Slashdot Mirror
Online Journalism Same As Print/TV
jeffy124 writes "The NY State Supreme Court has ruled that online journalists have the same rights/protection as do print and television journalists in issues of public importance. The decision comes from the case of National Bank of Mexico v. Narconews.com, which last year reported that the bank's then-president was involved with narcotics trafficking. The bank claimed the allegations were fabricated and demanded the story be retracted. The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment, referring to the case NY Times v. Sullivan, the case that gave freedom of the press." Update: 12/12 16:23 GMT by T : gregorovius writes with a correction: "Banamex is a private bank that has no relationship whatsoever with the National Bank of Mexico, which is our government's FED equivalent. It must be noted that from some months ago Banamex is not even a Mexican bank; it's an American bank that operates in Mexico, being owned in its entirety by Citigroup."
Discrimination based on the method of dissemination was bogus. Love live the Net.
What, me worry?
After all the previous rulings on the first amendment that seemed to hurt more than help finally one supports it.
Just one insight though: this ruling doesnt effect any corporation that doesnt pay taxes to the us goverment. could that of influenced the decision?
--theKiyote
Publicity is to Freedom as code is to OpenSource ;)
python >>>
reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
Did a legal precedent really need to be set here? This should be obvious. We need less laws, not more.
The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment...
Why should you have to be a journalist to have your 1st amendment rights protected?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I don't think anyone ever seriously disputed that online journalists had the same rights as print journalists. However many people think that they can slander anyone they like because of some 'freedom' inherent in the digital format. That is wrong.
Does someone posting on Slashdot gain the same rights, or do they have to actually be part of a news-reporting organization? Or something.
Does possessing a strong fascination for "chix with dix" make me gay?
Concerned
So does this mean that CmdrTaco will be protected from the FBI when he gets caught pirating Debian CD's?
Now, where the next question may come is whether everyone is a publisher on the Internet. If I put up a webpage, do I have the same freedoms as outlined by the press?
If I post on Slashdot or a community board, do I have these same freedoms?
These are not questions that we can automatically answer. This has the potential to revolutionize rights on the internet.
/* note: I was here first! Not redundant */
The decision made by the court seems like a no-brainer to me. If they had come to a different conclusion, it would have indicated a serious lack of integrity in the courts. Of course, the courts fail in many other ways, but this one would have been fundamental.
Of course, it's probably part of human nature to fear the unknown, or misunderstood. IMHO the governments of the world should be doing something to promote the technical education of politicians and the justice system.
Well, perhaps that's what the vote is for.
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
From the original post:
The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment, referring to the case NY Times v. Sullivan, the case that gave freedom of the press.
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
NYT v. Sullivan had a much narrower scope. It stated that a journalist who, without malice, makes errors of fact regarding a public official cannot be sued for defamation.
It looks like Slashdot can continue to post inaccurate stories with trumped-up headlines, and not worry about black helicopters =)
~wally
Basically, the case of NYT v. Sullivan requires that defamation plaintiffs prove that malice existed in the publication. It's a malicious or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements made.
It's nice to see the courts supporting the First Amendment online. Let's hope that decisions like these continue.
"I do not regret the things I have done, but those that I did not do."
Does anyone with $10/month for a hosted minisite count as able to post "Leahy is really the goatse.cx dude!! Exclusive pictures click here!" or do you have to actually have a registered business? After all, slander is slander, and facts are facts.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Well see, the news is actually formatted on the computers a day BEFORE they are posted here on Slashdot. The problem is that COMPAQs are the computers that are being used to perform this task. Because of the problems behind Compaq's hardware, it actually takes a day for it to make it to the website. DAMN YOU COMPAQ!
The interesting part about this story is that a Mexican banker was trying to sue Mexican journalists that run a Mexican website...guess where?...In the US.
Why?...because the Mexican court threw the case several times.
Okay, please forgive me if the following question is dumb, I am a law idiot :
If the story is indeed fabricated and the bank can prove it, doesn't the journalist's story become libel ? As long as the bank doesn't have proof that the allegations are false, isn't the article simply considered an opinion ?
If the article is considered libel, can't the journalist (or the newspaper) be prosecuted, 1st amendment or not ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Crack? Which variety? Drugs? Warez? Pr()n? Ur Momma's?
as discussed in the root article
narcotics, dumbass
I have a DSL line and I run a web server on it. I create web sites and serve them to the public. If I put news on one of my sites, am I a journalist?
If I report something in an online forum like this one, am I a journalist?
If I have a free GeoCities home page and I report something on it, am I a journalist?
If I write for a major corporation that puts my words down in ink on paper every day, distributing said paper around town, am I a journalist?
If a major corporation puts me on TV or radio to talk about things I have learned, am I a journalist?
This is a good ruling. But I am afraid that it will only apply to, say, abcnews.com and not drudgereport.com, or even smaller fish, like, say, me if I turn newshound.
joke, dumbass, see "sense of humor", maybe you can buy one online:)
Why must we have laws taht grant us rights and freedoms? I know that question is above, but i will elaborate on why it must be asked.
Does anyone feel the need to have a law granting us the right to have qwerty keyboards? More than likely not. The reasoning, it could be assumed, is that we already have that right and there is no need to make a law saying so. If a person really has the right to be treated equal, or the right to free speach... WHY does there need to be a law that says it is so? Granted there might be people that would infringe on these rights, but by setting the example that we must give these rights and that they are not explicitly given anyway goes to show that we DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH.
Is a law saying it is wrong (thus illegal) to kill a person needed for our society (as a majority) to actually believe it's wrong? Furthermore, I am willing to conceid that there might be people (such as my mother) who's only excuse for following some laws is merely that they exist, but does that make the laws (or the things the laws are supposed to protect) any more or less valid?
The ruling that online press too have freedom of the press just shows us that it isn't a right, and could be (and in the future, might be) taken away.
non-sig: Let's ban all books, and call it free speach!
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
I cancelled my local newspaper subscription when I started seeing stories in there that I had read on Yahoo the previous day... They were just printing the stuff that came off the AP newswire.
how about that!
there's still a fundamental right left that corporate layers haven't
been able to erode with the aid of the DMCA or USA PATRIOT Bills
</sarcasm>
______________________________________________
sigamajig...
The NY judicial system is a bit odd in that the "Supreme Court" is what we commonly think of a circuit or county court--it's the lowest court on the judicial tree. It's like a city or county court--small time.
Their highest court is the Superior Court--what we people in other states would call a "supreme court".
Sooo... to put the article in context, a local, small county court in New York has ruled in favor of the little guy. In terms of precedence, it's merely persuasive, but not binding on anyone, not even those in New York.
As long as what you write isn't libel. However, libel is a tricky thing. You would have to be careful about what you portray as facts and what you say is opinion. But then again IANAL.(Thats the first time I have used the IANA* disclaimer)
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
The first amendment, and specifically the freedom of the press, was a direct reaction to the Revolutionary War. The cause of the patriots depended very much on the underground pamphleteering of men like Thomas Paine. A major criticism of the freedom of the press was that it may have applied to all, but it was only practical to those who had a printing press.
Enter the internet. Now, one does not have to own a basement filling machine and have access to a nationwide distribution network to make his opinions known. A computer from Sears and an internet account are all that is necessary for nationwide coverage. This court case is merely affirming the founder's intentions. A person has the right to make his opinion home.
Which of course brings me to freedom of association (see Warez in the previous story)...
Timezones.
Even so, a website is similar to any other news media, except that there is a lower cost of entry.
In libel cases it is preferred that determinations are made earlier, as this can chill free expression and debate.
Fight Spammers!
So, gentlemen of the press, where do you stand?
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
IANAL by any means, but I know that through many decades of precedent there are very logical and reasonable standards by which a court decides if someone is acting as a journalist. For example, does someone derive (or attempt to derive) regular income from their work? Any lawyers are free to elaborate... :-)
For those of you who have an interest in learning about American laws, http://www.findlaw.com is a wonderful resource.
Right... just ignore the time travel option. Everyone always forgets about the time travel option.
You can't grep a dead tree.
high court = Court of Appeals
intermediate court = Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
trial court = Supreme Court
New York state has other courts, too, but the courts listed above are most in the public eye.
Here's more information.
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
It sure makes a journalist cringe when somebody writes that NYTimes v. Sullivan gave "journalists" freedom of the press. Like they said in Civics class, the First Amendment did that. Sullivan's precedent established the level of protection - strict scrutiny - accorded political speech, as the ministers' ad in the NYT was.
Also, and this is a question that seems to come up a good bit on
"Journalists" don't appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution - freedoms of speech and of the press mean basically the same thing: and that's been interpreted to mean free political, social, religious, etc. expression in whatever medium. Sure, Congress can regulate even pure political speech, but only within amazingly circumscribed limits. That's why (Texas v. Johnson) burning flags is legal, and why the bastards need to burn the First Amendment itself to ban it.
This decision, of course, is good news for people online, but it's not really new - the Supreme Court has already presumptively granted Internet content the same high-level protection it gives print media (but not broadcast, notably). And there will be more said about this - the pervasiveness of online content is such that it puts radio/TV to shame. There's a reason porn is pay TV and not NBC, and the web won't be so free for long, unfortunately. Enjoy it while it's still up.
I'll bet 2600 is looking long and hard at this to see if it can help them even a bit. Maybe the NY courts can try to extend 1st amendment protection to US citizens in the US. That would be a pleasant reversal of the past few months' trend.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Search Google for the relevant keywords for more information, particularly since the Grey Lady was also a target of Mr. Giordano's investigative talents, and thus they're not likely to give it the coverage it deserves ...
One simple rule for its versus it's
Tuck
Tulane University
Did I read this right? The reporter that falsified information about a banker smuggling drugs was covered under the First Amendment? Libel and slander are not covered under the first amendment. You can actually get sued and what not for these. I say take down the nosy reporter always looking for a story...even in his fortune cookies!
From my readings here, a lot of people don't understand the 1st Amendment. Technically, it doesn't say you have the freedom of speech/press/etc... - rather it says that the congress shall pass no law to abridge these. This wording is *extremely* important because the former implies that rights are given by government, where the later implies that they exist above government and the law forbids the government from trespassing on them. The 2nd amendment is worded like this too.
"the case that gave freedom of the press."
Uh, that would be the first amendment guys...
Be careful. The Sullivan standard applied in this case says that journalists can be sued for libel only if they exercise knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. But that standard only applies when you're talking about public figures; if you call your next door neighbor a drug trafficker on the Web, you'd better be able to prove it.
This morning I submitted this fact about Richard Whitely and gave my real e-mail. That was stupid.
Beware as this is a "latest" thing so will change.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
If online journalists have the same RIGHTS as TV and print ones, I take it they are just as responsable for libel, and accurate reporting, as well as being consiedered as having a "public duty" to report honestly and unbiasly. No rights or freedoms come without duties. ~DW
~Donald / Just RTFM
Because National Bank Of Mexico is no longer a mexican bank. Now its owned by citinarc, er... citibank.
For those of you who don't know, Citibank was also accused of handling accounts for big mexican druglords.
Signatures are supposed to be funny?
This was an awesome victory for those of us in the reform movement. Quite simply, the drug reform movement is about as grassroots as you can get, and most of our journalism is online: DRCnet, MAP, Cannabis News, and of course Narconews, as mentioned in the article.
The print media has begun to acknowledge the worldwide shift in attitude towards drugs (and especailly, the war on them) - but still mass media outlets including large American newspapers and especially TV still spew ridiculous retoric straight out of 1980's Just Say No propoganda.
What this article also didn't mention is that the EFF had a hand in helping Narconews with their court victory. Bravo to these brave individuals!
It must be noted that from some months ago Banamex is not even a Mexican bank, it's an American bank that operates in Mexico, being owned in its entirety by Citigroup.
but doest it cover other press freedoms such as the right not to reveal your sources? what about if it conflicts with new digital laws like the DMCA? Does this mean that the 2600 case can be thrown out the window? or does it mean that online press only has limited rights uner press freedom laws and the first amendment as long as it doesn't conflict with newer web oriented and digitaly oriented laws?
anyone?
RA7
---
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
Al Giordano is a former Boston Phoenix reporter. He's an American.
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
I am a broadcast news photographer, and I cover all of the news that all the AP reporters get, and at the same time. Personally, I believe that you are misinformed... nothing wrong, just misinformed.
The AP reporters are the same that give you the news on television and in the paper. It is a service that almost all contribute to. When they see something on the air that they want to know about, they call us and talk to our reporters and ask us to contribute information, we do the same in return. Newspapers are especially AP heavy, as they cover national and local news... unlike the dilineation of broadcast.
AP does assign individual reporters for events, but that is pretty much it. They are the effective "this thingee happened here" guys.
Really, when someone tells me that generically my work is inadequate because the TV is a load of crap, I get upset. After all, television people only work insane hours for little pay so that you can see something happening WHEN IT IS HAPPENING.
Newspaper people make phone calls about events. Broadcasters go to hell and back to bring it to you. Show you the pain. Show you the players and scams.
Simply put, the mediums are not the same.
Then again, newspapers can't show full motion of a plane hitting a building, the wailing of a mother who lost their child in an errant bombing run, the touchdowns that win superbowls, and most importantly...
The television can let you see the persons face when they are obviously LYING. So that the quote doesn't get taken out of context. Like they do DAILY in ALL newspapers.
I recheck the AP all the time. They get it as wrong just as much as everyone else does from time to time.
I would suggest getting your news from several sources. Ones that you think are the most unbiased. The internet isn't well known for its objectivity... but there are some really good ones out there.
Quotes are taken out of context all the time on TV. And it there is no objective way to judge whether a person is lying based on looking at them. There have been all sorts of psychological experiments which show this.
I am a journalist. A television photojournalist. I work for mainstream media. Fox to be specific.
:P). Go ahead, change the world. Be my guest. It is also your priveledge to cover my windshield wipers with fliers. I think that is fine. Print as you please. Whether you can claim "higher journalistic protection" for what you say is another matter.
The heart of this matter is not in the facts to me. The facts speak to themselves on guilt or innocence. Slander and libel is based upon whether your printed facts are true or "under reasonable expectation."
I would say that Narconews are activists. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be protected. Just not like broadcast and print (because they are expanded for press because of LEGITIMATE REASONS to stay in business against corporations) and more like regular citizens First Amendment Rights.
I would first like to respond that I respect activists... in a sense that they are promoting what they believe in, and that is altruistic (that causes change in the world, and gives me something to talk about, BRAVO
IMHO the Narconews people are not journalists. They are activists. They are printing for a very tangible, expected outcome of their work. They are observing and placing in OPINION. With a name like Narconews talking about changing drug regulation, you lose your objectivity.
True journalists don't seek a specific outcome.
Seeking an outcome makes you an activist or trade magazine. For example, Cat Fancy Magazine should not necessarily be afforded the higher journalist protections that a non-specific daily newspaper should. Although, this approach might be more appropriate on a story by story basis.
Journalism is about seeking the truth. Journalists should not be concerned about the outcome other than reporting the outcome. In other words, what makes a journalist? Being fair, and not seeking a specific outcome.
In other words, Narconews shouldn't be considered journalists and protected at "the higher level" if their ultimate goal is to publicly smoke "the big fatty." Its not about the groundswell of public support or whether they are right or wrong.
It just doen't ring true to being a journalist. Its similar to saying that carrying a fire extinguisher in your car makes you a firefighter.
This is Al. My co-defendant, Mario Menendez, yes, is a Mexican citizen by birth and by residence. It's a complex case. Check out the 85 links about it on the defense page: http://www.narconews.com/warroom.html
Stew, This reporter doesn't falisify information. I doubt you've spent five minutes looking at the facts that are readily available: http://www.narconews.com/warroom.html Oh, well, the world needs provocateurs. Don't worry, despite my recently gained legal expertise, I won't be suing you. Sunlight is the better disinfectant. Al Giordano Narco News
Honestly man, don't you think you haven't really passed into the activist role? Honestly, in the news business its the easiest thing to do. You have to watch for it. Not pick sides.
It isn't bad being an activist. If you had read my comments a second time I don't think that you would be so upset. Y'know what? I probably would like you if I got to know you. Y'know, talk to you. Listen to you. Did you think that I MIGHT BELEIVE THAT THE NEWS LIFESTYLE WAS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET TOO BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT I THINK THAT EVERYONE IS TRYING TO GET IN THE GAME WITH SMART LOOKING SUITS, BIG MONEY, SLANDER, AND RIDICULOUS WEBSITES TO THE POINT WHERE NO ONE KNOWS WHICH WAY IS UP ANYMORE?
Honestly, where are the men we can listen to? Are you the solution or the problem? Are you one of those solutions? Or are you a lone conspiacy theorist? Right now, you just sound angry. I don't talk to angry.
I wish you were going to tell me why Narconews was legit and why I should read it... but now I don't know if I can... not when you just fucking go off on people. Please spare me the ridiculousness of thinking that because my opinions differ that I am the big evil corporate enemy. I have a dead coal-mining grandfather because of that corporate evil you infer that I am supporting.
Apparently I touched a nerve. I didn't say what Fox, now did I? Did I say that I was slumming for O'Reilly or Geraldo Rivera? No... because I am a ground pounder. I work the streets. Every day. My caste-system indeed. I am on the bad side of it. It ain't glamorous. I've now missed three Emmys because I dream it and shoot it, and my awards-conscious reporter submits it without my name for money purposes. My hubris indeed. My dinner is crow, so don't tell me that I am in with that white-bred superiority thing that you just made up and threw on me. Cuz I ain't in "the conspiracy," baby. How many conspirators do you know that read slashdot?
I represent what you aim to topple? Topple? DO I EVEN HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU HAVE TOTALLY PASSED INTO "ACTIVISM LAND" WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT TRYING TO TOPPLE OTHERS? Does a journalist topple anything, or does he observe and report? You know this one, dude. If you've become an activist, be an activist. Support it. Go all out. Be happy with it. Argue until the cows come home. I've thought about it too when I see things I believe in.
And finally, don't EVER bring anyone's family into this, please. I won't bring yours into it either. If I am misinformed or my opinions differ, then tell me what you think I need to know.
"FUCK YOUR MOTHER" gets zero response out of me. I've been spat on too much by rednecks to really have that rattle me. Just tell me why Narconews is worth it... and I'll read it.
According to your false dialectic, Orianna Falacci was not a journalist, but an "activist." Same with Studs Terkel, Gore Vidal, I.F. Stone, Andrew Kopkind, so on and so forth... In other words, the greatest journalists of the past century would not have made your cut as journalists. "Objectivity" is a rather recent myth in "journalism." When a journo says he's objective he is either very naive or dishonest from the get-go. There is a tradition of passionate journalism; what Falacci called "the study of anti-power." It's so rarely allowed in the commercial media but still thrives in some corners, many of them online. The partisan press is at least as much press as the falsely objective press. Okay, I'm sure your mother is a very nice person. Chinga su madre is what we say in Mexico as a verbal slap. But if you call yourself a journalist, you HAVE to talk to angry. Public anger (not just mine) is fueled by the way the commercial press does business these days. I don't need to "sell" you the idea of reading Narco News. You will read it or not, by your own choice. And you will keep reading it or not, by your own choice. What you will find are, A., translations of what the Latin American press (yes, many of whom write for commercial media) are reporting on the war on drugs; B. analysis of that information, most of which does not appear in the US press, and; C. original investigative reporting and commentary. That a media discloses its bias, as I do (mine is that the US-imposed "war on drugs" impedes democracy, human rights, justice, the ecology, the economy and, yes, even press freedom in our hemisphere), IMHO, makes that media more faithful to the best qualities of Authentic Journalism. Disclosure is what allows the reader to form his and her own opinion, without being manipulated by this "objectivity" myth. In this case, a conscientious judge read 568 pages of Narco News, terming her revision "careful", and concluded that it walks like a newspaper, talks like a newspaper, has responsible journalistic practices like a newspaper should have, allows letters to the editor like a newspaper, and although it is online, it is still a newspaper under the eyes of the law. Terms like "activism land" are just another way to try and enforce a caste system. That you work, as you say, in one of the bottom castes indicates that you are even more wrongheaded to try and justify the mentality. If you join a union, do you stop being a journalist? Is an opinion columnist an "activist"? No, because he has the backing of a commercial enterprise. I still publish in commercial ventures; the Boston Phoenix, the Nation, the Philly City Paper, Evergreen Review... just in the past year, but I do the majority of my work online where I have no boss and more freedom to say what I mean. But get off this "observe and report" objectivity horse. If you observe atrocity, and remain indifferent in your reporting, you become something less than human. Many colleagues have chosen that path. That is where the jobs are. But there is also a grand tradition of Authentic Journalism that rides a different horse, one that gallops and aims against tyranny in all its forms. That, too, is journalism. Best to your mom!
I have contacted over 100 journalists and editors about a story that none want to investigate.
I am using WIPO.org.uk and SWIPO.org to make people aware that the authorities are hiding the solution to trademark and domain name problem.
As the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) take away like sounding names, do you not find that even slightly newsworthy?
My logic is reasoned and rational, I make no egotistical claims that the solution was my idea - just present my findings.
Indeed, the answer to this problem was so self-evident, the authorities must have always known.
So - why do Journalists not want to seek the truth?
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see for yourself.
If this ruling is ever appealed to the Supreme Court, they will not be so forgiving. I'd predict yet another 5-4 ruling on the conservative side (provided it's the same court we have as of today).
-Darius
First of all, thank you for speaking clearly.
Second, it just looks like we disagree. That's fine. I personally believe that if you would show the world this insight to the mainstream media a little more, then you would proably get a lot more attention. I just can't see why I or anyone else would pass up on these stories you say you have. Latin America is still a hotbed of activity... I had a friend that was an Uncle Sam trained killer that is now an alcoholic because of what he did as a young man in "the service of his country." Marine light force recon. He killed a drug lord in his home, and TWO YOUNG BOYS. Why? Because those were his orders, and "apparently someone didn't get paid off in time." Just because I try to remain objective doesn't mean that I don't know. I could never get a way to get a fellow camaraman on the news wihtout him losing his job.
I just don't know about the angry talk part . Its a philisophical thing with me. Personal. I used to be an angry, screeching guy and it did me so little good that I was literally useless.
And when I said leave my mother out of it, I meant it. I don't like to hear anything about that. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. I personally believe that you still are.
Puedo hablar espanol. Aprendi a hablar por dos anos en un universidad despues de mi vida total en las escuelas con un clase cada dia en espanol.
I do care. But with my job I try to be objective. I still think that is the way to be. Objective doesn't mean asking creampuff questions or not digging around. You've probably been around enough murders to know that objectivity goes out the window at those things. I still like to nail a good story, just not a person. What they have done is slap enough. As they say on the X-files, the truth is out there.
It's about loopholes in legislation...
When people/corporations choose to abuse anything that is not defined specifically in law, it is fair game in court with a plethora of lawyers.
Internet vs Print for example has a few very different outcomes.
Internet publishing should probably have:
it's own rights as a media, and previous print publishers do not have the right to reprint their work for free. they wouldn't get it for free if it was audio. (not exactly different rights, but this defines internet publishing as a type of media, and each media has it's own rules)
Internet vs Print journalists should have equal rights. (same)
Past internet news should be available in public archives, just like print (not sure if this differs from print archiving, it may depend on what country you're in)
Retractions online can edit the original, and add a note that an error was made and it has been fixed. This is very different from print media, as it's a technology difference. (different)
if there's no fire