Personally, I think the “mainstream media” push for “special constitutional protections” may be related to this.

I posit the media types may want protections from lawyers pushing them. However, with constitutional protection in place, they may also gain traction to push out those who do not “qualify according to mainstream media sponsored constitutional stipulations.” Some have said the constitutional protections could become a tool to use as an in, for legal measures to seriously impair, if not stop bloggers & internet junkies in their tracks. Sounds far-fetched, but…..

There are reports that some in Congress, with a little encouragement from the mainstream media, are already discussing another McCain-Feingold type measure. Apparently it might include additional particular emphasis on the internet & blogsphere, if not directly target those medium.

If “mainstream media” could gain legal credibility through special constitutional protections, it might be possible to petition for legislation (or some bizarre judicial ruling??), from bloggers & Internet junkies.
This may be a remote possibility, but few outside the political sphere really understood the effect McCain-Feingold would have.

Consider this, SCOTUS gave abortion legal credibility through Roe v. Wade. Opponents were upset w/ Roe, so they protested. Proponents subsequently petitioned for legal protection from opponents (protesters). RICO was used very effectively. That is, until RICO was pooh-poohed by a recent SCOTUS decision.

I think there was an old adage, “if you can’t beat em, beat em up!”

It’s happening at Krempasky’s blog, and (primarily) at On Tap. Krempasky postulates: Traditional (read: career) reporters who have never had a “run-in” with bloggers are a lot like the wide-eyed college kid who still drinks tequila. Traditional repor…