The Internet and Steady Vigilance

The U.S. Constitution is a living document.  It has to be, because things like the internet were not present when the original document was written.  How the first amendment (and rights generally) apply to the modern world is something that must develop over time.  Eternal vigilance is required because the world is changing, and threats to liberty come from new directions.  In any case, I am interested in free speech around the world, not only in the United States.

The situation here is explained well in "Am I Making Myself Clear: A Scientists Guide to Talking to the Public" (by New York Times writer Cornelia Dean Amazon).

Beginning in the 1960s, the Supreme Court expanded the First Amendment's prohibition of government interference with the news media.  Far from merely prohibiting government "prior restraint" — blocking journalists from giving their news — the Court embraced the idea that free and robust news media were crucial for democracy.  As a result, it protected news media from libel suits unless journalists' actions were dishonest or flagrantly negligent.

The result is a media environment unique in the world, one in which the press is unusually free.  Libel laws are construed to give responsible journalists a pass if, through an honest mistake, they defame a government official or other person involved, willingly or not, in an issue of public importance.  The Court reasoned that penalizing journalists for honest mistakes would stifle their reporting.  

Cornelia Dean's book is not about freedom of the press (it is about science writing), but the synopsis I quoted is a very nice summary.  One point that it raises is that rights are in conflict.  She continues

And so, in the United States, there is no national union of journalists to which we must belong, no licensing authority, no nothing.  In effect, people are journalists if they declare themselves to be journalists.¹ As a journalist, I embrace this press freedom. But it comes at a price. Innocent people who suffer from journalist's innocent mistakes may have little recourse. The absence of licensing requirements for reporters means that people can report on whatever they want, whether they know anything about it or not. The result can be incompetent reporting.

To what extent do press freedoms extend citizen bloggers? (Her footnote is to Scott Gant's "We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age").  To what extent is privacy necessary to free speech on the internet?  Do the biggest threats to internet freedom come from governments?  From internet service providers?  From other corporations?  The internet has replaced the press, but it is not the same thing.  I am interested in how this plays out over time.