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."
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
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
Does someone posting on Slashdot gain the same rights, or do they have to actually be part of a news-reporting organization? Or something.
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 */
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
- "...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.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)...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)
No, it's not illegal to say it in the theater. Imagine two scenarios:
1) you yell fire, there is no fire, and nobody panics: Nothing happens. You did nothing wrong.
2) you yell fire, there is no fire, everybody panics and somebody gets trampled to death. You get arrested for charges related to the death of the person, NOT for yelling fire. Yelling fire was perfectly OK. You're charged with something other than "illegal speech".
See my point?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.