Blogs "flirting with legitimacy?"

Just as there are many ice cream flavors, there are many ways to view the means and ends of the way things work in American society. Some people, groups, factions, private and public interests, and politicians view the internet and its uses as a beneficial and positive addition to American as well as "global society"; others are leery as to the direction of the various uses of the internet are taking, and see specific parallels between past technological integration and the one taking place today as the internet becomes more and more a part of our daily lives.
There is a school of academics, including Chomsky whom I will cite here, that aren't afraid of the internet, they are interested instead of who will control the internet.
Chomsky's argument basically compares what happened in the US to radio and TV when they were first introduced to the masses and with what happened in Europe when radio and TV were introduced. Unlike in Europe, where these technologies were treated as a public good that at least had part public ownership, radio and TV were made into a privately owned institution.
Who the hell cares? (I just found out that I am allowed to curse on my blog)
Well, this is at close look a delicate situation, because although the radio and TV broadcasting business is a private profit run industry, we can still watch TV and listen to radio for free, so it seems public. I mean, although the Steelers are a privately owned public entertainment organization, I still have to pay for a ticket to see it. Unless I want to watch it on the TV for free.
What this means of course depends on what your favorite flavor of ice cream is. Some would say that this is a perfect marriage made in the free market, that this is the natural way that businesses are run. But then others would say that you only have a choice (even if you pay for TV service) of what you're given (which is actually out of your control). What you make of all this is of course your opinion, but lets take blogs as an example and whats happening right now with them in the legal world.
In the Pittsburgh Post Gazette today (Oct. 4th), there is an article in the Business section on the "legitimacy" of blogging. Again, it depends on your favorite flavor of the definition of "legitimate" in this case, but there are people out there who think that blogging shouldnt be set up the way it is right now. A blogger in Massachusetts is involved in a court case that is attempting to see his blog "banned" from the internet, but not because of what his blog actually says. This persons blog, as the plaintiffs allege, should be banned because of what his blog says is making others others do. Sound weird? Well, its as if someone is saying that I can say what I want, but if what I say makes other people do something that someone doesn't like, then I shouldn't be allowed to say certain things. What do you think this means?
Again, your opinion is your opinion, but the plaintiffs add that if this case succeeds in scrapping this guys blog and other "insurgent" blogs out there, then blogging will be "on the road to legitimacy". What does this do for your definition and idea of what "legitimate" is?

Whats my demographic here? No, seriously.

Well, Im finally a blogger. This is truly a possible way to communicate in a fully democratic manner. Or is it? Or what is that? Or how do you define all of this?
Here we go again.
I might be considered a conundrum, as far as demographics go, on the democracy associated with blogging. Heres my breakdown. I am a white male who is a professional student and I come from a lower middle class family....so far a pretty common demographic in America. I have access to computers....through school and the public library. I dont own a computer. I have no home internet access. I would assume that most white male grad students have a least a desktop computer that is connected to the internet, and that grad students in general-no matter what race-have a computer at their house.
I wonder what this means as far as gauging how many people have access, or know about blogging. Maybe the same proportion as the number of citizens in Athens who voted as opposed to those living in the city didnt?
I dont know. It seems to me that discussing the level of democracy in blogging (and a lot of other facets of society) is completely a theoretical and abstract discussion. The article on ICANN that we just read (as well as every other take on how "democratic" something is) is essentially an argument of parameters, definitions, and demographics- Which is boring and not socially uplifting-like democracy should be-dag-gummit. Wait. Can I curse in here? It's my blog right? Will I get blog-evicted or warned or ticketed for abusing the use of my blog? Anyhoo, thats a topic for another blog.

So long for now

Jason