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."
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.
This issue (libel) comes essentially down to if the journalist/news-source knew it was false to begin with. Also: people in the public domain (in the pulic's eye, or people with a status, as granted by the public, elevated even slightly from the general populus) are not always protected against libel and slander, infact in cases such as this it has been ruled on prior occasion that a person who has a public image and is slandered or libeled against should be able to conceivably defend themselves on their own in public. (thank you U.S. Consitutional law class)
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
If I post on Slashdot or a community board, do I have these same freedoms?
/. and community boards are protected from libel charges and the like.
Well, posts on message boards are opinions, not facts, so your posts on
----------
Floccinaucinihilipilification - the action or habit of judging something to be worthless
- "...Congress shall make no law
... abridging the freedom of speech..."
- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
- "...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
etc. No rights are granted. Existing rights are acknowledged.Correct, the NY Supreme Court is the lowest court (maybe it's called that so lawyers can brag to clients, Hey, I took your case all the way to the Supreme Court!)...
But the highest NYS court is not the "Superior Court," it's the NY Court of Appeals. IAAL.
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!
precedents are valid only in the state they were made (athough other state courts often use them as consideration) and can be overturned by a higher court or a law.
For those of you who have an interest in learning about American laws, http://www.findlaw.com is a wonderful resource.
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.
*Virtual High-5*
Going one logical step further, I actually stopped watching CNN Headline News on television a few years ago (I don't even know which channel it is anymore) when I began to realize that any story of interest I had read hours or days ago while browsing through breaks at work. Furthermore, the online news was always more in depth, more informative, and often came with links to related stories I might have missed. T.V. news had become inadequate.
Though I suppose none of this is news to /. readers...
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
Apples and oranges. When the writers sued the Times et al they were saying you are paying us for A and then taking our work and doing B with it. That case has nothing to do with the first amendment or freedom of the press. It is about contracts to produce the content. If the original contract had said "Newspaper and other media" there would have been no case but I assume that the contract was worded in such a way that this was not the case. I assume (IANAL) that it would be quite easy to write a contract such that you could publish works in format A but not format B.
Contract law can not prevent dumb or short sited contracts. Nor should it. What might look like a dumb contract to one person may make a lot of sense to someone else. And if you don't like a contract don't sign it.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
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.
If the bank can prove fabrication, then the story does indeed become libel.
Libel, in most states in the US, requires statements which are false and defamatory, AND requires that the author knew they were false or showed a "reckless disregard" for the truth.
What may complicate things is the degree to which the plaintiff is a public figure. Public figures have a bitch of a time making libel cases that private people can make easily enough. That's how Star, Weekly World News, etc. stay in business. I don't know where the bank president fits into that continuum.
What does confuse me: This was a dispute between a Mexican bank president and a Mexican journalist that the Mexican courts shitcanned at least once. How did it end up in New York's state courts?
Also, I think one other thing is worth noting: IIRC, The courts in NY which are titled "Supreme Courts" are the trial courts. Other states would call them Circuit or District or Common Pleas courts. The highest court in NY's state system is (IIRC-I could be wrong) the Court of Appeals. In plain English, that means that this case is of limited value as precedent.
Disclaimer: I'm a dumbass traffic cop, not a lawyer
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.