Blogger Wins 1.5 Year Legal Battle

FixYourThinking writes "After nearly one and a half years of harassment from a relentless attorney, it seems that quietly a blogger in South Carolina has won a monumental ruling in favor of bloggers. In a summary judgement requested by the Defendant, Philip Smith was able to obtain a special sanction after the Plaintiff attorney put a 'notice of lien' (called lis pendens) on Smith's residence. The judge also reprimanded the Plaintiff attorney for abusive deposition and court procedure. The case set forth the following; 'It's not the format; it's the content and intention that make text journalism / reporting.'"

Comments

1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad.

It took me 10 months to get a traffic ticket dismissed last year. Exxon's managed to dodge justice after it's Alaskan f-up for 18 years with legal maneuvers.

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[edward2020]

And don't forget R. Kelly's criminal suit that he has pending against him. That's been, what, like 6-7 years since he... well, we know what he did.

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[dintech]

I believe I can lie...

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[morgan_greywolf]

So much for the right to a fair and speedy trial...

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[everphilski]

So much for the right to a fair and speedy trial...

It's a right the incriminated must invoke.

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[yoghurt]

THAT song was by R. Kelly?

I DESPISE that song. It is the most annoying song I know - even worse than "MacArthur park." Although "She's having my baby" is pretty awful too.

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[fishbowl]

>>So much for the right to a fair and speedy trial...

>It's a right the incriminated must invoke.

More likely, the trial is delayed by the defense.

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[Iridium_Hack]

Grammar Police - Notice of Ticket: I'm Sorry Sir, but use of the possessive pronoun "its" does not require an apostrophe. Your use of the contraction "it's" is improper and is normally restricted to situations where it shortens the common two word phrase "it is". Your blog is classified as improper usage by the Grammar Police Authority.

Show up at your local Grammar Police office within the next 30 days to be booked for your infraction. Fail to do so and your every letter will be audited for punctuation errors.

Viewing this sig signifies reception of this Sig

Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad

[compro01]

speedy start to the trial. it can go on for pretty much as long as either side likes.

I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling made it clear that blogging is commentary and/or editorializing, but not reporting in the journalism sense. In 99% of all cases, bloggers are not journalists and they should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card.

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, You're confusing the word 'right' with the word 'priviledge'.

Re:I just wish

[BiggerIsBetter]

The ruling made it clear that blogging is commentary and/or editorializing, but not reporting in the journalism sense. In 99% of all cases, bloggers are not journalists and they should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card. I think the Content and Intention keywords cover this. Even if a blogger has aspirations (intention) of journalistic writing, they shouldn't just roll up expecting a press card without some previous work (content) to back up that position. If a blogger wants to call themself a journalist, they'll have to earn it - just like someone working for a print publication.

Re:I just wish

[Br00se]

At the risk of feeding a troll. There is no reason to provide any special protections to a "professional" journalist. Anyone that keeps a record of events should enjoy all the protections allowed by law. Having a press card does not make you immune from making mistakes or from being unethical or incompetent. Trust me, I've worked in newspapers for 17 years. I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two.

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

they should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card.

Of course they shouldn't be given rights that they already have.

Re:I just wish

[dwiget001]

Uh, nope. A right cannot be taken away. It is a right, you have it, period. Freedom of the press is just that. Doesn't matter what form that press is. And the ruling does no such thing regarding blogging not being journalism. And, a press pass is something given by and entity (event runner, sponsor, etc.) to members of the media (whatever media that happens to be). A "press pass" is not a governmental issued thing, period. It would be unconstitutional for the government to issue any such thing and only allow people with the "press pass" to engage in *press*. Read your Constitution, make sure you understand the big words, starting with "Constitution".

Re:I just wish

[seebs]

Why? It's the job, not the credentials, that make something "journalism". The guy with the press card shouldn't have any magic rights.

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no word "priviledge". Perhaps you were referring to the outhouse on the cliff?

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

>people who are considered processional journalists

Nah, they're just spinning you a line...

Re:I just wish

[gstoddart]

A "press pass" is not a governmental issued thing, period. It would be unconstitutional for the government to issue any such thing and only allow people with the "press pass" to engage in *press*. Read your Constitution, make sure you understand the big words, starting with "Constitution".

Three words: Free Speech Zones.

Compare and discuss amongst yourselves. Is it constitutional to say that you can express dissent locked up inside of this fence after we've already corralled and ID'd you, or do you have the right to free speech everywhere. Don't taze me bro!!

Two more words: Habeus Corpus.

Is it constitutional for the government to suspend Habeus Corpus of citizens and non-citizens alike as they see fit? Bonus points if you can identify the part of the constitution which expressly forbids this.

Three more words: Warrantless Wire Tapping.

Surely, it can't be constitutional to eavesdrop on everyone in case you might be able to find something, right? Because, you're supposed to be secure in your person and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, right?

The current administration, with the help of their crack (head) legal minds, have allowed all sorts of things to happen which are blatantly unconstitutional. Singling out this one aspect (while, theoretically valid) is, in practice, pointless.

If they can get an AG to issue a legal opinion, claim executive privilege to prevent any form of legal action, as well as refusing to answer questions to congress ... then, in effect, they can do anything they want to. And, apparently, there is nobody around who can force them to comply with the law. They passed into unconstitutionality years ago, and they seem to be making up exceptions that allow them to override the rule of law and the oversight of Congress.

A right cannot be taken away. It is a right, you have it, period.

Let us hope that remains true. Because, the government has already taken away rights. And, they continue to do so. As has been stated here on Slashdot so often, "National Security" and "Protecting Children" are the secret codes to unlock the constitution.

Cheers

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. The very same cliff I'd like to push you off of.

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has the power to take away a right. You need to understand that a right is not given by anybody and can not be taken away by anybody. It is yours by the very nature of being alive. Just because the government is infringing on the rights of the people does not mean they don't have them. If they didn't have them anymore then there would be no reason to think the government was wrong in their actions.

Re:I just wish

[Lumpy]

It's brain dead easy to get a press pass to most any event. Hell I got a camera bag full of them from the past 4 years, over 1/2 were given to me without me asking... I walk into the event with 3-4 digital slr's around my neck and a vest and the gate guy hands me a press pass.

99% of being "press" is looking and acting like you belong there. the rest is talking your way into getting the pass.

Hell I did it so good last year, I was asked before I left the event that if I could be paid to be their official photographer next year. I got a paying photog job out of just looking like I was a press photographer.

By the way, keep every press pass you are given. If you are questioned about where your pass is (because you did not social engineer one at the entrance and wandered in from the side) and you are rummaging through a bunch of old ones they usually wave you through. Worst case they send you to the trailer to get one. then it's a 50/50 chance you get one or you get told no.

The fun part is getting back stage at concerts.. sometime a press pass can get you there.

Re:I just wish

[Colin Smith]

You seem to be working under the assumption that journalists do any more than regurgitate press releases...

Re:I just wish

[vertinox]

In 99% of all cases, bloggers are not journalists and they should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card.

Hold on there! What constitutes a journalist and who gets to determine this criteria?

When the bill of rights was written to give the freedom of the press, a journalist was any Joe Sixpack who could read and write and had access to a printing press which were often more slanderous and opinionated than today's blogs. Many of the colonialist pamphlets written against the British were highly opinionated and often written with pseudo names just like blogs today.

There really is no difference other than technology. Letting the government or government sanctioned groups decide who is and who is not a journalist is dangerous.

Re:I just wish

[gstoddart]

You're an AC, so I'll type this slowly ...

Nobody has the power to take away a right.

Morally, you're correct. In practice, the people with the laws and the guns can trample them fairly easily. And, they're doing it.

You need to understand that a right is not given by anybody and can not be taken away by anybody. It is yours by the very nature of being alive.

Oh, I understand that, in the abstract, a right should be recognized as something which is inalienable and not something which is granted or revoked. In practice, I believe there are a lot of situations in which the theoretically immutable right can be stripped away by someone who doesn't care.

See, as much as I believe that (ideally) what you say should be true, there's that little practical measure by which the rights of some people are being taken away (or trampled on, or ignored, or infringed, or abrigated, or what have you) -- that is happening now.

Just because the government is infringing on the rights of the people does not mean they don't have them.

Infringe upon them long enough, pass laws saying they were never there in the first place, and get your AG and justice department to erode them long enough, and they're eventually gone. Failure to fight for your rights can, in fact, mean that they get taken away from you by someone who isn't quite so concerned with the niceties as you.

People who rule by force don't give a flying fsck about your theoretical rights. They just do it how they want to. When the man with a gun doesn't agree with your assertion that you have a right to do something, he's not going to get the finer points of your argument. Once people decide your 'quaint' notion of inherent rights is something they don't want to listen to any more ... then you're SOL.

Failure to prevent it happening now means in a few generations, asserting you ever had these rights will be a matter of historical curiousity -- and, of no immediate practical benefit. At present, the current administration is trying very hard to undermine both the constitution and your rights ... all in the name of National Security.

Cheers

Re:I just wish

[sm62704]

I agree 100% with your post and disagree as vehemently as you with the GP, but sadly, I don't think he's trolling.

Now Ann Coulter, yes, she IS a troll. And not a very good one at that. But oddly, she has a press pass.

Re:I just wish

[Sique]

If a blogger wants to call themself a journalist, they'll have to earn it - just like someone working for a print publication.

It's interesting to listen to your statement about journalists, but it just describes how you define a journalist.

I don't know the legal situation in the U.S. that much, but at least in Germany journalist is not a protected profession. Everyone and his dog has the right to call themselves "journalist". If you write for a respected magazine or for the unregurarily edited paper of the local sunflower growers association, doesn't matter. You don't even need to have published anything and are still allowed to call yourself a journalist.

Re:I just wish

[Touvan]

I would argue that someone who holds a press card, could well be less of a journalists (or at least less of a good journalist) than many bloggers. The bloggers continually get hard issues, like whether or not it's a good idea to invade Iraq right, while the press pass traditional press, with all their access completely dropped that ball, and many others, all to maintain their access. Fox News "journalists" who tend to hold press cards, and have plenty of access, don't even try to be objective. Many bloggers at least try, and many succeed - they are the real journalists, and the real fourth estate.

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

And what's more, I think it's important to remember that even if all the zeitgeist/conspiracy theorists (etc.) are wrong about the intentions/practices of the present government, we the people should behave and react to the knowledge that such behaviors are possible as if they *were* true. It's not "did they do it?", rather "can they do it?".

Sorry if I hi-jacked the thread :)

Re:I just wish

[psychicsword]

Don't you mean an outhouse like this one?

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words: Free Speech Zones.

Compare and discuss amongst yourselves. Is it constitutional to say that you can express dissent locked up inside of this fence after we've already corralled and ID'd you, or do you have the right to free speech everywhere. Don't taze me bro!! And then...

The current administration, with the help of their crack (head) legal minds, have allowed all sorts of things to happen which are blatantly unconstitutional. It needs to be pointed out that Free Speech Zones were a Democrat invention, and the "don't taze me bro!" incident occurred at a Democrat "open question/answer session." (Although not so open that they won't Tazer you for asking the wrong questions!)

The problem is that too many people paint a picture where the Republican Party is to blame for everything, while the reality is that the Democrats have just as atrocious a record.

The solution isn't to make this into a "current administration" issue, but a general issue with the USA government. Yes, the current administration hasn't been all that great, but the previous administration was no better.

Re:I just wish

[jahudabudy]

THANK YOU!!!! I get quite tired of the sanctimonious pricks out there that regurgitate that drivel about how rights are inalienable, and thus can neither be granted nor retracted. A moments pause for thought shows that this simply is not true. One of the fundamental rights is the right to life - how exactly is that impossible to take away from someone?

Re:I just wish

[CarpetShark]

There is no word "priviledge". Perhaps you were referring to the outhouse on the cliff?

No, that's referred to by the phrase "scared shitless".

Re:I just wish

[Turing Machine]

They should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card.

Funny, I don't remember seeing anything about "press cards" in the First Amendment.

Re:I just wish

[smellsofbikes]

>I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists

So *THAT* is what the right mean when they call journalists the Fifth Column!

Re:I just wish

[adzoox]

Actually you're wrong. It clarified that some blogs such as mine (I'm the author) ARE news and news commentary as covered by the provisions in the Lanham act.

Re:I just wish

[adzoox]

This is the author of the fix your thinking blog ... I HAVE received a PRESS PASS to MacWorld because that's what I cover. Rarely do I do personal diary stuff like most blogs. My blog consists more of personal stories that relate a news or editorial opinion.

Re:I just wish

[Magada]

It is impossible for the simple reason that rights aren't real in the way a person's life is real. In fact, from a legal standpoint, their applicability is not limited by the lifespan of the person who has them. If it were not so, the will and testament of a dead person, for instance, would amount to nothing, you'd be free to harvest any corpses you can lay your hands on for transplants and murder would probably not be punishable. Mmkay?

I hope you learn a lesson about how human rights are inalienable the hard way - by having them violated, preferably with a rubber hose. We'll see then if you feel they are worthless just because they were infringed upon.

Re:I just wish

[jahudabudy]

We'll see then if you feel they are worthless just because they were infringed upon.

I never said I felt rights are worthless. In fact, it is because I value the ideal of them that I object to the ridiculous idea that they are somehow intrinsic to life. Rights must be asserted and protected, or they disappear.

If it were not so, the will and testament of a dead person, for instance, would amount to nothing, you'd be free to harvest any corpses you can lay your hands on for transplants and murder would probably not be punishable. Mmkay?

Huh? Of these three, only murder has anything to do with human rights. And to reiterate: the fact that there is such a thing as murder proves the right to life is, for all practical purposes, quite possible to deny someone.

I hope you learn a lesson about how human rights are inalienable the hard way - by having them violated, preferably with a rubber hose.

I'm glad to see you are such a big proponent of human rights for everyone.

Re:I just wish

[Magada]

Rights must be asserted and protected, or they disappear. That, fortunately, is not true. What needs protecting is the ability of people to enjoy those rights. The rights themselves are concepts, ideas, y'know? Inalienable, were it not for people such as yourself trying to muddle their meaning.

Of these three, only murder has anything to do with human rights Not so. First example pertains the right to property, second to habeas corpus. The fact that we discern between, say, murder and death from natural causes proves that the right to life cannot be taken from a person simply by killing them - only life itself, just as, say, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatments would not simply disappear even if you were to be subjected to such.

I'm glad to see you are such a big proponent of human rights for everyone. I never heard of basic human rights including the right to be willfuly ignorant and advocate murder. I sincerely hope you get educated out of these beliefs, but that doesn't make me like you one bit.

Re:I just wish

[jahudabudy]

What needs protecting is the ability of people to enjoy those rights

Okay. I don't see the point in distinguishing between my rights and my ability to enjoy my rights. I fail to see how you can deprive me of my life while leaving my right to life intact, but if you see a distinction, so be it.

You said: If it were not so, the will and testament of a dead person, for instance, would amount to nothing, you'd be free to harvest any corpses you can lay your hands on for transplants, then in reference to this statement expounded

First example pertains the right to property, second to habeas corpus.

Wow. Just, wow. FYI, habeas corpus has NOTHING to do with corpses.

I never heard of basic human rights including the right to be willfuly ignorant and advocate murder.

I'll limit myself to this one comment on the irony of you accusing me of ignorance, but I will say that I never advocated murder. Guess what? Not everyone that disagrees with you is pure evil. Try reading my posts w/o that implicit assumption and I suspect you will come away with a significantly different interpretation.

Additionally, my sarcasm concerning your advocacy of rights was in response to your desire for my rights to be violated w/ a rubber hose. I guess observance of rights is only for people you like, huh?

p.s. I'm still giggling over habeas corpus concerning the rights of corpses :)

uggh blogspam

[Anonymous Coward]

nasty blogspam and hijacking using frames the original is here http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/10/blogger_wins_la.htm

IANAL, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

The Plaintiff attorney forced me to reveal trade secret information regarding an invention of mine and also forced me to reveal several of my clients personal information. One subject of a completely unrelated article that I posted was contacted and prompted to say something bad about me. Instead, he contacted me and I posted his letter on my website.

IANAL, but isn't there an issue that the plaintiff could raise here? I would think contacting a third party & requesting them to issue derogatory comments was actionable in some way.

Re:IANAL, but...

[adzoox]

You mean the defendant could raise an issue here? The plaintiff sent this letter:

Mr. Campbell: I am an attorney in Greenville, SC. I represent a client that has filed a federal lawsuit against one Philip Smith (a.k.a. Jackwhispers) for trademark infringement. I have learned that Mr. Smith has attacked/libeled/slandered a number of other folks in his blog, you included. I was wondering if you would mind giving me some idea of your history with this individual, what kinds of contacts you have had with him, what you have done about his personal attacks, if anything, etc. A copy of my client's complaint and motion for preliminary injunction are attached for your review. Thanks for any help.

What's so special about that press card?

[Sowelu]

Half sarcasm and half serious: Give me one good reason that someone with a press pass deserves rights that you don't have without it.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Half sarcasm and half serious: Give me one good reason that someone with a press pass deserves rights that you don't have without it. Logistics. Someone holding a press pass acts as proxy for the wider population. The press pass is just a convienient way to manage the number of people you have a deal with, and hopefully a gaurantee of some measure of professionalism in their interaction (as opposed to say, the "Don't tase me bro" guy).

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[monkeyboythom]

If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.
- Hunter S. Thompson

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like one of the parents said, it's not specifically that they deserve additional rights.

It's that they are given special privileges based on the notion that they have credibility based on the amount of time they've been reporting, as well as their dependence on reputation for readership.

It's not so much a codified principle, but rather a tenuous agreement between the public/private sector and journalists to ensure that no-one is too badly mistreated in the news.

The idea is that if something was so badly massacred in the news by the Globe and Mail and outright lied about, that they would pay dearly because they would no longer be viewed as a reputable source, and wouldn't be read. This applies to a few bloggers, especially in the tech sector, but the vast majority of bloggers will eat even if they don't get today's post out.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[king-manic]

Logistics. Someone holding a press pass acts as proxy for the wider population. The press pass is just a convienient way to manage the number of people you have a deal with, and hopefully a gaurantee of some measure of professionalism in their interaction (as opposed to say, the "Don't tase me bro" guy). press protection is not given based on how many people you may represent. Freedom of the press is to ensure free dissemination of ideas and the "don't tase me bro" guy is just as valid of an opinion as Anderson Cooper or Rush Limbaugh. There is no guarantee that a person working for mass media represents an opinion any greater then his own nor is he likely to be more literate about any particular topic aside for English language for print journalists and make-up and diction for TV journalists. Many bloggers have a better grasp of specialty issues then mass media journalists.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[cHiphead]

But why is that right extended to CORPORATE news org employees and not Slashdot commentors? We regularly act a proxy for the wider population in our comments, whether or not that wider population agrees with what we have to say or report (which is the same case as a news organizations' reporters and editors content).

The "dont tase me bro" guy is an exception and a straw man argument to level in this discussion, although his intent must be proven as non-news and fictional. In retrospect, his incident DID finally inspire me to read the Greg Palast book (Armed Madhouse), so perhaps even the pranksters can have a news worthy purpose.

Do/Did you work in a news org of some sort?

Logistics are not the issue, control of the news flow(not just from a propaganda angle, from a corporate value and advertising revenue viewpoint as well) is the real issue.

Cheers.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[plague3106]

I see. So you only have rights when it makes things convient? Sorry, I don't buy your explaination.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[SydShamino]

But why is that right extended to CORPORATE news org employees and not Slashdot commentors?

I think this is still a clash of "old world/new world" societies. When working on traditional topics and with more conservative people, those involved tend to favor traditional news sources, and so their bias toward "true journalists" limits them to just corporate professionals. However, with topics and people that themselves have embraced "new world" ideas, the notions of press can be much for flexible.

Consider, for example, a modern-day movie festival such as Fantastic Fest compared to a more traditional festival such as Cannes. It's far more likely that a blogger or web-only film reviewer would get a press pass at a festival sponsored by Ain't It Cool News, when compared to a festival enveloped in old-world snoot.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[samschof]

I am sure the government and large media companies would love the right to designate who is and who is not a journalist. I think we are safer regarding all citizens as journalists.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Otto]

...the "don't tase me bro" guy is just as valid of an opinion as... You can say that he has the right to speak, sure, but that's not the same thing. Frankly, he's a damned looney nutter, and so no, his opinion is not valid. In my own opinion, of course.

What do you define as "press protection" anyway? Why should he get such treatment? Because he has an opinion? That's no good, everybody has an opinion. No, press protection generally is, in fact, a matter of numbers. If somebody has enough people listening to them, then they have more of a right to speak (actually, more of a right to NOT speak, since that's what "press protection" generally does) than other people.

Sorry, but that's a simple fact. When more people listen to you, what you say is more important. You can curse the darkness all you like, it's when you talk into the lights that you make a difference.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

What differentiates a "press pass" from a piece of paper I printed out on my home inkjet that says Press Pass and lists my publication? In other words, who gets to decide whether or not I am conveniently a member of the press?

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my Con Law class I was told that all the rights of the press were derived from the rights of general citizens, and that every right a reporter has, a normal citizen also has.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me verifiable source that doesn't have ties to the current Administration, and isn't owned by an International Media Conglomerate, and I'll show you a reliable NEWS outlet.

Till then, IT IS NOT NEWS! IT IS PROPAGANDA!

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone holding a press pass acts as proxy for the wider population.

Then why is it that they are always prefaced by: "the views expressed are those of the participants, and not necessarily of NewsCorp." And why do most political commentators list their occupation as "comedian" and not "journalist"?

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[vimh42]

Ah but there we go. A blogger also acts as a proxy for the wider population. They just may not work for a news agency. Indeed, a measure of professionalism is only a hope. That goes for both bloggers and the "Pro" news media.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows, maybe this would allow people working for Fox News to graduate onto becomming real journalists.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[sm62704]

Someone holding a press pass acts as proxy for the wider population

Apologies for this US-centric post, but I don't remember "reporter" being on the last ballot I cast. I also don't recall reading that Thoman Paine needed a press pass for his "Common Sense" articles.

I've read the Constitution, and I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment regarding press passes, or government powers to issue them. That document doesn't grant rights to citizens; it specifically states that you already have all rights. What it does is grant power to government, and limited power at that,

Sadly, opinions like yours have allowed government to gain far greater powers than granted by the Constitution.

-mcgrew

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[darth_linux]

I have to chime in here. Not in response to parent - i just wanted in the discussion and this was my entry point.
As a matter of ethics, journalists should report the truth, facts. As a matter of privacy "Freedom of the press" is not a pass to report every fact about individuals. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that certain things about you won't be known. I'm not talking about matters of public record or advocating against the Press's freedom. I'm reminding people that freedom is from punishment when the truth is reported. It keeps them publishing reports about the president's record or government/corporate negligence. It does not give anyone the right to find out whatever they want. As a matter of decency, the press should respect a person's right to privacy. People who make their living off of celebrity life are not doing anyone favors. If journalists report to the wider population, they have responsibilities too many to list here. Unfortunately, responsible journalists don't sell.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[sm62704]

Oh hell...

I was going to rebut your comment with links to all sorts of controversial things I've posted on the internet in the last ten years, but then I remembered all the things that there's no way in hell I'd ever post. You and Thompson are right, it seems.

-mcgrew

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[king-manic]

You can say that he has the right to speak, sure, but that's not the same thing. Frankly, he's a damned looney nutter, and so no, his opinion is not valid. In my own opinion, of course.

What do you define as "press protection" anyway? Why should he get such treatment? Because he has an opinion? That's no good, everybody has an opinion. No, press protection generally is, in fact, a matter of numbers. If somebody has enough people listening to them, then they have more of a right to speak (actually, more of a right to NOT speak, since that's what "press protection" generally does) than other people.

Sorry, but that's a simple fact. When more people listen to you, what you say is more important. You can curse the darkness all you like, it's when you talk into the lights that you make a difference. Importance is not dictated by the number of people who listen. Extremely important information and opinions can go unheard. Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. If the power that be came down on Micheal Giest (prominent columnist/copy right blogger/law professor) or another notable person in the blogsphere he should be afforded the same protection as if he was a columnist for the Phoenix star. They publish their opinions for others to see. What is the difference between a blogger and the independent press? The "don't tase me bro" guy may be a nutter but you ought to hear what he says before you write him off. I have not so I have yet to write him off.

No one has any "more right to speak" then they have "right to be heard". Minority opinions and minority insights should be afforded the same protection as majority opinions and insights. Rush Limbaugh is not right because 13.5 million Americans listen to him, he is right or wrong based on the content of his speech. I am not wrong simply because only 0-100 people see my post, I am right or wrong based on the content of my text. Affording any less protection is to diminish the nascent "social media" that is set to become part of the mainstream media for the next generation.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Kadin2048]

Frankly, he's a damned looney nutter, and so no, his opinion is not valid. In my own opinion, of course. Sure. But I think the same thing about a lot of people on mainstream TV and in print, too.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[GigG]

And you and others here seem to confuse freedom of the press with freedom of speech. If the founding fathers didn't think there was a difference why then would they provide for both. Also, one is not a subset of the other.

...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[GigG]

What differentiates a "press pass" from a piece of paper I printed out on my home inkjet that says Press Pass and lists my publication? In other words, who gets to decide whether or not I am conveniently a member of the press?

What ever group issues the pass. There is no such thing as a federal press pass.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[king-manic]

And you and others here seem to confuse freedom of the press with freedom of speech. If the founding fathers didn't think there was a difference why then would they provide for both. Also, one is not a subset of the other. The democratization of media via the internet is blurring the line between the two. Social media. The founding fathers lived in a time when a printing press was very expensive, existed in limited numbers, and distribution of the content was extremely difficult. It's very different today. I am a person who gets more news via the internet then any traditional media and our numbers have grown. Thus to me Micheal Giest is the same as Andy Greenberg of forbes. Today any person with a opinion has a chance of getting it displayed in prominent places (slashdot). The better written and targeted the more likely it will be displayed. You don't have to be a journalist only reasonable aware of what the editor prefers. There are drawbacks but you'd be silly not see the short comings of the existing mass media.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Firethorn]

True, and it's up to the organization holding an event as to whether they recognize the pass. For example, I might hold an event and specifically ban Andy Rooney because I didn't like one of his pieces 7.3982 years ago, disallow the NYT because I think that they're a 'rag', yet invite Dan of Dan's Data because I think he's brilliant.

It gets a little more complicated with government agencies - especially those that deal with crime, but I think their general policies are 'Large Local organizations first'. If there's room left, then let smaller local agencies and big national ones in on the press conference.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[ajs]

Importance is not dictated by the number of people who listen. Extremely important information and opinions can go unheard. Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. Let's get our Bill of Rights freedom's straight, here. We're talking about freedom of the press, not speech. The press and everyone else is free to speak (or publish that speech) however they like within the constraints that the rest of the constitution explicitly and implicitly imposes, but the fact that we single out freedom of the press means that we value the press as an entity within our society.

What does that mean?

It means that you can't go around telling newspapers and other "press" what they can print, and by extension (here's where it's not the same as speech), they must be given access to information as a proxy for the people to whom they report. A blogger who is widely read is a reporter in this sense, but it may take us a decade or two to get that understanding moved through the courts. That's not all bad. Ultimately, these protections guarantee that the people are informed without having to invite everyone into the press room at the white house, or (perhaps more importantly), without allowing everyone to bring a camcorder into the State of the Union speech.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I was watching something of critical importance and missed what you were saying. Would you mind repeating it?

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Kazoo the Clown]

As Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

The thing is, the market for owning a press recently crashed, and some of these guys who paid a whole lot for theirs are pissed off about it. They want to claim essentially, that just because they had to pay millions of dollars for their press, that they have more right to speak than you who got one via a free blogging account.

Sour grapes.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[2short]

"You can say that he has the right to speak, sure, but that's not the same thing. "

Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom of the press? I agree, and so do the authors of the first amendment, who chose to protect both.

What protections, rights or privileges do you think should be extended to journalists who have press passes and not to journalists who do not?

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[BitterOak]

Apologies for this US-centric post, but I don't remember "reporter" being on the last ballot I cast.

Essentially you "cast your ballot" when choosing which newspapers to subscribe to or which television news programs you watch, etc. It's a market driven approach. But I do agree with much of the rest of your post.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Give me one good reason that someone with a press pass deserves rights that you don't have without it.

The only rights it would make sense to have is access, and that is more due to either 1) generousity from a company for publicity or 2) cause only so many people can get into a white house briefing room,etc.

The former is just that a press pass makes it easy for a company to come up with a policy and people to implement it, and the latter more related to connections than a slip of paper.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Trailwalker]

The Press Pass is merely a way to control which reporters have access.

The White House Press Pass is used just for this. Other venues act similarly.

Governmental agencies and businesses try to keep their critics away.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[beav007]

The case set forth the following; 'It's not the format; it's the content and intention that make text journalism / reporting.'"

If that's the case, perhaps CNN have something to worry about...

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[ScrewMaster]

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what you would do if some nutters in uniform were about to tase you for an inopportune question you asked. Hold up your press card and scream "I'm a blogger, go tase some ordinary citizen!"?

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[poetmatt]

Welcome to the unfortunate truth of unbiased free speech. Everyone really does deserve the same freedoms as the press. The problem is, exactly as the judge put it, the content. As much as I'd like to see the world speaking freely we can all imagine where fascism and racism would come into play if such a blanket protection came around. Ad Nauseum, etc.

I mean seriously, whats wrong with a random blogger writing about whatever they feel that would discredit it compared to a press individual? Wasn't there the part of freedom of speech that involves objectionable ideas, etc?

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[hesiod]

> As much as I'd like to see the world speaking freely we can all imagine where fascism and racism would come into play if such a blanket protection came around.

So you believe freedom of speech should be limited because you don't agree with what someone might say? That's pretty disturbing. If people are free to speak their minds without repercussions (excluding otherwise illegal action that had/may take place), it makes it much easier to spot the nutjobs and assholes. When they are forced to remain silent because you are offended by their idiocy, it's harder to keep an eye on them until they finally snap.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[poetmatt]

I answered your question within my own post, which you misread. The reason FOR freedom of speech includes objectionable ideas, thoughts, etc. I am just saying that the counterpoint is that people use freedom of speech for racism/facism and/or suppress it in the same way.

I do understand your point and agree with it, however. The problem is, the distinction of illegal action would include racism, so thats kinda tough to dance between.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[stonecypher]

Press passes are a commercial convenience, meant to help arrange public events, and do not convey rights of any form. In as regards the underlying question, though, why should bloggers be afforded defenses typically considered the privy of "real" press, the defense of the press is critically hinged on the defense of small press. Oftentimes those are the only organizations with the scope and scale to deal with local issues and local problems. If we attempt to associate those defenses with a certain level of distribution, we begin to lose the intent of that protection beneath that level.

Freedom of the press must extend even to some guy in his garage with an inkjet printer writing his very first flyer. The mechanism and scale of distribution aren't important. What is important is to defend the ability of individuals and groups to disseminate information, and blogs are a mechanism for exactly that.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Bee1zebub]

It's just an old boy's club, pure and simple. Because all the senior officers of most of the major corporations went to the same universities and are members of the same clubs and associations means that they know each other at least at second or third hand. It is of course only natural to look out for one's friends, and so their behaviour is hardly unsurprising.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Bee1zebub]

One of my pet peeves is the use of tween to mean 8-12 y.o. children. Tolkien invented it, and clearly defined it to mean 18-33 years old. If they want a word for that age range, at least make up their own, rather than stealing one which has a perfectly good meaning.

Re:What's so special about that press card?

[Otto]

Importance is not dictated by the number of people who listen. Extremely important information and opinions can go unheard. Nonsense. First off, ideas and opinions do not exist outside the human mind. They are not freely roaming the landscape, in search of truth and fun. An idea that is not heard ceases to exist and therefore has no importance of any kind.

What is important is what everybody hears. Why? Because they heard it. The number of people who know about an idea, whether they agree with it or not, is the only rational measurement of the import of the idea.

Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. Who's looking to silence anybody here? Say whatever you like. But that doesn't mean people have to listen to you.

If the power that be came down on Micheal Giest (prominent columnist/copy right blogger/law professor) or another notable person in the blogsphere he should be afforded the same protection as if he was a columnist for the Phoenix star. Why? If he said something defamatory, then he should be held accountable for that. Freedom of speech is not absolute.

They publish their opinions for others to see. You can publish your opinion all you like and nobody can stop you. As long as it is obviously your opinion, and not slander or libel.

What is the difference between a blogger and the independent press? Numbers, obviously. What the blogger writes is of less import because fewer people see it. It has less impact. It enters fewer minds.

The "don't tase me bro" guy may be a nutter but you ought to hear what he says before you write him off. Why? I heard part of what he said. The problem is that it was the insane part, which invalidated pretty much anything else he had to say. I formed my own opinion of him, categorized him as a nut, and went on with my life. Do you behave any differently, or do you mean to sit there and honestly tell me that you take the time to read and fully understand every single person's opinion on every subject before forming a judgment about the person as a whole?

Minority opinions and minority insights should be afforded the same protection as majority opinions and insights. Opinions are always protected. Because they are opinions. It's speech in general we're talking about here, not all speech is opinion.

Rush Limbaugh is not right because 13.5 million Americans listen to him, he is right or wrong based on the content of his speech. I am not wrong simply because only 0-100 people see my post, I am right or wrong based on the content of my text. Who said anything about "right" vs. "wrong"? This is about protecting people's right to speak, while also not protecting their right to defame.

"Press" protection generally means protecting ones sources. This is different than this case, where the person was basically accused of defamation.

Does this work in reverse?

[TheGoodSteven]

If a blogger can be given the same rights as a journalist because of the content of his message, does that mean that media outlets - TV shows, newspapers, etc., can have it taken away if it is found that their content isn't really news?

Re:Does this work in reverse?

[BadMrMojo]

The quote in TFS implies a similar issue. This is not as much a monumental success for blog[i]gers[/i] as it is for blog[i]ging[/i].

The quote says that text is possibly protected, regardless of format. While I approve wholeheartedly of that notion, it also implies that for any text to be considered protected as journalism, it needs to meet an nebulously-defined standard of "content and intention." I also happen to agree with that as well but I can see how others might not share that opinion. Most bloggers, even after this decision, still fall under the same unprotected, non-informative, masturbatory umbrella as before - the medium itself just got a little official recognition.

Re:Does this work in reverse?

[morgan_greywolf]

Are you implying that there is a lot of crap spewing out of major media outlets that doesn't or shouldn't qualify as 'news'? ;)

Re:Does this work in reverse?

[Dancindan84]

It's not news. It's fark.com

Re:Does this work in reverse?

[Anonymous Coward]

My only standard is "is it factually correct?" If all of the facts within the text are verifiable, then it's news. Remarkably, this standard is quite similar to defenses against slander, libel, etc. "Intention" has nothing to do with it, if someone discovers that [insert drug company here] knew that [insert drug here] caused heart attacks in users and attempted to censor studies demonstrating this, it's news. Even if that someone just happens to work for a competitor and releases the information specifically to harm that drug company.

Re:Does this work in reverse?

[BadMrMojo]

My only standard is "is it factually correct?"...

While appealing, I think there's actually more to it than that. Off the top of my head, I'd add responsibility to the list.

Publishing information which has no particular value and puts someone's safety at risk - even though it may be factually correct - is irresponsible and not an example of protected journalism. By your own, sole standard of "factually correct", a simple list of names and their SSNs would qualify as journalism and therefore deserve protection.

I'm sure the next person who comments could come up with yet another entirely reasonable criteria. And then the one after that...

You can see where this is going, right?

So, chief amongst our many standards are factual veracity, responsibility, fear, surprise, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope and nifty red hats...

Re:Does this work in reverse?

[fm6]

In theory, I suppose they can. But infotainment is purveyed by big media companies with good lawyers and very deep pockets. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for somebody to take them on.

Now if he could get paid for the inconvenience ...

[meburke]

The article didn't mention whether the sanctions had any fines or reparations attached. Luckily the blogger was able to argue his case pro se, but this is not normally advisable and it is mostly unsuccessful. The original blog was apparently written in high temper, but the writer still managed to keep his cool. As a warning to other bloggers: Speak from verifiable experience (yours or others'), and speak the truth with precision. You may be entitled to your opinion, but you may have to defend it, so hyperbole and angry characterizations count against you.

A lien for what?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Philip Smith was able to obtain a special sanction after the Plaintiff attorney put a 'notice of lien' (called lis pendens) on Smith's residence.

Slander of title?

Re:A lien for what?

[oni]

My guess is, they told him, "we are suing you for a brazillion dollars. You can't sell this condo because we fully expect that the court is going to award it to us by this time next week."

Basically, just bullying him. I think the best way to get justice here would be for people to google-bomb the words, "ebay holding company" and also the name of this company so that searches point to this guy's blog.

Re:A lien for what?

[Dunbal]

"we are suing you for a brazillion dollars.

      Actually, the unit of currency in Brazil is not the dollar but the "real". Oh, wait...

Re:A lien for what?

[nomadic]

Slander of title?

Probably would work. Usually you can't sue for slander of title over a lis pendens, but since there was no actual basis whatsoever for the lis pendens litigation immunity probably wouldn't apply. Might also be a basis for malicious prosecution and/or abuse of process.

Why the third person?

[cooley]

From TFS:

After nearly one and a half years of harassment from a relentless attorney, it seems that quietly a blogger in South Carolina has won a monumental ruling in favor of bloggers Directed at the story's submitter, "fixyourthinking":
Hey buddy, I'm really glad you (rightfully) won your court case and all against those jerks, but why post it to Slashdot with a sentence like that? The use of the word "seems" implies to me that you're trying to pretend you're not Phillip Smith.

Aren't you, in fact, the defendant in this case? Submitting stuff and pretending you're not the owner of the blog you're linking to, and implying you're not the fellow referenced in the case, is just a little lame IMHO.

Re:Why the third person?

[sahrss]

Considering how often the Slashdot editors cut out or outright edit the quoted parts of summaries, I'm not assuming it's his actual quote. It could be, but can hardly be assumed to be.

Yes, Slashdot editors have lost my belief in their credibility...

Re:Why the third person?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you say, Mr. 565657. Just don't tase me, bro.

Re:Why the third person?

[LMacG]

I keep trying to tag things like this with "pimpmyblog" but it doesn't seem to work.

Re:Why the third person?

[cthulu_mt]

Good catch; though I'm suprised that someone other than Kdawson let that crap through.

Hopefully the bandwidth charges from his site host will teach this jackball a lesson.

Re:Why the third person?

[Sockatume]

"This just in: I'm not being sued anymore, in a landmark ruling which is sure to shake the judiciary to its core. More at eleven."

Huh, guess he does qualify as a journalist. ;)

Re:Why the third person?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Blogger will be able to handle it.

Re:Why the third person?

[Matt Perry]

Hey buddy, I'm really glad you (rightfully) won your court case and all against those jerks, but why post it to Slashdot with a sentence like that? The use of the word "seems" implies to me that you're trying to pretend you're not Phillip Smith.

Aren't you, in fact, the defendant in this case? Submitting stuff and pretending you're not the owner of the blog you're linking to, and implying you're not the fellow referenced in the case, is just a little lame IMHO.

In case you've never submitted a story before, you can put any name and URL you like into the submission box. I once submitted a story about Mozilla and filled in Jamie Zawinski for the "your name" field and the URL to his home page in the appropriate field. When it was posted it looked like "he said..." but he didn't.

Re:Why the third person?

[cooley]

Thanks for the enlightenment there man, I did not know that.

Re:Why the third person?

[adzoox]

A friend of mine used my slashdot account to submit the story.

Press Pass != Rights

[Chibi Merrow]

A press card doesn't grant you any rights that a normal citizen does not enjoy.

You can't grant someone rights. They either have them or they don't.

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[CRCulver]

A press card doesn't grant you any rights that a normal citizen does not enjoy.

Perhaps a press card doesn't grant rights, but it sure grants a greater chance of avoiding imprisonment for refusing to name a source. Judges are usually respectful of a reporter's desire for confidentiality, but the average joe could hardly use such an excuse for keeping mum.

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[Chibi Merrow]

Judges are usually respectful of a reporter's desire for confidentiality

Didn't a New York Times reporter just go to jail for not naming a source? I think you're mistaken. Granted, she just wanted a book out of the deal...

Press passes are issued by some organization and only give the wearer privileges with regards to that organization. If you get an event press pass, you're treated as press for that event. If the police give you a press pass, you can cross police lines. Neither an event organizer or the police are required to give a pass to anyone. If a newspaper gives you a press pass, no one is under any obligation to honor it, it only carries the weight of the reputation of the entity who printed it. Same with professional press organizations.

Regardless, you can't give yourself a press pass (or at least one anyone will respect), someone has to recognize you as Press. Which means "editorial" style bloggers will probably not earn the privilege but ones that do actual journalism have a chance. And that's what it is, a privilege, that can be taken away. A right can't be taken away (except through criminal proceedings), nor bestowed by a piece of paper.

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[stuntpope]

Didn't a New York Times reporter just go to jail for not naming a source? He said "usually", so how is he mistaken? I suppose you are referring to the case of Judith Miller being jailed in 2005. Her contempt charge and jailing was controversial for the very fact that it was unusual.

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[SargentDU]

Why does this make me remember the classic Three Stooges routine, when they hide in an automobile in the 30's and when they get out, they try to cross a police line: First Larry shows a button that says "Press" and he says "Press" then Moe does the same, then Curly shows a button that says "Pull" obviously from the car's heater controls and says,"Pull! Nyuch, Nyuch, Nyuch?" :)

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't grant someone rights. They either have them or they don't.

Sorry dude, you DO NOT have the right to enter my living room unless I grant you that right.

This is how press passes are used, they're issued by entities in a manner simular to tickets to allow the holders access to areas/events that the general public does not have the right to access (or maybe has to pay to access).

A press pass is NOT some goverment issued ID, and also press passes seem to have nothing to do at all this this story.

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[Chibi Merrow]

No, it's not unusual. It's a pretty common thing. It's getting more common, yes, and that's why reporters are asking for a shield law. But Branzburg v. Hayes was decided back in 1972, and the Supreme Court said that reporters have to answer a grand jury the same as any other citizen. The first amendment applies to everyone equally, just because you give yourself a special title ("journalist") doesn't get you more first amendment protection than other people.

Re:Press Pass != Rights

[Chibi Merrow]

Sorry dude, you DO NOT have the right to enter my living room unless I grant you that right.

No, you can't give me the RIGHT to enter your living room. You can, however, allow me the privilege of entering your living room. It's an important difference.

This is how press passes are used, they're issued by entities in a manner simular to tickets to allow the holders access to areas/events that the general public does not have the right to access (or maybe has to pay to access).

Isn't that what I just said?

A press pass is NOT some goverment issued ID, and also press passes seem to have nothing to do at all this this story.

I was responding to someone's allegation that a piece of paper somehow gets you more rights than you have the day you're born.

Not Censorship.

[LWATCDR]

At least not government censorship.
This was first of all a civil case. You can sue anyone for anything.
So here is what happened.
"BidZirk struck back with a lawsuit claiming defamation, privacy invasion and trademark violations. After losing its request for a preliminary injunction, BidZirk appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which denied its request. Very messy discovery followed, with both parties getting chastised for their conduct*. Finally, in this ruling, the court granted Smith summary judgment, and threw in some sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel to boot."
Somebody didn't like a company and posted a nasty opinion of them. They got their lawyer to sue. The case went to court and was tossed out.
In other words a great example of the system working.
It sounds as if BidZirk's lawyers so messed up this case that the plaintiff might even have a shot act getting his legal fees.

Re:Not Censorship.

[sm62704]

Somebody didn't like a company and posted a nasty opinion of them.

This is America, where a company can legally bribe "your" representatives before they are elected, by "contributing" to both major party candidates. When Sony gives ten million to the Republican and another ten million to the Democrat, no matter who loses, Sony wins. And Sony gets whatever laws it wants passed, and whatever laws it doesn't like repealed (unless some other company has made a bigger pre-election bribe the other way).

So when a corporate entity shuts you up, that IS government censorship. Besides, from the encyclopedia:

Typically censorship is done by governments, religious and secular groups, corporations, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist.

Now, since an encyclopedia is not a good enough source for a school paper, let alone a scientific one, how about the dictionary?

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
-verb (used with object) 6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

Yes, I saw your "At least not government censorship." Still not going to let you squirm out of it; the fact that it isn't the government per se has nothing whatever to do with the fact that it WAS in fact censorship.

-mcgrew

Re:Not Censorship.

[LWATCDR]

"2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others."
The the entire legal system is censorship.
Frankly I think the people on Slashdot need to get past the view that all "censorship" is bad. How many people on Slashdot will rant about how censorship is evil but will moderate an opinion that they don't agree with?
But no this wasn't censorship. How? At no time was the post removed by force of law.

Re:Not Censorship.

[adzoox]

It wasn't a civil case. It was a federal case with pendant litigation. The copyright issue went to court first and went from District to the Federal court of appeals.

when will companies understand?

[KeepQuiet]

When will companies understand that if they launch a big campaign against something/someone found online, it just spreads like wildfire and usually ends up with their humiliation. Dear companies, just suck that bad review up and give better service next time.

Bullshit.

[PhxBlue]

The ruling made it clear that blogging is commentary and/or editorializing, but not reporting in the journalism sense. In 99% of all cases, bloggers are not journalists and they should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card.

Okay, go to a local newsstand. Pick up a paper, pay the $.50, and open up to the editorial page.

What's the difference between that editorial page and a blog? The format. So saying that "blogging is commentary ... but not reporting in the journalism sense" is bullshit.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I said blogging should be labeled commentary and/or editorializing. It is not the same as reporting the news. The editorial page in a news paper is not reporting. It is commentary.

Your ... cut out the meaning of what was said and is typical of blog misinformation. And you are accountable to no one.

Re:Bullshit.

[PhxBlue]

I said blogging should be labeled commentary and/or editorializing. It is not the same as reporting the news. The editorial page in a news paper is not reporting. It is commentary.

It's still bullshit. Commentary is commentary -- so why should the people who write for a newspaper get special protection that people who write for a blog don't?

Your ... cut out the meaning of what was said and is typical of blog misinformation.

No it didn't. I cut out "and/or editorializing." That wasn't a "meaning of" anything, because editorializing is synonymous with commentary. You were wasting words, and I didn't care to repeat it.

Re:Bullshit.

[Lumpy]

It's just the paid and college degree holding journalists that get their panties all bunched up when a lay-person dares to practice their craft without a blessing from them. honestly I see lots of "bloggers" that are better journalists than the high paid magazine and newspaper guys and gals. This threatens the "pros" and scares them. It also scares the government as many voices can not be censored as easily as a few.

I personally do news photography and videography. I get crap from "professionals" all the time because I was not stupid and did things the old way like they did. I sell my shots as a freelance. I end up paid very well for my hobby, and that utterly pisses off professionals that worked their way up and went to journalism school.

Re:Bullshit.

[PhxBlue]

It's just the paid and college degree holding journalists that get their panties all bunched up when a lay-person dares to practice their craft without a blessing from them. honestly I see lots of "bloggers" that are better journalists than the high paid magazine and newspaper guys and gals. This threatens the "pros" and scares them. It also scares the government as many voices can not be censored as easily as a few.

Good. It should scare the professionals ... it should scare them to a higher standard. I don't have a college degree, but I am employed in the field -- and I agree with your sentiments. Hell, look at Slashdot -- it's more successful than a lot of newspapers' Web sites, and the editors here certainly don't have journalism degrees! :)

With all that said, though, it's hard to find the good writing out there sometimes. I've surfed through sites like Indymedia, etc. There are good messages out there, but it's hard to see them sometimes when the writers don't know basic grammar. I suppose that's a topic for another time, though.

Re:Bullshit.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Hell, look at Slashdot -- it's more successful than a lot of newspapers' Web sites, and the editors here certainly don't have journalism degrees! :)

Yes, but the newspaper is often easier to read, if only for the correct spelling/grammar/technical clarity.

Re:Bullshit.

[uniquename72]

I said blogging should be labeled commentary and/or editorializing. It is not the same as reporting the news. The editorial page in a news paper is not reporting. It is commentary. And yet Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, Frank Rich, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck all attend various political gatherings, each with a press pass.

Clearly, the government and you disagree on what constitutes 'reporting'.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, Frank Rich, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck all attend various political gatherings, each with a press pass.

O'Reilly and Beck frequently state that what they say on their shows are their opinions, not fact. That's why I've never understood the hate for these guys. I dislike the editorials in the local leftist papers where I live (Seattle). I have a unique tactic - I don't read them. BTW, I watch O'Reilly only once in a while - usually when NBA is preempting L&O (hey it's when I eat dinner) - for laughs and can't stand Beck even though I lean right.

Re:Bullshit.

[Bee1zebub]

/. is better than my city's newspaper, which has the dubious crown of being Rupert Murdoch's first newspaper, and is one of his worst. Articles are usually missing important information included in his other newspapers, and has a worse record of dupes and errors than /. does.

Re:Bullshit.

[Bee1zebub]

TFA (and TF summary) both pointed that out. The judge noted that most blogs were editorials or commentaries, not journalism, but that that one was.

Re:Bullshit.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The information is better. I was just commenting on the technical quality of the writing. You know the typical "did the editors read this submission" or "I may be a geek, but what does that acronym mean" thing that pops up frequently. Your local paper may be erronous factually, but I bet stylistically it is inferior. That said, the facts are obviously more important and I was being facitious in pretending otherwise.

Here is the case file online

[steveshaw]

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-6:2006cv00109/case_id-138245/

It is also available on PACER, which may be more complete, but there is a per-page access fee involved.

Go to the bottom for the Order Granting Summary Judgment.

Herlong is an excellent judge, I'm had a few cases in front of him. Good for the blogger. I hate other attorneys who treat opposing parties like this. It gives us all an even worse name.

Re:Here is the case file online

[$RANDOMLUSER]

"... the court finds that based on Elwell's grossly improper conduct, he should be sanctioned"

Sanctioned? Woopteedoo. This should cost him money. Maybe then "other attorneys" would get the message.

Re:Here is the case file online

[steveshaw]

I'VE had a few cases in front of him.... Arrrrrggghhh. Even with preview, I manage to screw up.

Re:Here is the case file online

[steveshaw]

The judge sanctioned him $1000, payable to Smith. A pittance, I know, but this type of sanction is very rare to begin with. Also, no lawyer worth a damn wants to be officially sanctioned. Of course, this guy may not care.

Re:Here is the case file online

[nuzak]

> It is also available on PACER, which may be more complete, but there is a per-page access fee involved.

PACER is free if you don't rack up more than $10 a year with it. Of course it's VERY easy to do that -- even searches incur a per-"page" charge for the results. It's also a public record, so anyone's perfectly free to grab documents off PACER and republish them publicly.

Re:Now if he could get paid for the inconvenience

[steveshaw]

The sanction was $1000.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-6:2006cv00109/case_id-138245/

Speedy trials

[Harmonious Botch]

The right to a speedy trial is for criminal cases, not civil.

Re:Speedy trials

[morgan_greywolf]

Right. But the post I was replying to referred to the 6-7 year criminal trial of R. Kelly.

Re:Speedy trials

[Harmonious Botch]

Oooops! Sorry, didn't notice that. Thought you were referring to TFA.

Familiarity . . .

[Dausha]

I am not familiar with the 1.5 year lawsuit between a blogger and a corporation. However, I heard of a similar 18-month lawsuit where the corporation sued an individual and lost. Could these two lawsuits be related?

Right!

[msimm]

Next you'll be telling me my backstage pass WON'T get me laid...the horror!

Re:Right!

[Chibi Merrow]

No sex in the champagne room. Sorry.

Re:Right!

[FritzTheCat1030]

No sex in the champagne room. Sorry.
--
-Merrow

You're doing it wrong.
--
-Fritz

I'll go one further ....

[Archangel Michael]

"I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two."

I'd actually go further ... there is probably good reason to distinguish between the two, where a citizen journalist may be more reliable (in general) than a "professional" one. Plenty of Professional Journalists have been found fabricating stories / events just to spice up the copy to increase viewership/circulation.

I trust the more "raw" version of an amateur over the sanitized (aka Doctored) versions coming out of many journalists. Remember too, that lately it was the less than "professional" journalists that have broken the news on these types of doctorings, from Photoshoped photos to CBS' fictional documents about GWB ...

So, count me as one of the few that no longer trusts his news from major sources. they aren't reliable enough for me.

Re:I'll go one further ....

[epee1221]

I'd actually go further ... there is probably good reason to distinguish between the two, where a citizen journalist may be more reliable (in general) than a "professional" one. Plenty of Professional Journalists have been found fabricating stories / events just to spice up the copy to increase viewership/circulation.

That would certainly affect how credible I believe the person in question is, but I don't think that the laws/courts should really be taking into consideration whether a person is a professional or an amateur.

Re:I'll go one further ....

[number11]

Plenty of Professional Journalists have been found fabricating stories / events just to spice up the copy to increase viewership/circulation.

The difference is, when they get caught fabricating stories, they tend to get fired and have a hard time finding another job in their field. What happens to the amateur who gets caught fabricating a story?

That's not to say that pro journalism is pure as Ivory Snow. There are plenty of pro journalists who are incompetent/sloppy/uncaring, who fail to check their facts properly, who have an axe to grind. (Probably not as prevalent as amateurs who have those failings, but still.) Even more, they are published by large corporations, and ultimately those large corporations control what gets printed, either by being able to spike stories they don't like, or by controlling hiring and firing. To my mind, this latter problem is at the core of pro journalism's problems: that it's all vetted and passed on by people who are thinking what effect a story will have on sales (not only sales of the news, but sales from other divisions of the conglomerate), what the reaction of their country club buddies will be. If they piss Washington off, will the military contracts dry up?

The CBS/GWB thing is another matter entirely. CBS got suckered. Nobody has claimed that CBS fabricated those documents themselves. They were accepted by CBS because their contents were so believable (even to the Guard secretary who would have been the one to type them, if they had been real). But, irrespective of their contents, the documents themselves were forged.

Re:I'll go one further ....

[Archangel Michael]

The real difference is that a "professional" journalist has greater gravitas than your average Joe. While Joe may report something, it may or may not be true, but when a professional reports something it is assumed true. There is greater "trust" in a "professional" than average (unknown) Joe. However, when six Joes all report on an event, it is much easier to figure out what is and what isn't "truth" than a single source (professional) journalism. And when each of the three major broadcast news all run the same set of stories, all carrying the same party line, and much of the print and cable news is in lockstep, it isn't good.

I'd trust mob news reporting over network news any day.

Check out Daily Kos

[coyote-san]

Check out Daily Kos (http://dailykos.com) yesterday. Some idiot 'with a press card' was basically making the same point, and specifically named Markos ('kos') as an example.

Oops. As Markos points out, the critic didn't even bother to click the 'About' button where he would learn that he has an undergraduate degree in journalism, has actually worked as a paid journalist, and oh yeah also has a law degree. He isn't some guy ranting from his mother's basement.

I've seen this pattern countless times. Someone says a "blogger" isn't qualified, yet even a casual examination shows that the blogger is not only highly qualified, they're often more qualified than their would-be critic.

Does this mean that this is true of all bloggers? Of course not. But at this point I think we've clearly crossed the "better to let 20 murderers walk than hang one innocent man" threshold and bloggers should be treated with respect and as bona fide journalists unless they demonstrate otherwise.

Unrelated note: you do realize, don't you, that Fox News has successfully argued in court that it should not be held accountable for factual errors in its reports because it presents 'opinion and commentary', not 'news', programming? Why are they entitled to 'journalist' protection while people with appropriate experience and/or advanced degrees are held up for ridicule?

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[AK Marc]

Unrelated note: you do realize, don't you, that Fox News has successfully argued in court that it should not be held accountable for factual errors in its reports because it presents 'opinion and commentary', not 'news', programming?

Not just factual errors, but known factual errors (the rest of us call them lies). They were given a statement, they checked and found the statement to be false. They used the statement anyway because it sounded better than the truth. They knowingly spread information they believed to be false.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[BillEGoat]

Reference?

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution, is why.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Bloggers actually tend to be domain experts. Are these people going to argue that Tim Bray isn't an expert because he blogs about XML, or PZ Myers isn't an expert because he writes a blog about biology? Both of these guys have more knowledge about their respective disciplines than an army of "journalists" with meaningless press credentials.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[jdjbuffalo]

I'm not familiar with this case. Can you site it or at least point me in the direction of some source material on it?

I'd like to use it to help enlighten some relatives that think there is no news but Fox News...(sad I know)

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[R2.0]

"But at this point I think we've clearly crossed the "better to let 20 murderers walk than hang one innocent man" threshold and bloggers should be treated with respect and as bona fide journalists unless they demonstrate otherwise"

Absolutely. And since I wouldn't piss on a J-school graduate if he was on fire, much less treat him with respect, I guess that's how I'll treat bloggers as well. As for the government, "journalists" should have no fewer rights than I do, but certainly no more.

Somewhere along the way, the journalists have gotten it into their head that they are part of a fourth branch of government: "representing" the people and providing oversight. And now, they have started acting like members of government - priveledged, out of touch with reality, and believing the laws don't apply to them.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[AK Marc]

You sound like a complete ass that is assuming I'm wrong. A one-word order? Thanks, but I think I'll not bother doing your work for you. Any of the top-10 results on my Google search would have been sufficient, indicating that you are too stupid or too lazy to search yourself, but that you have your mind made up and even if I did post a reference, your response (even if just an internal response) would be "that's not credible."

If you are, in fact undecided on this issue and would like more information, perhaps you should try asking politely. Or try a search engine, they have lots of results.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[rubicante]

Dear Sir, I would very much like to know your reference(s) for this information. I was unable to identify them myself. Thank your for your time and effort in this manner. Sincerely, Everyone

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[BillEGoat]

I didn't assume anything, nor meant to imply that I did. Your post sounded like you were talking about a very specific event, and I'm curious to read about it. Perhaps the only assumption I made is that searching for "lies" and "fox news" is probably about as likely to turn up a clean list of trustworthy information as a search for "liberal" and "npr". Searches like that result in such large sets of both good and bad results that it's unlikely I'll find the event or events you based your post on.

And though my one word reply was unnecessarily brief, being called an ass and lazy in response is unfair. There's no need for that. I just didn't feel that asking for a reference justified a lot of words. So I'll try again, sans brevity:

I'd like to read up on the incident to which you are referring. Would you provide a reference to a description of the event, please?

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[bkr1_2k]

My guess would be the GP doesn't have anything but other blogs to reference, which we all would consider biased reports, true or not. The first 10 or 15 hits in google for "fox news caught in lies" are all blogs with rants about Fox and Wikipedia. ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Fox+News+caught+in+lies&btnG=Google+Search )

I wouldn't bother apologizing.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the vast majority of content on Daily Kos is not written by Markos, a fact that is frequently used to deflect criticism.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[Anonymous Coward]

See here.

Re:Check out Daily Kos

[zildgulf]

Unrelated note: you do realize, don't you, that Fox News has successfully argued in court that it should not be held accountable for factual errors in its reports because it presents 'opinion and commentary', not 'news', programming?

Not just factual errors, but known factual errors (the rest of us call them lies). They were given a statement, they checked and found the statement to be false. They used the statement anyway because it sounded better than the truth. They knowingly spread information they believed to be false.

That is called "Truthiness", or by Fox News "Fair and Balanced", or by many people in my neighborhood, "The Truth".....

Let's call it "bald-faced lying" and go home :)

Rights?

[tkrotchko]

"should not be given the rights of someone who holds a press card."

What legal rights does owning a press card give you? Probably about the same rights as a Boy Scout card or a Student ID.

First, kill ALL the lawyers !!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, kill ALL the lawyers !!

Second, Profit !!

Bill 'Slashcreeper" Shakespeare

Re:First, kill ALL the lawyers !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! I will be studying law next year and intend to profit intellectually. Whether I choose to practice law in the capacity as a barrister or more generally apply the knowledge to my present career has yet to be decided.

Re:Now if he could get paid for the inconvenience

[Anonymous Coward]

I agreee. Write thinking with your head, not with your ****. Biased or misleading opinions can definitely get you a lawsuit, "assault with a deadly ego" is much more than saying the truth.

letter on his website

[farker haiku]

there's a link at the bottom that doesn't work. looks like the correct link is here. Might want to fix that, submitter.

Did the system work?

[walterbyrd]

Okay, this guy decided to fight, and he won. But, what about the other 99% of the time when the blogger just says "f**k it" and removed the blog entry? What about huge legal fees that bloggoers may be forced to pay, just to use their constitutional rights?

What about the chilling effect that this bogus litigation has on other bloggers?

IMO: the system working is debatable.

Re:Did the system work?

[LWATCDR]

This was a civil action. Censorship tends to a criminal action.
If you make false statements about some one that ruins there business they can sue you. So if you open up a store and someone makes false statments you have legal recourse. You take them to court.
I would love to see someone take Microsoft to court over the Linux infringes on Microsoft Patents they are making.

Frankly this was nothing but wine feast. Had they not taken this guy to court then no one would care about it. Frankly no one should care about it now. I did find out how much those post it on eBay stores charge! Good grief.

Again it isn't censorship. It was a civil claim of making false statements and trademark infringement and the court ruled correctly.

Re:Did the system work?

[geekoid]

I suggest you look up the definition of censorship.

Government can censor, but they are not the only ones.

and this: "Censorship tends to a criminal action." makes no damn sense what so ever.

Re:Did the system work?

[LWATCDR]

Censorship as the term being used all over Slashdot tends to be used in reference to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This case has nothing to do with censorship.
There was one claim of trademark infringement. The court tossed it out. There was a claim of violation of privacy. The court through that it. There was a claim of making fast statements. That was tossed out of court. At no time where any freedom of speech issues at stake here. It was a pissing match between two idiots that made it to court.
One guy thinks he could do everything better than a company he hired and the other guy that did a reletivley poor job at putting up auctions. They ended up in court and the court pretty much thought they where both idiots and chastised the lawyer of one of the parties.
At no time where anyones "Freedoms" at stake in this case.

companies want to send a message, and it works

[walterbyrd]

At least, it works most of the time.

For example, you know a utility company is doing something illegal. You put it in your blog. The utility company files a lawsuit against you. You fight the lawsuit, but go broke in the process, so the suit is never settled. This will send the message to other would-be bloggers: "don't screw with the utility company."

It is no problem for the utility company to drop $250K on a lawsuit. Can you say the same?

Spelling joke. Can't resist.

[BadMrMojo]

FYI, You're confusing the word 'priviledge' with the word 'privilege'.

Re:Cool

[sm62704]

*sigh*

I just wrote a slashdot journal about these bad mods just this morning. The parent is by no means -1 Troll. It is -1 OFFTOPIC!

If he had done the traditional "frosty piss" or GNAA, then that would have indeed been a troll (or maybe flamebait). As it is, it's simply offtopic. Rating it "troll" doesn't give it a lower score than the deserved "offtopic".

Now mod THIS comment of mine offtopic as well, damn it, because it is. Even if it is informative and may be interesting, it's not on topic.

So long FOX... it was... interesting knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

The case set forth the following; 'It's not the format; it's the content and intention that make text journalism / reporting.'" You're next FEMA.

Journalists

[rossz]

For some reason journalists think they are given special status by the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not give special status to anyone. Nor does it give anyone the freedom of speech or the press. It recognizes freedom of speech and press are natural rights. It makes it very clear that the government can not interfere with these rights. Your right to publish is as important as is the right of someone working for a newspaper. This case simply reinforces this fact.

WWHSTD?

[rs79]

Ah Hunter.

When I worked in the computer graphics industry I used to get comped passes to all the big graphics shows - siggraph, ncga etc. One year they didn't arrive in time so I called up and asked how i get a press pass. They said "bring a letter from your editor".

Now, this was at a time when very few people had laser printers.

So I printed up a letter on "Thompson/Hunter Communications" lettterhead explaining I was a reporter for "bitter reality" magazine.

They took it, hook, line and sinker.

"Bitter reality? I've never seen that"

"It's a Canadian magazine, notice the Toronto address"

"ah yeah, right"

"So is this the weirdest magazine you have here today".

"no. cruise line cuisine is".

I wanna know which of you pricks pulled THAT stunt. I mean come on...

At any rate not only did I get in free, I got access to the press room with free food and drink bit also get $1400 worth of conference preceedings and every book they had without even asking. I had to borrow a hand cart to get them into the trusty Subaru.

Yeah. I love press passes. Hunter was onto a good thing there. And is of course where I got the idea.

Re:WWHSTD?

[evil_aar0n]

I've seen that. Just grab a hefty tripod and a professional-looking camera - I use a Sony Z1U - and head toward the gate of whatever event you want to cover. Half the time, I don't even have to show the "press" card I made for myself.

Yeah, the tripod & camera get you the "rock star" treatment.

Re:WWHSTD?

[Bee1zebub]

It gets easier than that, if you drive a black car: just put little Canadian flags on it and no-one will stop you. An ID card with JOKE printed on it helps, too.

blogging

[Anonymous Coward]

Blogging != truth
Blogging == opinion

Can blogs contain facts? yes. Do they always? no. I had someone reference different blogs as facts in a report. They got a 'F'. Blogs are someone personal feelings, like a diary. Are diarys considered facts about things? maybe a person's one feelings, state of mind but not about other people/things. Bloggers want to be considered real journalists? Then go work and write for the real journals.

Re:blogging

[CrazedWalrus]

No, blogs are a communication medium. As was clarified in this ruling and subsequent statements, it's the intent and method that make journalism.

Consider this: If a journalist from a "real" newspaper decided to do reporting for a "blog", would that somehow lower the quality of the work he's doing -- even if he writes in the same manner as he did for the "real" publication?

Dead trees do not a worthy statement make.

Thanks for reporting/modding good news.

[Seor Jojoba]

It's nice to get a little break in the stream of injustices and pending threats reported on Slashdot. In addition to alleviating my sense of panic, it also rounds out my world view. I.e. not every stupid lawsuit wins. At least occasionally, the system works.

And congratulations to Philip Smith. To stick through this ordeal must have required some principles (or at least an unhealthy stubbornness).

Informed electorate

[coyote-san]

The 'press' is specifically listed in the First Amendment (which is itself 'first' for a reason) because the framers of the Constitution knew that democracy was meaningless without an informed electorate. Sure, you may have the right to go down to the courthouse to go through stacks of files, but do you have the time? The ability to find experts who can help you interpret the results?

Still don't think it's that important? Look at its peers: freedom of speech (and more importantly, the freedom to openly dissent from the government's stand), freedom of assembly (to organize for peaceful political purposes, and at least as importantly to exclude unwanted representatives of the government), freedom of religion (after coming from a system where the monarch ruled by divine right and you had to be a member of that church to serve in public office, attend university, start a business, etc.), and freedom to seek redress from the government (for when you believe it has done you harm).

So yeah, the "press" as in CNN or Faux News, isn't enshrined in the constitution. But the Constitution clearly protects the idea of the citizenry having the right to investigate the acts of the government and report those findings to others.

P.S., this doesn't mean that reporters can break the law casually. But courts need to give serious consideration to constitutional issues. It is not uncommon for acts to be unlawful (breaking the letter of the law) but legal (satisfying the greater needs of the law). As an example you might encounter today, nobody but an idiot would argue that you should not run a red light (law) if you can do it safely and, by doing so, open up space for an emergency vehicle to pass. That one drove my father, a firefighter, up the wall since so many people refused to bulge.

Re:Informed electorate

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'press' is specifically listed in the First Amendment (which is itself 'first' for a reason) because the framers of the Constitution knew that democracy was meaningless without an informed electorate.

Actually it's first by coincidence. The proposed first amendment involved apportioning members of the House of Representatives. It was never ratified. The proposed second amendment limited congress' ability to give itself raises. It was ratified much later as the 27th amendment. The proposed third amendment is what become the actual first amendment.

If the framers of the constitution had recognized the importance of enumerating the right to a free press they would have written it into the original document rather than adding it on as an amendment. Note also there are many people who view the second amendment as more important than the first (although few people would argue the first and second combined are the two most important).

Who said censorship? I asked if the system works

[walterbyrd]

I don't know why your response post goes on and on about it not being censorship, when I never claimed that anyway. You may want to re-read my post.

Plantiff's attorney sanctioned $1000

[old7]

The court finds that the degree of Plaintiffs' counsel's culpability weighs heavily in favor of sanctioning the Plaintiffs' counsel, Kevin Elwell ("Elwell"). Elwell is a competent attorney who knew or should have known with the most basic research that his actions were improper. In addition, after Smith moved to strike the lis pendens, Elwell argued in court that the lis pendens was proper. Elwell had no basis to support his position. (Mem. Regarding Sanctions 2.)
Further, the court finds that Smith has been prejudiced by the filing of the lis pendens. The title to his property was clouded for over six months. Smith alleges that during that time he was attempting to sell his property. Moreover, the public interest in preventing legal counsel from filing improper lis pendens and encumbering property is great. A lis pendens is a very powerful document and the statute is strictly applied because a lis pendens clouds the title to property. There is no evidence that Elwell's client is responsible for Elwell's wrongful conduct. However, taking into account the facts and the factors listed above, the court finds that based on Elwell's grossly improper conduct, he should be sanctioned in the amount of $1,000.00 payable immediately to the Defendant.

Follow link to read the actual opinion, http://www.citmedialaw.org/bidzirk-llc-v-smith
Opinion in pdf format as "Opinion & Order on Summary Judgment (10-22-2007)"

Monumental? Bullshit!

[fm6]

First off, the blogger won mainly because the plaintiffs hired a totally incompetent attorney. He came up with all kinds of silly legal theories, failed to file motions on time, and generally acted unprofessionally. A more competent attorney might have done better. Then again, a more competent attorney might have decided that this was a really bad case, and definitely would have advised the plaintiffs that they couldn't possibly recover enough money to justify going to court. Probably a number of attorneys did just that, leaving the plaintiffs to find an shyster stupid enough to take the case.

Second, the blogger is a total asshole. He has a bad experience with an ineptly run auction listing company, and immediately proclaims that all such companies are evil. What total crap. I'm all for protection of free speech, even stupid free speech. But when the civil rights of idiots are upheld, don't expect me to get excited about it.

Basically, this is a squabble between two mentally deficient parties with a similarly challenged lawyer assisting the process. Big deal.

Who said this was a monumental decision in favor a bloggers? The defendant himself. And who was the brilliant editor who went that self-aggrandizement go unchallenged? Zonk of course.

Re:Cool

[PatricianVet]

Ah noes, who let the monkeys ...err... mods escape out of their cages?! Lol's, I'm curious what I will get for this post. IMHO five points and Funny/Insightful! Ok, maybe just four points.

Reference

[slashqwerty]

I suspect the parent post was referring to the BGH lawsuit. It was actually a FOX affiliate that was sued, but IIRC the whistleblowers were fired at the behest of the station's corporate parent. The station lost in a jury trial. The ruling was overturned on appeal on the basis that Florida's whistleblower law applied to violations of laws, rules, and regulations. The court concluded the FCC only has a 'policy' against falsifying news (interestingly that argument was rejected on three separate occasions before the trial). To add insult to injury, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay FOX's $1.7 million in legal fees.

In their legal filings FOX argued that they had the right to fill their news with outright lies. That's a little bit different than what the court ruled so instead of citing the ruling many reports say something to the effect of, "FOX won a lawsuit by arguing they could tell outright lies in the news."

The background on the story is somewhat interesting. The reporters investigated a story about rBGH. They had it all ready to air when Monsanto found out about it. Monsanto contacted FOX and threatened to pull their ads if the story went forth. FOX responded by ordering the reporters to effectively report the opposite of the truth. The reporters refused and threatened to report the station to the FCC. The station responded by firing them.

The plaintiffs used to have a web site up detailing the issue but I can't find it right now (they may have taken it down). IIRC, FOX went ahead and aired the fake story anyway (which was unrelated to the lawsuit).

Re:Reference

[BillEGoat]

Thanks for the reference. Interesting reading. FWIW, Fox's affiliate news organization (which was involved in the referenced BGH incident) and FoxNews Channel are not the same, though some may choose to avoid that point. The precipitating post implicates "Fox News", which I assume is a reference to FNC, not Channel 13 in Florida and the executive at Fox Corp with oversight of the locals:

Unrelated note: you do realize, don't you, that Fox News has successfully argued in court that it should not be held accountable for factual errors in its reports because it presents 'opinion and commentary', not 'news', programming?

For the GP to assert FNC is guilty for the sins of a local news affiliate and parent Fox Corp is a clear cases of guilt by association. Certainly we can do better than that. In a similar situation, would you blame CNN for sins perpetrated by Warner Brothers 2 News in Colorado and Time Warner because CNN happens to be owned by Time Warner? I think not. What makes the Fox case seem more justifiable than the CNN hypothetical is the use of the name "Fox" in all three organizations - FNC, Fox Corp, and Fox 13 in Florida. Just because they share a corporate brand does not mean they are any more related than CNN is to WB2.

Delayed by the defence

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't been following SCO vs IBM very closely.

Re:Delayed by the defence

[fishbowl]

>You obviously haven't been following SCO vs IBM very closely.

I have. Not a criminal case. The right to a speedy trial isn't tied as closely to due process in civil cases.

Re:Cool

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Hah - and they rated you offtopic. The funnier part is that I'll get rated offtopic too, when I'm actually on-topic (that is, the topic in this particular thread)...

I go to trial Monday, Nov. 5th, on similar claims!

[Christoph]

I am defending myself (also pro se) against similar claims over my own gripe website/blog. My litigation has gone on two years+ now. The other side dropped their defamation claim, and I won summary judgment on their claims of trademark infringement and unjust enrichment. They have three remaining claims -- appropriation of name and likeness, deceptive trade practices, and interference with contractual relations (they don't want me to use the name and photo of the guy who sued me, and they to hold me liable for comments visitors to my site posted)

The whole thing started when I saw a photo from my website in a full-page phone book ad. The company sued me for defamation when I wrote about their unauthorized use of my image. I have three copyright claims against them. The trial should take 2-3 days. Details are here: Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc.

Re:I go to trial Monday, Nov. 5th, on similar clai

[WNight]

Good luck. Though nothing you're going to get from this could come close to what they've cost. I'd like to see Vilana get the book thrown at him over the blatant lies re: notarized receipts, but it'll never happen. Even if you stood to make something from this they'd just fold that crooked shell company and found another. Now that, apparently, your suit against Andrew himself is dismissed, he seems to be free to lie and use his company's funds to fight a spiteful legal battle against you.

And you've done pretty much everything reasonable.

Anyways, congrats at hopefully getting a measure of safety from this litigious asshole.

Bad news if posts are judged by content

[DaveV1.0]

Most blog posts are of little, if any, journalistic merit. They often fail at the most basic of journalistic levels and fail to follow the rules of journalism.

Biased propaganda is not journalism and does not deserve the protections afforded true journalism.

Re:Bad news if posts are judged by content

[adzoox]

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Who should we let decide what is news and what is not?

What are the rules of journalism? I know of the SPJ Code Of Ethics, but its voluntray, not mandatory. MOST well known journalists don't follow this code. Most journalists are biased politically and most news organizations REPORT fact any more.

Re:Bad news if posts are judged by content

[DaveV1.0]

It is not whether something is or is not news. It is whether the reporting is accurate and non-biased.

Take a recent headline and write-up in a blog: "Man gets jail sentence for assault with pickles."
The write-up talked about how the guy was arrested and charged with assault and battery for throwing two pickles at someone. What the blog write-up failed to mention was that the man also hit and kicked the other person to the floor, then ripped a phone out of the wall and hit both the first person and a second person with the phone.

The arrest and sentence might be news, but the write-up is not journalism.

Another example is when anti-war bloggers put up a headline reading "U.S. soldiers kill three children in firefight" then describe U.S. soldiers blowing up a building with children inside while completely neglecting to mention the rocket propelled grenade fire coming from the building.

It is not a question of what is news, it is a question of whether the article is journalism.

Re:Bad news if posts are judged by content

[adzoox]

BUT ... VERY FEW journalists are unbiased and accurate.

You have good points but you are saying journalists are Apples and Bloggers are oranges. Compare Apples to Apples.

Re:Cool

[sm62704]

Well, it was offtopic actually. So's this one.

Re:Cool

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In your case... hm, I could see that one being offtopic since you weren't directly responding to what GGP said. Based on past experience, I'm surprised I was /not/ mod'd offtopic even though responding directly to your post.