Taking Responsibility: How The Sacramento Bee Protected The Hive's Freedom Of Speech

Remember the old controversy over whether or not a news publication should audit its online comments?

About two years ago, the Washington Post ran into just that problem when it literally turned the function off after the usual stock of personal attacks and profanity showed up on its pages. Bloggers were furious, citing a violation of their own virtual First Amendment, and news hounds were appalled that the Post would stifle the voice of its readers.

At the time, washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady wrote, "We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it."

Two years later, the Sacramento Bee might have just figured it out.

A new policy at the Bee requires full names attached with online comments. Old-guard 'netphiles would argue that this ruins the anonymity of the Internet, but in the Bee's eyes, it introduces responsibility. After all, if you're going to take the time to say something, you should take responsibility for it, no?

As a result, the Bee is no longer vetting comments. In this case, that's great -- it rids of the need for such energy and time to do so and gets Bee staffers back on the important stuff: the news. Plus, any time a newspaper steps away from appearing like a God-like authoritative figure ("I am the decider"), that's a good thing.

However, the current worry is that staffers within places like government institutions won't have the freedom to comment without fear of repercussions.

But you know what I say to that? Baloney.

If a government staffer or any other insider has something important to say -- and doesn't want to just correct reader discussion for the sake of it -- he or she should simply e-mail the paper. Allow the paper to take anything important public, under the veil of anonymity. Isn't that what the paper's for?

If the Bee is worried that they won't get any more tips, they should introduce a special tip-off e-mail address that guarantees anonymity -- kind of like how The Consumerist treats its tipsters. If something's important, a well-written article would probably break more news than one comment among hundreds on a story.

So many news agencies are worried about how to handle the citizen masses. "But they'll curse!" they say. "But they'll be racist!" they say. Ah -- but when their name is attached, a digital trail may soon form, and they'll dig their own grave.

But I'm still stuck on this nuance: How exactly will the Bee ensure the use of a legitimate name? Or will this turn into a bunch of flamewars between "Billary Clinton" and "Hick Cheney"? I don't know.

But what I do know is that this action is not an overreaction nor infringing on freedom of speech. I applaud the Bee. If you want your freedom, stand up and claim it. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't guarantee you anonymity with it.

Terrell Owens, The Cold War And How The NFL Limits Reporters' Freedom Of Speech

Like football? The NFL thinks so. In fact, they think you like it so much that they're comfortable setting guidelines for the media on how much NFL-related video they can use on their websites. Forty-five seconds, to be specific. How's that for some Fourth of July cheer? Go, America!

Now that's some gridiron gusto, don't you think?

The NFL has long been draconian over the usage of its footage. That's why you always see the "Property of the NFL" commercial sometime in the third or fourth quarter of the game. But in this case, the NFL wants to move the traffic off sites like ESPN and Sports Illustrated and toward one of the league's 32 team websites.

Notch another one up for frustrated journalists. First Angelina Jolie limits reporters' questions, now the NFL wants to limit how many times you can replay one of T.O.'s verbal attacks.

According to Paul Farhi of the Washington Post: "The policy, announced last month with little fanfare, has frustrated journalists, who say it constricts the public's access to information about the nation's most popular spectator sport. A coalition of news organizations has been quietly lobbying the league for months to change the rule."

As Farhi mentions, the NCAA recently generated controversy for booting a reporter out of the press box at a college baseball playoff game for liveblogging the event (Apparently this violates the NCAA's monopoly on live coverage. I beg to differ, since any paying spectator has the ability to do the same.) And here we go 'round the same track again.

So what's this mean, sports fans and journalists alike? Well, that whole limiting the First Amendment thing, I think. After all, if, say, the Chicago Bears tank this season, how likely do you think they will post less-than-favorable coverage of the team? Even Roger Goodell would admit that's just not right.

Exactly. What the NFL doing is the gridiron equivalent of the White House limiting video coverage of the president to WhiteHouse.gov. And if that were to happen, cries of a dictatorship and Cold War-era propaganda would ensue. But somehow America's most-watched ballgame slipped through undetected. Until now, I guess.

Is the video the NFL's property? Well, not if they didn't take it, in my opinion. Sure, many of the other pro leagues have a ban on game footage, but we're talking about all footage. So if the aformentioned Terrell Owens decides to deck Donovan McNabb in the bread aisle of the supermarket when their teams next meet, reporters won't be able to show it because it's "property" of the NFL.

Last time I checked, the NFL player contracts didn't include signing over your soul. But maybe I missed that.