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

Re:I just wish

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.