Kathlyn Clore

Two stories surfaced in the national American press this weekend that appeared to call into question the concept of free speech.

The first and more lively issue, speech on social networking platforms, reveals itself to involve a question of ethics and protocol rather than free speech. But the second issue, limits on corporations’ ability to campaign for specific politicians around election times, does seem to involve issues of free speech.

First, the issue of free speech on social media platforms. In an article I read in Sunday’s New York Times, the right of members of the U.S. court system to speak about their work on social networking platforms was questioned.

Citing an incident in Florida in which a lawyer blogged about a judge who he and his colleagues believed to be improperly delaying cases, The New York Times article acknowledges that when individuals become a member of the court system, they willingly give up the right to brashly criticize the court in public.

Still, it’s seems to me that the Florida lawyer who posted nasty comments about a judge for whom he didn’t think blogging about the issue was really out of line.

To broaden the issue, the article continues:

Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, sees many more missteps in the future, as young people who grew up with Facebook and other social media enter a profession governed by centuries of legal tradition.

“Twenty-somethings have a much-reduced sense of personal privacy,” Professor Gillers said. Younger lawyers are, predictably, more comfortable with the media than their older colleagues, according to a recent survey for LexisNexis, the legal database company: 86 percent of lawyers ages 25 to 35 are members of social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace, as opposed to 66 percent of those over 46. For those just out of law school, “this stuff is like air to them,” said Michael Mintz, who manages an online community for lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell Connected. ”

Indeed - as my generation continues to develop professionally, what will the speech standards be on social media site?

To be sure, clamping down on social networking isn’t just an issue in the United States. Swiss bureaucrats have been asked to limit their social networking activities.

I do think that certain professions should require more decorum in social networking sites than others. It’s not like anyone forces you to be a lawyer or civil servant (OK, maybe your mother.)

Conclusion: Not a free speech issue.

Second: Limits on the ability of corporations and unions to campaign during election season.

For background, it’s best to just read this Wall Street Journal story.

The Supreme Court must decide if current limits on corporations - which are, it seems, under constitutional law treated like a person - and unions violate their free speech.

I very much like new justice Sandra Sotomayor’s take on this: Questioning if corporations should indeed be treated like a person. I am surprised that they are, actually, and don’t think they should be.

But I also think the quote in the article from justice Anthony Kennedy gets at the heart of the matter: “…that limiting corporate spending on campaign ads deprived voters of the expertise business brings to many subjects. ‘Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election,’ he told Ms. Kagan [who was arguing in front of the court].”

Conclusion: As much as I think this is ridiculous in practice, as a free speech advocate I think that until corporations and unions are no longer granted the status of individuals, they should be able to campaign as vigorously as they want for candidates in their constituencies.

The Brookings Institution released a report Monday examining how close Americans live to their jobs:

“In almost every major industry, jobs shifted away from the city center between 1998

and 2006. Of 18 industries analyzed, 17 experienced employment decentralization. Transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, utilities, and real estate and rental and leasing showed the greatest increases in the share of jobs located more than 10 miles away from downtown.”

I think this is a bad thing for newsgatherers. In fact, it would be interesting to study the downward trend in newspaper subscriptions to see if it lines up with this trend (of course, the proliferation of the Internet is likely to line up too, also a big contributor).

Most Americans who live more than a mile away from their jobs are likely going to work by car. And this transport time means less time in which to consume content. That’s for sure bad for newsgatherers, especially considering the ratcheted up battle for eyeballs in today’s attention economy.

There are obvious environmental (and perhaps economic) benefits to living close to work. There are environmental and economic benefits to building more public transportation infrastructure.

I would argue that these benefits would extend to content creators.

Further, after a read of the data in this report I would guess that in the past 10 years, newsgatherers themselves have become more likely to live away from the city centers of the communities they cover.

Is that good or bad? Depends on your perspective… If more of the general population is also living away from the center, I guess it’s good that the people who cover their communities also live “out”. But I also think living out of the center is a less connected experience.

I am back in the United States this month after being away since July, 2007.

And as far as I can see from my parents’ home in suburban Chicago: the state of the news media in the US has, to put it as nicely as I can, gone to shit.

- The Chicago Tribune has been horribly gutted. The paper has narrowed in size and increased its font size, thus lessening its news hole. It’s also increased the size of its mastheads, further decreasing news hole. And the story selection is really the pits. One day last week, Page 3 of the front section was dedicated to a “Gee, aren’t lots of people using Twitter?” story. Prime real estate given to prime fluff…

And I notice a lot of “postcard” and fluffy fun pieces similar to what we were doing at The Island Packet when I worked there two years ago. Have journalists no fresh ideas on how to interest readers while simultaneously informing them?

- I have no idea what’s going on in the world if I rely on the Chicago Tribune and CNN. I have been looking at both for at least 30 minutes per day, in all, and I had no idea about the recent

upheaval in Northern Ireland or the school shootings in Germany until I came online.

- The state of broadcast journalism here is deplorable. Why is CNN dedicating so much time to a story about domestic violence in the life of a pop star? And so much time on Rush Limbaugh (wow, he does not like Democrats… Big Scoop!) And why is there so much fear mongering in the stories about gangs and Mexico?

- Also, why do I have to head over to Comedy Central to see an interviewer ask difficult questions? Jon Stewart is earning a lot of credit for his interviews of financial journalists while Anderson Cooper is on CNN talking about (again!) Rihanna.

- Things on TV have gotten simpler: On Wolf Blitzer’s situation room show tonight, there was a “story” about American vice president Joe Biden appearing in front of Amtrak trains and speaking about what a good thing it is for the rail systems to get bailout money (agreed). The story showed Biden talking about rail projects, showed a map of the railroad corridors that will benefit most (those in the northeast) and then flipped to an interview with a congressman from Oklahoma calling the project one of special interests. And then Blitzer changed the subject to another “story”.

Why is this worthy of being considered journalism? I learned nothing from the piece. There are reporters on YouTube who provide more angles.

I think CNN could learn a lot from its international department, which actually devotes time to world news (and less to Rihanna).

And the Chicago Tribune? I don’t know if there are even enough reporters or editors left employed there to have time to learn from anyone.