Blogger Press Freedom Under Attack in Massachusetts

Adding (0.00 / 0)

Half the time, I don't even like EBIII's stuff. He'd never last here; he's snarky to the point of mean at times, and delights in being offensive.

But it's always the case: they go after the jerks. Freedom means freedom to be a jerk.

I think could go national.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 16:18:19 PM CDT

slight digression about Ernie Bloch & the band Boston (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't say it was "a joke as recognizable as the Sons of Sam Horn, a Red Sox blog."  It would be plausible for Ernie Bloch Jr. to have a son Ernie Bloch III. Bloch Jr. has a case.

I have been involved in a tangentially Bloch-related net-kerfuffle, BTW.  I have been editing the wikipedia article "Boston (band)" about the cheesy yet awesome 70s rock band Boston (who actually are still very much in existence.)  

Boston was founded by Tom Scholz & the late Brad Delp (Atkinson, NH's very own Brad Delp!)- as well as two other musicians: Jim Masdea and Barry Goudreau.  I tried to write Goudreau (whom Scholz hates) back into the band's history- and also fix the story of how Masdea left the band just as they were signing a deal with Epic/CBS Records.  (Masdea evidently quit because he was tired of being in the band and because he mistakenly thought the record deal was a dead end.  Scholz says either the record label or the managers "insisted" that he be dismissed.)

Someone who works for Scholz slammed me pretty hard and reverted every edit I made.  I am wondering if Scholz will sue me.  The connection between Scholz & Ernie Bloch is that Goudreau and Bloch  are now the co-leaders of the popular local band Ernie and the Automatics.  I bet there is some way we could get someone to provoke Scholz, who has sued everyone connected to Goudreau at some point since 1980, into suing "Ernie Bloch III."  We just have to convince him that Ernie Bloch III is connected to Goudreau...

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 17:10:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No he doesn't (0.00 / 0)

Ernie Boch Jr. is in his 30s or early 40s. EBIII is clearly older than that, often writing about political events that occurred in the 1980s. They could be the same age, but it's not plausible for a regular reader to think he is his son.

It's one of the blog things -- those who know, know.

But, like I said below, the name "Ernie Boch III" has been around for a while, and there's just no way that Ernie Boch Jr. (who gets around town pretty well, it seems) hasn't known about him for a long time now.

Now, would I use a name like that? No -- but if it wasn't a problem last week, why is it a problem this week?

---

by: JimC @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 17:18:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Boch Jr (4.00 / 1)

Ernie Boch Jr. is 51 years old, and he actually does have have a son named Ernie Boch III.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 09:37:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

I stand corrected.

I can't confirm that, but I'll take your word for it.

BMG should not have allowed him to use the name, in that case.

But that horse is long out of the barn, and I still think it's an obvious joke, and I still stand by everything I've said in this thread.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 10:27:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

An area of dispute (0.00 / 0)

I don't mean to belabor this, but there seems to be some disagreement on it. For the sake of the record, do you have a source?

---

by: JimC @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:08:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I sourced it from Boston.com & its dead tree edition, the Boston Globe (4.00 / 1)

The existence of a real Ernie Boch III was verified in a webchat he did for Boston.com on Presidents Day 2008:

http://www.boston.com/cars/new...

His age is verified from a Boston Globe op-ed he wrote on January 29, 2006, where he says he was 16 years old in 1974 when he gt his first car:

http://www.boston.com/cars/new...

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:33:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JimC @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:34:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well.... (4.00 / 2)

The poster has the right to free speech under a nom d'blog, but doesn't Mr. Bloch also have the right of free speech to offer a reward?  I don't like Carr, and don't know anything about either Bloch III or Ernie Bloch, Jr., but just to use your argument, just because they are jerks doesn't mean they don't have the right to their own freedom of expression. If it is free press for the poster to use an assumed name, isn't it also free press for Carr to promote Bloch's reward offer?




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 16:42:17 PM CDT

Beyond jerkiness (0.00 / 0)

Freedom of the press would certainly include encouraging harassment. Offering to compensate the harrassers is another matter, in my opinion.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 16:46:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What would you do? (0.00 / 0)

That is not a snarky question, I am curious.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 16:48:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can answer that (4.00 / 4)

Howie Carr has harshly and unfairly criticized both my brother and my mother over the years.

We did nothing. Nada. Nyet. Zilcho.

Apparently Howie can dish it out, but not take it.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 16:51:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

at least he hasn't attacked your dog (4.00 / 1)

yet

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 22:14:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adding (0.00 / 0)

This isn't about me. It's about an attack on the right ... well, the right to blog.

No one, but no one, ever thought for one minute that "Ernie Boch III" was related to "Ernie Boch Jr." He may as well have called himself Billy Bulger III.

How do I know this? Because EBIII has been a consistent presence on BMG since I've known about it, three years ago. (A few weeks ago, he used the term "faggy" to universal derision.)

But when does Ernie Boch Jr. decide he is a problem? When EBIII calls for a boycott of Howie Carr advertisers. Guess who one of those advertisers is.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 17:11:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What would I do? (4.00 / 2)

Two hits: Bresler smacks Carr. Carr hits the floor.

ALL HAIL THE EMPEROR!

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 17:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Carr got nuthin' n/t (0.00 / 0)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 22:16:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come On Down ! (4.00 / 3)

Ernie Boch Sr. was one of the original local TV pitchmen. He worked very hard to make his name instantly recognizable.

Maybe Jr. has a gripe with his dad over turning the family name into a brandname - though calling his band "Ernie and the Automatics" makes him an accomplice in the whole venture. But Boch has no standing to claim that EB3 is somehow invading his personal space. That space has been used for billboards for two generations.

---
But if we dismiss that aspect, is the exposure campaign clearly a violation of the spirit of the First, or wrong in any other way?

Here are some thought tests:

1. Would it have been wrong for the NY Post to offer $5000 to anyone who could expose the identity of Anonymous, the author or Primary Colors?
2. Was it wrong for Novak to identify Valerie Plame as the agent who suggested Joe Wilson for his assignment?
3. If someone posts a vitriolic attack on Governor Lynch or on Ray Buckley in the Union Leader under a pseudonym (I know, never happen) would it be wrong for either to encourage people to expose the person behind the pseudonym? Does offering a reward change things?

BTW, I recommend choosing pseudonyms associated with the safely dead. (What's that about an angry rabbit at the door, dear?)

---

by: elwood @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 17:45:55 PM CDT

How Dowdy of You... n/t (0.00 / 0)

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 18:47:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I read that as "Howdy Doody" (4.00 / 2)

the first coupla times. Then Curt Gowdy came into play.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 19:08:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pretty far afield, (4.00 / 1)

but I am with you all the way on that train of thought. Frightening, really.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 19:29:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gawd awful n/t (4.00 / 1)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 22:18:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Freedom of the Press... (4.00 / 1)

At first I was kind of conflicted over whether this really would constitute a violation of freedom of the press but after thinking about it I agree that it is.  Unless Mr. Boch has a really good explanation of why he is trying to forcibly obtain this information it would appear that the only real reason he could be trying to find out who the blogger is, is to intimidate or otherwise apply pressure to him for speaking his political opinion.

It seems, though, that you could do a really interesting sting operation trying to find out if EB, Jr. is ready to pay for EBIII to be outed via illegal means.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:50:10 AM CDT

The prohibition on impinging on the freedom of the press (4.00 / 2)

applies to the agents of government.  Individuals are as free to impinge as they like.
The Constitution enumerates those human rights which the agents of government are most likely to be inclined to restrain and explicitly states, "Don't do it."

The Bill of Rights is a misnomer and contributes to confusion by implying that what are clearly prohibitions on one party are granting rights to another party.  Conservatives go one step further and propose that these rights, which haven't been granted, can actually be removed without contest.

Funny what a big difference lies between "limited government" and "limiting government."

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:56:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Legal status? (0.00 / 0)

I'm having difficulty telling whether you're talking about how the law regarding press freedom actually works or if you're expressing your opinion about the circumstance in which the press utilizes their freedom.

Per Wikipedia the UN's Declaration of Human Rights says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"; so that formulation at least appears to be concerned with things other than strictly the government's influence on the press.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:47:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights has no legal standing (0.00 / 0)

in the U.S. in the sense of being enforceable.  We're not even enforcing the convention against torture.  Human rights only exist to the extent that they are respected and honored by someone else.  Abstract principles don't keep people from getting killed.

The law, btw, doesn't "work" at all.  People either follow the law and enforce it against those who don't, or not.  Moreover, the law, as it applies to the agents of government and individuals, is different.  The law enables or mandates behavior for government agents; it prohibits the anti-social behavior of individuals.

What Bush/Cheney tried to argue was that they had the authority to mandate individual behavior even as they ignored the mandate they had from the Constitution.  And now the Congress is trying to mandate that individuals hand over money to the insurance companies.  

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:43:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay, so... (0.00 / 0)

That bit about freedom of the press not applying to anyone besides the government is something you completely made up to illustrate some point, right?  If you're saying "the law doesn't work" then I'm guessing you aren't talking about any actual adjudication or application of the Constitutional freedom of the press.  Your response there was not very clarifying.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 20:08:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Constitution addresses the behavior of agents of (0.00 / 0)

government and says, "don't interfere with the press," presumably because writing is just the hard copy of speech, a uniquely human attribute.

How do we respond to agents of government who violate that prohibition?  That's the problem.  Justice Scalia's suggestion is that we just remove them from office.
Of course, if the behavior is grossly detrimental, an individual can bring a law suit in court.  And, subsequent to the Federal Tort Claims Act, individual agents/office holders can be found personally liable, if they weren't acting under orders.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:26:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I listened to (4.00 / 5)

Howie Carr for a few minutes the other day in my car.

I noticed how full of glee he was over Chicago not getting the Olympics.

His callers, one after the other, seemed like just the kind of MA folks who move up here in the southern tier to add to the NHGOP (you know, contrary to the myth that MA is turning us "blue"). They were full of glee too.

Why do Howie Carr and his listeners hate America?  And can his followers please stay in his own state if they're going to be the America Last crowd?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:26:06 AM CDT

he's big (4.00 / 1)

in Nashachusetts...they spend all day stuck in cars and he gives vent to some kind of anger that's akin to road rage...just a pet theory

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 08:26:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What they hate is equality. As long as America is the land (0.00 / 0)

of the exceptional and superior over all, they're OK with it.
The only explanation I've been able to come up with is that we've got a large population of very insecure people who desperately need to compensate for their feelings of impotence.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:47:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Joan Vennochi weighs in (0.00 / 0)

Kudos to Joan for weighing in, and a boo for pushing the anonymity angle.

LOVE HIM or hate him, Howie Carr puts his name over his rantings.

That's not true of the blogger on Bluemassgroup.com who called upon readers to boycott Carr's WRKO radio show and its advertisers.

This is a false equivalence. Everyone in journalism wants a column; a column is the bully pulpit where you are freed from the restrictions placed on reporters. Describing the signing of the column as a burden (or in this case, the hosting of the radio show) is like saying a politician would be happier just doing their job without public recognition. It's nonsense.

Ernie's reply is quite good:

"Ernie Boch III is a character created to express opinion. Anonymity of its author is a red herring when the opinions are not such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, and are based on fact. The anonymity allows the author freedom from being handcuffed by outside attack if his or her writings gain a following. It is the words within the four corners of the writing that count. Not who the author is. If there are any biases they do not matter when non-biased people agree with the opinion based on facts."

---

by: JimC @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:33:20 AM CDT

Anonymity isn't that simple (4.00 / 1)

I actually don't agree with what Ernie Boch III says there.  Someone's identity provides a material context to their statements.  It would be very important if, for example, Ernie Boch III was a competitor to Howie Carr with his own talk show (not that I think he is).

Although it's not his name that matters in that case, it would be enough for him to accompany his writing with the disclosure that he was a competitor.  I, for example, try to mention that I'm not a member of a political party, nor an official or employee of a party, nor a elected public official when I'm writing about political stuff on the web, if it seems appropriate or if someone remarks on my pseudonymity.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:56:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll buy that (4.00 / 1)

But Ernie's right, in his case.

I think -- I really have no idea who he is -- that he uses anonymity to protect his sources. I think he worked on the Hill, but is now in the private sector. All speculation.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 10:32:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One the matter of disclosure (0.00 / 0)

Ernie's BMG bio:

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/u...

Email:  ernieboch3@hotmail dot com

Bio:
Ernie Boch, III is not related to Ernie Boch, Jr. however he does expect to be in his will.

I can't vouch for how long that disclosure has been there. His signature now includes a disclaimer, though, and that's new.

 

---

by: JimC @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 10:37:20 AM CDT

Grant Bosse (4.00 / 1)

takes up the matter.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:16:46 AM CDT

Well, now (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Bosse equates the two acts, the boycott call and the call for the reward.

I could quibble with several of Mr. Bosse's points, but this line jumped out.

It's a slimy thing to do, but certainly not illegal.

He's referring to the bounty there. "Certainly not illegal" is, in my opinion, well below the infringement standard. It's not like we have to put people in protective bubbles, but it's fiscal assault to put a bounty on someone's private life.

He has a curtain metaphor that he then switches to a public park.

Discovering the identity of anonymous bloggers may be considered bad form in the blogosphere, but it's certainly not a threat to free speech. They have a right to shout from behind the curtain, and I have a right to peak behind the curtain. Why should my rights yield to the anonymous blogger? Privacy? Certainly not. You can't walk through a public park and then forbid everyone else from looking at you.

Let's stick to the curtain example -- the blogger is yelling at someone on stage! The blogger may be walking through the park, but the target of the criticism is staging Two Gentlemen of Verona ... or perhaps a stage rendition of Tango and Cash.

One more thing.

JimC seems to think that the act of criticism itself shields the anonymous blogger from counter-criticism, or from his targets wanting to know more about who's attacking them.

No. No no no. The person cheerleading is protected too; it's just, by an odd coincidence, those people don't get complained about.

There's that word "attack" again, used far too casually.

Finally, why not respond to what's being sad, without need of knowing more? The charge is the charge; if it has no weight, that should play itself out.

What would knowing the person's identity be for? What rhetorical purpose is served? Sure, you can then impugn or intimidate them, but that is not the point, is it?

Thanks for weighing in, Grant!

---

by: JimC @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:19:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Psst, Dean (0.00 / 0)

What's a colloquy? I'll look it up later ...

---

by: JimC @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:20:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not Dean, but... (4.00 / 2)

A colloquy is a formal conversation; a conference.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:11:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Colloquy. (4.00 / 1)

The prefix col-, the last consonant assimilated into the stem from the original con-, which is the same as the preposition cum, or "together."

-loquy, from the deponent verb loquor, loqui, locutus sum, or "to speak".

Thus, colloquy, a "speaking together."

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 18:16:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Minor update (0.00 / 0)

I feel like linking to this is lose-lose, but apparently Ernie lurked here and objected to my use of the term jerk.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/d...

I'll admit that I have sharper elbows at Blue Mass Group, but otherwise I think I'm pretty consistent. It's a more gladiatorial place, and not in a good way.

The guy is really something. I think he's jerking my proverbial chain, but I can never be sure.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 20:54:43 PM CDT