Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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".
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.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-6:2006cv00109/case_id-138245/
The right to a speedy trial is for criminal cases, not civil.
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.
... cut out the meaning of what was said and is typical of blog misinformation. And you are accountable to no one.
Your
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
-- Will program for bandwidth
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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Opinion in pdf format as "Opinion & Order on Summary Judgment (10-22-2007)"
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).
See here.