While most people who care about the Dickie Scruggs sentence tomorrow are more focused on how much they love/hate the lawyer and the case, Slater at the WSJ Law Blog has pulled a gem out of the middle of the mess for those of us in the practical blawgosphere.

While media outlets were busily trying to get their hands on the letters of support provided by Dickie’s friends (remember the hoopla about the letters when Mel Weiss was on the chopping block?) after the letters were held tight to the vest by the court.  This, of course, was totally unacceptable, as it denied the press the opportunity to find out who was backing leniency for Dickie and then make fun of them.

As is often the case leading up to criminal sentencing, letters supporting Scruggs and asking for leniency have been pouring into the chambers of the judge presiding over the case, Neal Biggers. But until today, we had no idea what the letters said; unlike those submitted in the cases involving Bill Lerach and Mel Weiss, the letters concerning Scruggs had been kept private.

That is, until the Mississippi press got involved. Several news organizations filed motions with Judge Biggers, arguing that the letters were of public interest and that they should be allowed to see them.

Fair enough, since that’s what the press is supposed to do.  Courts are public.  Letters submitted to judges to influence their decision should be public as well.  And if you don’t want the press to get their hands on your intimate thoughts about Dickie, then don’t write a letter.  Otherwise, whatever you offer a judge in the execution of his public function is part of the record.

But there was a little finger in the mighty fist of the media that merits further attention.

Judge Biggers ruled in favor of the pubs, which included the blog folo. (From the Law Blog Blogger Victory of the Day: “The court has been advised by readers of the blog Folo that [folo writer Tom Freeland] has been exceptionally thorough, energetic and accurate in his writings on this case and the court will and does hereby make an exception for his status as a blogger and allows him equal credentials with the traditional press in this matter.)

Say what?  A blogger?  A blogger is worthy of “equal credentials with the traditional press?”  And so comes the good news, and the bad. 

The fact that Judge Biggers gave Tom Freeland of folo the time of day is big.  This is a recognition that blawgs exist and, maybe, just maybe, carry sufficient weight to make it onto the radar.  Given the general view that the blawgosphere is the home of lunatic rantings of people with too much time on their hands, recognition like this is an important first step to legitimacy for those who earn it with their thoughtful and incisive coverage of significant legal events and issues.

But now the bad news.  Judge Biggers recognizes Tom Freeland because of his “exceptionally thorough, energetic and accurate in his writings on this case.”  Now if a blawg is anything close to the equivalent of the traditional press, what gives Judge Biggers the right to pass judgment on the quality of the blawg before deigning to recognize it as worthy?  If a judge thinks the New York Times’ coverage of a case sucks, can he deny the rag access as being unworthy?  Not on your life. 

The exercise of the First Amendment freedom of the press does not depend on meeting the approval of a judge as to the worthiness of reporting.  He doesn’t have to like it, admire it or consider it particularly energetic.  It doesn’t have to meet any judges’ approval.  But apparently, not so for blawgs.

So while Judge Biggers has ordained folo worthy of traditional press treatment, he has made clear that such an honor is a privilege, not a right.  Only if a blawg meets the judge’s standards will it receive such a concession, which means that any blawg that doesn’t will wallow in the gutter of the practical blawgosphere. 

It also caught my eye that Judge Biggers largess was bestowed only on folo, and there’s no mention of any other blawgs that have followed the Dickie Scruggs case in minute detail.  Could that be because some other blawg has lost interest in Dickie and couldn’t be bothered to gain access to the supporting letters, or because they didn’t meet Judge Biggers criteria for worthiness?