Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Journalism Same As Print/TV

Posted by chrisd on from the fundamental-shift-time dept.

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."

10 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Thank god by theKiyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  2. Do posters count as "online journalists" by Urthpaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does someone posting on Slashdot gain the same rights, or do they have to actually be part of a news-reporting organization? Or something.

  3. Missed first post... by Eneff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 */

  4. Why wouldn't it be? by gandalf_grey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Why do people insist that electronic media is any different than more "traditional" forms? Why this fear of the electronic?

    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!
  5. Interesting by ZeroConcept · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. What's the issue here ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "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"...

    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
  7. The poor man's press by tych0 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The first amendment does not only apply to journalists. Freedom of the press is a right held by all Americans, and indeed to all people iff they can get away with it. The thing that sets Americans apart from the Afghans is the first amendment.

    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)...

  8. Protections, sure, how about responsibility? by cadfael · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Okay, so lets just say that maybe something odd pops up on say, /., something that most people think might be factually questionable. Most papers have to print a retraction. Especially if they want credibility.


    So, gentlemen of the press, where do you stand?

    --
    -- The Hollow Man
    Non illegitimati carborundum
  9. Re:So? by Misch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reasons:

    1. To differentiate between "author" and "person who runs into a crowded theatre and yells "Fire!"
    2. Journalism n.
      1. The occupation of gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or broadcasting news
      2. newspapers and magazines; the press
      3. a course of study for a career in journalism
      4. Material written for a newspaper or a magazine
      5. Writing marked by a popular slant

    More often than not (IMHO) journalists tend to be those people who write the stories that piss off large corporations. Hence, the court was reiterating that the protections of the first amendment extended to the journalist, regardless of the medium of publication.

    Yes, I agree, there are people who have had their rights violated, lest we forget about Dmitry Sklyarov, but that is not the point of the case.

    Or maybe I'm just overreacting to a poignant question.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  10. NY Times v. Sullivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Maybe I'm just being a nit-picky law student here, but just to clarify: Times v. Sullivan didn't create freedom of the press, the 1st Amendment did that. The Sullivan case held that the First Amendment protects the press from defamation suits by the people named in their stories. For anyone who cares, to succeed in a defamation suit against the press you have to show what the Sullivan Court refered to as "actual malice". That is, you must show that the media ran the story/ad with actual knowledge of (or reckless disregard for) the falsisity of the accusations. So, the case here in question simply says that people who are part of the media online get the same defamation protections as those in the print/tv/radio/etc. media. Not a wholly unexpected decision, but it's important nonetheless.

    Tuck

    Tulane University