the Justice Department released its new guidelines on investigations involving the news media in the wake of the fallout from the leak scandals involving the monitoring of AP and Fox News reporters. While the guidelines certainly provide much-needed protections for establishment journalists, as independent journalist Marcy Wheeler explained, the DOJ’s interpretation of who is a “member[] of the news media” is dramatically narrower than the definition provided in the Privacy Protection Act and effectively excludes bloggers and freelancers from protection. This limiting definition is causing alarm among bloggers like Glenn Reynolds on the right as well.

While the DOJ’s effort to limit the scope of who can be recognized as a journalist is problematic, it doesn’t have teeth. Guidelines are, well, guidelines. But the report is part of a broader legislative effort in Washington to simultaneously offer protection for the press while narrowing the scope of who is afforded it. Importantly, Congress introduced federal shield bills in May—both ironically named the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013”—that arguably would exclude bloggers, freelancers, and other non-salaried journalists from protection because they are not included within the bills’ narrow definition of who qualifies as a journalist.

If these bills—support for which the White House reaffirmed in its DOJ report—pass without change, Congress effectively will create two tiers of journalists: the institutional press licensed by the government, and everyone else. That’s a pretty flimsy shield if what we are really trying to protect is the free flow of information.

N.C. Paleo-Diet Blogger Wins a Round in Federal Court

Sara Burrows

The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals June 27 reversed a trial judge’s decision to dismiss Charlotte-area “paleo diet” blogger Steve Cooksey’s free speech case.

In October, a U.S. District Court judge in Charlotte threw out Cooksey’s lawsuit, which claimed the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition had violated his freedom of speech by censoring his blog about his Paleolithic or “caveman” diet.

The board went through 19 pages of Cooksey’s website with a red pen, marking out what he could and couldn’t say about his diet. Specifically, the board’s director told Cooksey he could not give any individualized or group-specific dietary advice legally unless he had a license issued by the state. In his case, he was not allowed to tell diabetics what they should and should not eat.

The board then asked him to change and remove portions of his website and made it clear he could face fines and jail time if he did not comply.

Shield Law Sponsor Not Sure Bloggers "Deserve" Free Speech Rights

"You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don't care," says Lindsey Graham (R-SC) but then asks if "they [bloggers] deserve First Amendment protection?" when it comes to classified information.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

J.P. Hicks

Who knew the speech of the media and bloggers wasn't already protected?

The U.S. senate is working on a media shield law that would protect the media against government retaliation for exposing sensitive information.

I thought the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights made it quite clear that all speech was already protected: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the government has been on the rampage to punish whistleblowers who have exposed government crimes, perhaps additional clarity is needed. However, it seems that the politicians are using the media shield law to decide who gets free speech protection and who doesn't.

Soon to be Censored? Blogger and Activist Post Contributor Speaks Out (Video)

Blake Walley, Contributing Writer 
Activist Post



Here are a couple of articles to check out about the bill I’m discussing:

The Persecution of Juan Cole: Bush White House targeted Michigan professor

Photo of Juan Cole: Wiki Commons

Justin Raimondo
Antiwar

The revelation by Glenn Carle, a former CIA official, that the Bush White House sought information on Prof. Juan Cole, an academic and critic of the Iraq war, in order to discredit him is hardly shocking, at least to anyone of my generation. After all, I reached political consciousness during the administration ofRichard M. Nixon, whose hijinks – the Watergate break-in, the infamous COINTELPRO operation – are well known. Less well-known is the long history of police state tactics by previous administrations, running all the way back to FDRand Woodrow Wilson, two wartime presidents who set the pace for their successors.

Sure, now we have laws supposedly forbidding a repeat of history, and yet, existing right alongside these prohibitions, we have legislation like the PATRIOT Act, which empowers the feds to read our emails, monitor our political activities, and pretty much do what it pleases in the name of fighting our endless “war on terrorism.”

Media Bloggers Association Stands Up To Copyright Troll Righthaven

It is unfortunate that Righthaven and the companies it "buys" the copyrighted property from are willing to financially wreck a person, often for mere carelessness as they are attempting to add to the public conversation.

Media Bloggers Association

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Today, the Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") filed its Reply Brief in theRighthaven, LLC v. Hyatt case.  The MBA is opposing Righthaven's attempt to convince the Nevada District Court to award it $150,000 in damages, the domain name for blogger Bill Hyatt's website (1ce.org)  and attorneys' fees.

Hyatt was sued by Righthaven last October after he allegedly copied a Las Vegas Review-Journalcolumn titled "FX's Manly Man Shows Hold Outsider Appeal."  When Hyatt did not respond to the lawsuit, he was defaulted by the court clerk's office.

A default is basically the equivalent of an admission of all liability by the defendant.  If the default is not set aside, the Court will skip the trial on the merits of the copyright claim and proceed directly to a determination of the damages against Hyatt.

Internet Justice: Bloggers Unite in Russia

YouTube -- RT


Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page