Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blogger Wins 1.5 Year Legal Battle

Posted by Zonk on from the fighting-the-good-fight dept.

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.'"

11 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I just wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. What's so special about that press card? by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What's so special about that press card? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:What's so special about that press card? by king-manic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    3. Re:What's so special about that press card? by samschof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:What's so special about that press card? by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:What's so special about that press card? by king-manic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  3. Re:I just wish by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  4. when will companies understand? by KeepQuiet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    It's a right the incriminated must invoke.

  6. Re:I just wish by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.