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.'"
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.
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.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
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?
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.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
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.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
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
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.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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.
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?
"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?