You can't mean that

I haven't read any of what I'm sure is the extensive blogospheric commentary on it (NY Times Op-ed on blogging equals lots of posts), nor have I taken any course specifically on employment law. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, Jeremy Blachman think that bloggers should have an employment status just as if they were a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Since the default employment is at-will, Blachman's argument that "employers [should have to] show actual harm, if they are firing someone because of her Weblog" basically means they should be treated as if they all actions against bloggers are suspect, giving them the kind of protection that anti-discrimination law gives to groups against which gender or racial discrimination is considered likely. That's just weird.