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."

Comments

Was there any question?

[joe.langford]

Did a legal precedent really need to be set here? This should be obvious. We need less laws, not more.

Re:Was there any question?

[taion]

IANAL, but the issue here is something like this --

American law is based upon English Common Law, that rulings are based upon legal precedents. Therefore, that a precedent like this is set means that similar cases will use this established precedent.

And the other thing is, it may have been obvious, but a ruling does more or less have to be made if a case goes to the courts, no? And that, then, will establish a precendent anyway.

So?

[MongooseCN]

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?

Re:So?

[bareminimum]

This court finds that Narconews is a media defendant and is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment," wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Paula Omansky, citing New York Times v. Sullivan. [emphasis from me]

Everybody benefits from the protection of the First Amendment, but journalist have a higher protection, for the public's benefit.

Anyways, all of this is very theoretical as both parties concerned are based in Mexico. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this decision will have in reality.

Re:So?

[rsd1s1g]

Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of...the press. Seems pretty clear cut to me..

With rights comes responsibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

For those who don't care to read the decision.....

[CmdrSlack555]

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.

Who constitutes a journalist?

[shokk]

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.

So what's a "journalist?"

[IronChef]

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.

Re:Protections, sure, how about responsibility?

[cadfael]

Hemos, I write with all seriousness more about the concept than the story. I too thought (and posted) that the story looked goofy. If you have proof, would it be possible for you folks to show us (I looked for days for JohnKatz or yourselves to show it)?

Anyhow, to the issue, its more a case of you folks (and in this case I mean /. specifically) moving up in the world regarding on line journalism. Its important to have checks and balances to ensure this sort of forum has bothered to do the legwork to check the validity of the posted comment (I am referring to the stories you post, not the comments that follow).

Believe it or not, I don't really mean to flame or troll here. Its an honest question. On line journalism is gaining momentum (for example, more people where I work were looking to the web for news on Sept 11, even though there were multiple news feeds around the buildings on various tv's). You folks have immense readership, but the responsibility issue is something I haven't seen addressed (here I speak in generalities, not specifically about /.).

I am more interested in people accepting the responsibility that they get with their protections than how they feel that everyone is tromping on their rights.

First Amendment

[argoff]

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.

Re:Missed first post...

[djweso]

When it comes to who is a publisher, if my understanding of the law is correct, it is open to anyone with means to publish something.

This stems from the fact that one of the major things freedom of speech was set up to protect was the people walking around passing out handbills and the like, speaking against the British government.

So as long as what is being said by the publisher is something that would be consider to be protected, ie poltical speech, opinion, not defamation or libel, and etc, then it would be protected. This would cover website publishers.

What is most important, IMHO, about the NY Supreme Court saying this is that it may mean that the Supreme Court may either have to hear a case about this and set precedence or that they will refuse to hear it and then the precedence set by the NY Supreme Court will stand.