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.'"
1.5 years for a court case isn't that bad.
It took me 10 months to get a traffic ticket dismissed last year. Exxon's managed to dodge justice after it's Alaskan f-up for 18 years with legal maneuvers.
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.
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.
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
A press card doesn't grant you any rights that a normal citizen does not enjoy.
You can't grant someone rights. They either have them or they don't.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
At least not government censorship.
This was first of all a civil case. You can sue anyone for anything.
So here is what happened.
"BidZirk struck back with a lawsuit claiming defamation, privacy invasion and trademark violations. After losing its request for a preliminary injunction, BidZirk appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which denied its request. Very messy discovery followed, with both parties getting chastised for their conduct*. Finally, in this ruling, the court granted Smith summary judgment, and threw in some sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel to boot."
Somebody didn't like a company and posted a nasty opinion of them. They got their lawyer to sue. The case went to court and was tossed out.
In other words a great example of the system working.
It sounds as if BidZirk's lawyers so messed up this case that the plaintiff might even have a shot act getting his legal fees.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
It is also available on PACER, which may be more complete, but there is a per-page access fee involved.
Go to the bottom for the Order Granting Summary Judgment.
Herlong is an excellent judge, I'm had a few cases in front of him. Good for the blogger. I hate other attorneys who treat opposing parties like this. It gives us all an even worse name.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-6:2006cv00109/case_id-138245/
"we are suing you for a brazillion dollars.
Actually, the unit of currency in Brazil is not the dollar but the "real". Oh, wait...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The right to a speedy trial is for criminal cases, not civil.
I am not familiar with the 1.5 year lawsuit between a blogger and a corporation. However, I heard of a similar 18-month lawsuit where the corporation sued an individual and lost. Could these two lawsuits be related?
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
"I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two."
... there is probably good reason to distinguish between the two, where a citizen journalist may be more reliable (in general) than a "professional" one. Plenty of Professional Journalists have been found fabricating stories / events just to spice up the copy to increase viewership/circulation.
...
I'd actually go further
I trust the more "raw" version of an amateur over the sanitized (aka Doctored) versions coming out of many journalists. Remember too, that lately it was the less than "professional" journalists that have broken the news on these types of doctorings, from Photoshoped photos to CBS' fictional documents about GWB
So, count me as one of the few that no longer trusts his news from major sources. they aren't reliable enough for me.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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
No sex in the champagne room. Sorry.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
Slander of title?
Probably would work. Usually you can't sue for slander of title over a lis pendens, but since there was no actual basis whatsoever for the lis pendens litigation immunity probably wouldn't apply. Might also be a basis for malicious prosecution and/or abuse of process.
For some reason journalists think they are given special status by the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not give special status to anyone. Nor does it give anyone the freedom of speech or the press. It recognizes freedom of speech and press are natural rights. It makes it very clear that the government can not interfere with these rights. Your right to publish is as important as is the right of someone working for a newspaper. This case simply reinforces this fact.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Ah Hunter.
When I worked in the computer graphics industry I used to get comped passes to all the big graphics shows - siggraph, ncga etc. One year they didn't arrive in time so I called up and asked how i get a press pass. They said "bring a letter from your editor".
Now, this was at a time when very few people had laser printers.
So I printed up a letter on "Thompson/Hunter Communications" lettterhead explaining I was a reporter for "bitter reality" magazine.
They took it, hook, line and sinker.
"Bitter reality? I've never seen that"
"It's a Canadian magazine, notice the Toronto address"
"ah yeah, right"
"So is this the weirdest magazine you have here today".
"no. cruise line cuisine is".
I wanna know which of you pricks pulled THAT stunt. I mean come on...
At any rate not only did I get in free, I got access to the press room with free food and drink bit also get $1400 worth of conference preceedings and every book they had without even asking. I had to borrow a hand cart to get them into the trusty Subaru.
Yeah. I love press passes. Hunter was onto a good thing there. And is of course where I got the idea.
Need Mercedes parts ?
No, blogs are a communication medium. As was clarified in this ruling and subsequent statements, it's the intent and method that make journalism.
Consider this: If a journalist from a "real" newspaper decided to do reporting for a "blog", would that somehow lower the quality of the work he's doing -- even if he writes in the same manner as he did for the "real" publication?
Dead trees do not a worthy statement make.
Opinion in pdf format as "Opinion & Order on Summary Judgment (10-22-2007)"
In their legal filings FOX argued that they had the right to fill their news with outright lies. That's a little bit different than what the court ruled so instead of citing the ruling many reports say something to the effect of, "FOX won a lawsuit by arguing they could tell outright lies in the news."
The background on the story is somewhat interesting. The reporters investigated a story about rBGH. They had it all ready to air when Monsanto found out about it. Monsanto contacted FOX and threatened to pull their ads if the story went forth. FOX responded by ordering the reporters to effectively report the opposite of the truth. The reporters refused and threatened to report the station to the FCC. The station responded by firing them.
The plaintiffs used to have a web site up detailing the issue but I can't find it right now (they may have taken it down). IIRC, FOX went ahead and aired the fake story anyway (which was unrelated to the lawsuit).