Slashdot Mirror
NH Supreme Court Hears Case On Protections For Anonymous Sources Online
fulldecent writes "The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that calls into question the legal protections available to independent Web sites that cover news. The case involves mortgage lender Implode-Explode, a Las Vegas-based site launched in 2007 that publishes stories about the meltdown of the mortgage industry. Associate Justice Carol Ann Conboy pressed the point with [defense lawyer Jeremy Eggleton], questioning, 'Can anyone who posts a blog be considered a reporter,' for the purposes of claiming protection of anonymous sources? Eggleton answered yes, within limits: 'The test is whether the person has an intention to gather, analyze and disseminate.'"
You don't need to be a "reporter" to protect your sources. The attempt to pigeonhole a specific right to a specific type of profession is exactly the kind of intellectual manipulation that is going on in this country, and I'm sad to see it happening in the judiciary.
Take for example the idea that we need extra security for air travel. We argue about the limits of search and seizure, but we never argue whether such search and seizure is actually necessary.
Why should only reporters be allowed to conceal their sources? Why should only priests, lawyers, and doctors be able to keep client information secret? These assume that there is a special need for this kind of protection above and beyond what a normal citizen would need.
Well fuck that. I'd like to think we're all equal in the eyes of the law, no matter what our profession is.
So, is Implode-Explode a mortgage lender with a blog, or a blog about mortgage lenders???
Why fear third-world terrorists, when some of the citizenry of the nation itself want to strip other citizens of their God-given rights?
Newspapers and other media have an agenda too, whether it be political bias, or the desire to make more money. Most (all?) have comprised their reporting, and continue to do so on a regular basis. Traditional press isn't some holy box of pure information- its in the same ballpark as the bloggers, except with a lot of money behind them.
I agree that it would seem to be more difficult to determine truth when there are 1000 random voices vs 5 established ones telling you 'the way it is'. Its always been up to you to figure out the real story from all the slanted reports, now there are just a lot more of them.
I was actually coming here to maybe point out the same thing - that (particularly nowadays - blogs are already providing examples of this) the distinction between reporters and ordinary citizens in this regard - even as a concept, when not actually in law - looks pretty bogus. In serious criminal cases I'd say there should perhaps be an obligation to give up information that might help bring the criminal to justice. But for anything else, I just don't see why an individual should have to give up the details of their sources. Whilst it might give rise to some complications to be worked through, I'd expect that this would result in a freer society and eliminate the thorny question of "what is a journalist".
IMHO, this is dangerous. These days, if people see it on the internet, it's true until proven false. Of course in many newspapers that's also the case but it's much easier to come down on them like a ton of bricks and get people fired for spreading lies. Not so with a blogger. They aren't employed by a company generally who can reprimand them for not fact-checking and even if you get a court order to shut them down they'll just move the content to a different place.
You know, back when the Bill of Rights was written, ANY idiot with a printing press could declare themselves to be a reporter, and post news. The truthiness of the news was not the issue, nor was the individual reporter's goals and motivations. The issue was the government shutting down people who said things they didn't like.
I don't see how bloggers are all that different.
--Jimmy
I don't disagree with you but a blogger can't be fired or reprimanded especially with the 1st Amendment on their side. However, there have been several high-profile incidents of mainstream media personnel getting appropriately reprimanded. Dan Rather is a recent example.
It's different when you can't go after them for liable and viral falsehoods become fact. Case in point: Rush Limbaugh says that the media wants McNabe to do well because he's African American. That statement of opinion then gets distorted by false and unsubstantiated statements on his wikipedia entry. Now, too many people these are all facts and plaster a racist label on him.
One still has recourse for libel and slander if they can find out who the person is. It's no different than if someone anonymously sent a letter to a paper asserting that Rush Limbaugh was a racist. If the person cannot discern who that anonymous person is then they cannot file for recourse. It really shouldn't be that difficult to convince people that an anonymous statement shouldn't be taken as fact without some support of evidence, whether that be previous bone headed statements made by the accused or whatever other evidence there might be.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Newspapers and other media have an agenda too, whether it be political bias, or the desire to make more money. Most (all?) have comprised their reporting, and continue to do so on a regular basis.
I think you mean "compromised". If you really did mean "comprised", then you need to reword your sentence. (What's doing the comprising? It's a little vague.)
I agree that more voices publishing their views is generally a good thing. The best of the bloggers are substantially better than the worst of the traditional reporters. Still, due to resources, training, and experience, the rare few (and I mean rare) traditional reporters with scruples can deliver news services that bloggers can only dream of. They certainly have their place. There simply isn't the huge categorical divide that they want to believe there is.
In general, low end reporters are better than low end bloggers. High end reporters are better than high end bloggers. Same for average reporters and bloggers. Not at all the same for any arbitrary pairing of reporters and bloggers.
My 3 cents.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Wikipedia is not a blog. This isn't about the anonymity of the author, but about his sources. Difficulty in executing libel cases against non-blogs is a slightly different topic.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I don't see how bloggers are all that different.
Let's see... a computer today costs less than a printing press then did (adjusting for inflation). Some bloggers attempt anonymity, which is easier to pull off online.
Granted, those are superficial to the excellent point you were making.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Whoa! Slow down there!
God gave us self governance to be used with wisdom and prudence (or he'd insist that we live in a theocracy). Freedom of the press was something that man decided was prudent for the type of society we want to live in. I'm unaware of any religion that teaches a divine right to a free press. (I can only name one that can make an indirect argument for this.)
Granted, I think we'll be held accountable to how we treat others, including which so-called rights we allow or deny them. I can imagine individual preachers touching upon the subject. Still,I doubt you can come up with specific passages from the sum canon belonging to major religions.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
True but if a blogger can say "Eff you, my source is confidential." even if they made the whole thing up, how can anyone ever sue for libel and slander? Wouldn't it make more sense for a judge or grand jury to ascertain the existence of the source?
How about a hypothetical case: Take Angie's List or any review site. What if you had a business and some competitor made completely false statements about your business? What means do you have to go to that site and demand that false information be pulled? After all, that's hurting your business.
IMHO, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a blog yet unsubstantiated statements can and do appear and even though they are tagged as needing a source it may not matter. An unsubstantiated statement can be copy&pasted instantly by some entity that has a following e.g. a newspaper. Most people wouldn't bother to fact-check it themselves especially if their own belief coincides with the author's. Eventually a dubious statement becomes fact and it's next to impossible to reverse it. IMHO, the difference is the speed at which internet-based statements spread and there's never a fact-check before it's posted.
True but if a blogger can say "Eff you, my source is confidential." even if they made the whole thing up, how can anyone ever sue for libel and slander?
Sue the blogger.
Sheesh. Reporters don't have any greater freedom of the press than you or I. They just have, in some intra-state matters, an ability to not identify sources. You can still sue them for slander or libel, as they have the same duty to not-slander and not-libel as anyone else. (Which is why a smart reporter always asks for the other side -- so they can stand before a jury and say they asked for the other side,)
IMHO, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a blog yet unsubstantiated statements can and do appear and even though they are tagged as needing a source it may not matter.
"unsubstantiated statement" is not synonymous with blog. Keep trying.
An unsubstantiated statement can be copy&pasted instantly by some entity that has a following e.g. a newspaper.
That's just bad journalism. I don't care if it's a newspaper, tv reporter, or a blogger. It's inexcusable, but admittedly commonplace. It still does not make Wikipedia a blog, and still does not differentiate bloggers from reporters.
Most people wouldn't bother to fact-check it themselves especially if their own belief coincides with the author's. Eventually a dubious statement becomes fact and it's next to impossible to reverse it.
Yep.
IMHO, the difference is the speed at which internet-based statements spread...
This has more to do with mainstream news sites and news aggregators. Information gets parroted without fact checking. If media sources which are widely distributed and widely considered credible did not participate, this would stop. On the other hand, this would still be a major problem if every blogger stopped writing this instant.
... and there's never a fact-check before it's posted.
Not true. Irresponsible bloggers (like irresponsible mainstream journalists) don't fact check. Responsible bloggers and journalists do. The percentage of responsible journalists may be higher, but it's still an embarrassment to the profession. You can't lump all bloggers together in this manner just as you can't lump all mainstream journalists together.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Well, let us look at your contention:
BTW, "truthiness" is not a word. The word you were looking for was truthfulness.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Bloggers across the world breathe a collective sigh of relief that 'inform' was omitted.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I am beginning to think that the profession of Journalist, and all it's attendant protections, needs to be regulated and licensed just like Doctor, Lawyer, or Engineer.
There should be a body, like the Bar, which sets out how one becomes a journalist, what rules a journalist must follow, journalistic standards, and the ethics that must be followed. The body would set the entry requirements, investigate claims of unethical behavior or rule breaking, and even decide if one's work is up to journalistic standards. It would have the power to remove one's Journalist designation. It would be made up of other, recognized journalists.
That would make it easier to distinguish the real journalists from the Limbaughs, O'Riellys, Stuarts, Huffingtons, and all the other columnists and editorialist who don't have to be objective and factual.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.