This time it's Jacksonville, Florida.

Glass half empty -- another example of authorities used by an influential local to prosecute a  local blogger critical of him.

Glass half full -- we're approaching the liklihood of a Peter Zenger case for bloggers. 

This time it is even scarier.  This time a blogger was simply critical of the new pastor of a Church he had attended.  The pastor asked the local police to investigate, and -- by some strange coincidence -- the policeman in charge of the investigation was also a member of the Church's security detail.

The pastor made claims of some petty offenses supposedly occuring at his church that, he claimed, had occurred after the blog began.  To quote the paper "The Rev. John Blount,  executive pastor of administration, said he contacted Hinson directly regarding increased "vitriol" on the blog about the same time mail was stolen from the Brunson home and someone was surreptitiously photographing Brunson's wife. Also, someone had contacted vendors lined up for the church's annual pastors' conference and made critical remarks about Brunson to them, Blount said."

This complaint enabled the investigator to get a warrant that forced Google to reveal the name of the blogger.  (Two other bloggers were also investigated.  Apparently, their names have not been revealed, they did not focus on the Church, though they may have linked to the main 'target of the investigation.')  The policemen never contacted any of the blogers, and reported that there was no evidence of criminal activity. 

At this point, despite the questions of conflict of interest, it is possible to argue that nothing had been done over the line.  Certainly a polie department has the right to investigate breaches of the peace, and I don't think any of us who have seen some of the dangerous blogs of religious terrorists, home and abraod, would want a flat-out ban on such investigations.  Of course, looking at what I have seen of the blog, a further case can be made that the investigation should have been dismissed about .279 seconds after the complaint was filed on the grounds that the blog was merely critical and hardly inciiting.

But that moves the question to 'where do you draw the line' -- worth investigating, but the next step was clearly so far over it that we can defer that discussion to a later story.  Because, having discovered and reported that there was no evidence of any criminal activity, the policeman then reported the blogger's name to the pastor.

Now, fortunately, the only action taken -- at least so far -- against the blogger has been an order of trespass against him keeping him and his family from the Church they had attended for many years.  There has been none of the type of police action taken in my last post, none of the danger that AKMuckraker was placed in.

There is much more to the background that is findable in either of the cites listed above.  I will repeat none of the charges against the pastor that the blog made, but I will quote two statements on it.  First the blogger's explanation for why he chose to remain anonymous:

Why anonymous blogging? I preferred to blog anonymously so as not to draw attention to myself, or make the discussion about me personally. I decided to focus on what I saw and heard, and to give a voice to those things I considered abusive. I never wanted the blog to be distracted by who I was, or make myself the issue. And of course self-preservation played a role - some who criticize my anonymity have anonymously called that "cowardice" - but if not wanting my wife and kids to feel the pain of having their husband and dad ridiculed as a troublemaker at their beloved church is cowardice, then so be it.

And then some of the local politics (and intertwining of religion, politics and business) that he sees behind it:

As it turns out, as I have learned in very recent days and as reported by Jeff Brumley, the lengths to which the church has gone to identify me and intimidate me and silence me confirmed my fears! The church leadership did indeed seek to silent a vocal dissent - a man who saw questionable things going on at the church and demanded accountability and demanded answers on a blog caused all of the power and influence that was at the disposal of the big church downtown - the wealthy pastor, the retired and respected circuit judge, even a few long-time staffers and even JSO officials who go to the church - they all rose to action to find out who this blogger was. It was well known in the congregation that Mac wanted to know my identity so the blog could be shut down, and they had finally had enough and wanted to shut it down.

Again, so far as the most prominent recent cases go, the bloggers, seem, at initial look at least, to be 'in the right.'  Certainly AKM's blogging has been provably right in all of her attacks on The Baroness Munchhausen, there is certainly evidence that the police corruption the Phoenix blogger exposed was real, and the tone of the current blog is hardly the angry tone or over the top language that could be used as an even slightly justified cause for the complaint against him

That doesn't matter.  This is getting to be too much of a pattern, and someone, perhaps one of these bloggers, will have to become the Peter Zenger of blogging.  Perhaps it would even be better if it wasn't one of these, but someone whose blogging is less credible, even provably less accurate.  (After all, both Zenger and the Minnesota paper that led the way in extending the freedom of the press to the states were not defended on the grounds of accuracy, nor, perhaps, could they have been.)

I'd like to ask those people reading this a simple question, since discussion is even better than recommendation.  What line would you draw?  If there is going to be a 'Zenger decision for bloggers,' what should it be?