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."
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.
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."
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.
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!
For those of you who have an interest in learning about American laws, http://www.findlaw.com is a wonderful resource.
Anyhow, to the issue, its more a case of you folks (and in this case I mean
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.
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
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?
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.
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.