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

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?

Do posters count as "online journalists"

[Urthpaw]

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

Why wouldn't it be?

[gandalf_grey]

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.

Very misleading article

[leshert]

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.

Interesting

[ZeroConcept]

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.

Well based in existing law.

[www.sorehands.com]

It is not a suprising ruling. The US Supreme Court ruled in Lowell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938) ruled the protection of the press extends to "the lonely paphleteer."

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.

[S]ummary judgment procedures are especially favored in defamation cases. Godbout v. Cousens, 396 Mass. 254, 258 (1985).

"Allowing a trial to take place in a meritless case 'would put an unjustified and serious damper on freedom of expression.'" Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32, 37 (1985), quoting National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 233 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 935 (1980).
Even if a defendant in a libel case is ultimately successful at trial, the
costs of litigation may induce an unnecessary and undesirable self-censorship. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra at 279."

King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705, 708 (1987),
cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940 (1988).