Nill of Rights

Jeff Jarvis raises some interesting questions about journalistic rights and how they apply to bloggers and other citizens. This comes after 24-year old blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned for refusing to testify and hand over to prosecutors his video of a San Francisco protest, claiming that the video is his private journalistic source material — begging once again the question of what constitutes a journalist.

Jarvis makes the point that it shouldn’t be journalists who are protected, but rather the act of journalism. Now that anyone can deliver news to the world, we could all qualify. But would that mean that anyone could refuse to testify concerning any crime, so long as they blogged about it?

It seems to me that the Constitutional right to freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak.

Blogging optional.

That would drive a bulldozer right through the front door of our legal system, now wouldn’t it?