Last week I asked what I considered a sarcastic question:

Are doctrines of Constitutional Law henceforth to be driven by network ratings?

Beware of humor, folks; yesterday's jokes have a way of becoming today's law.

As most denizens of the Internet or the blogosphere know, there's no simple way to draw a line between "bloggers" and "journalists." Bloggers are journalists by definition, and many journalists are also bloggers. The difference between any of the top bloggers and, say, Charles Krauthammer is mainly in where they're published, and even there, the line is becoming indistinguishable. Most hard copy journalists are available online, and bloggers routinely "cross over" to "off line" journalism. The Internet is simply a medium.

So I don't think the legal approach is going to take the form of a "let's regulate blogs" approach so much as it would likely consist of a size-based litmus test based on the amount of attention the blog gets.

No one, for example, cares about a college student starting up a Blog for Dean or a Blog for Bush. But let that same student's readership level hit the 10,000 a day mark (chosen arbitrarily -- which is what laws do), and the usual suspects will begin screaming about "fairness."

I think it will come down to bandwidth, which consists of numbers. Something like that has a definable, assignable value, and is capable of metering and regulation, just as much as is money. (To "follow the money" simply "follow the hits.")

Considering that political speech has now been defined as money (and everything -- even sexual speech -- is now political), AND as a "contribution," if that speech draws a certain amount of listeners, then it can literally be said to have a certain value. McCain-Feingold, unfortunately, has already been held constitutional (and I have warned last year that it could be applied to blogs), so the only thing left to do is what the regulatory bastards are already set up to do: DRAW THE LINE. The greater the traffic, the more it's regulated.

So in answer to my question, "Are doctrines of constitutional law to be determined by ratings," the answer seems to be a sickening YES.

I wonder what the founders would say about the price of "free" speech.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: I don't think the dynamics of ambition and the human ego will escape the attention of those wielding regulatory power. Many a blogger would, I fear, be more than willing to wear the badge of government regulation. Not as a stigma, but as a badge of honor, of officialdom!

Of (dare I say it?) power!

Why, the regulators could even encourage this mindset in clever promotional mailings....

"As a highly visited blogger, you're a shaper of public opinion!"

"A very powerful position to be in!"

"With power goes responsibility!"

I could almost write such garbage for the bastards.

AND MORE: The above principle is of course called "DIVIDE AND CONQUER." A bit like the tax code.... "I should be so lucky as to be in a higher tax bracket!" etc.

(Doh.)