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