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

Does this work in reverse?

[TheGoodSteven]

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?

Bullshit.

[PhxBlue]

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.

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.

Check out Daily Kos

[coyote-san]

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?