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.'"
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?
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
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
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
Lost at C:>. Found at C.