Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Not Journalists, Federal Judge Rules
New submitter squideatingdough writes "On InfoWorld, Robert X. Cringely covers a recent case of a blogger accused of libel and defamation. The federal judge ruled that journalists warrant more protection from libel suits than bloggers, but it is obvious from the article that bloggers' rights can vary by state, depending on the 'shield laws' in force." Reader blindseer adds a link to this AP article on the case,
and asks "If the government can define who is part of the press, and therefore gets First Amendment protections, then where does that place the freedom of the press?" The slippery slope is a steep one; even some relatively open societies require licensure for journalists (visiting ones included) with predictable results. (And the Labour Party would like to see a similar system in the UK.)
It's just THIS blogger does not rise to the level of journalist.
Allowing a government determine who is and is not the press is allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop.
Knowledge is power but he who controls the information reigns supreme.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Should it be the people? Then everyone can claim to be part of the press?
How about corporations? Lets have huge entry fees to be part of the press, and even then you have to pass the corporation's political/agenda test...
Face it, every option is fucked up.
Journalists don't have more rights than anyone else. Freedom of the press means that all people are allowed to publish their opinions. Thomas Paine was a blogger, not a journalist.
most of the bloggers write up a summary with a link, this is not journalism. filming news happening and reporting on what is happening is called reporting the news.
in this case the blogger deserves what they got. the news media goes out of it's way to say alleged and not call people thieves until they get convicted in a court of law. which is the way it should be
I don't know how I feel about the precedent this sets for "what a journalist is," but I'm definitely not weeping for this SEO-ing scumbag:
<naive innocence> ...
Surely this isn't being done just so there is a nice precedent for when the US finally gets its hands on Julian Assange
</naive innocence>
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
The first ammendment of the US Constitution does not protect anyone from libel accusations by a citizen. It protects all citizens from governmental response to criticism of the government.
Print out your blog posts and leave copies in some public space that allows such things. Congratulations, you're now a journalist working for a press organization and not a blogger.
The Labour party call is part of a huge controversy in the UK right now over newspapers hacking into cellphones in some quite obscene ways (e.g. they "picked up" messages left by a murdered girl, causing her parents to believe she was still alive).
Freedom of the Press is important but that freedom has been abused so badly over the last 10 years that it's tough to call on where we go from here.
(Cue a bunch of absolutist drivel.)
Of course I am a Journalist. Here is my Journal.
But seriously, from TFA:
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."
I don't see a lot of news media ticking many of those boxes these days, apart from #2.
"Freedom of the press" refers to the actual printing press machine, not the profession of journalism. This person's blog is, in effect, a modern form of the printing press. Not sure how a judge could miss that.
What phase are we on now? We're well past phase 1 for sure. We're now making rights that are not government granted (they exist outside of, and beyond government) "tiered" so that "some are created more equal than others..." Sounds familiar, no?
You're not a journalist unless you work for a print newspaper that's about to lay you off and go bankrupt.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So in America you only have more rigths to free speech if you are a journalist? It doesn't fit into the principle of 'equality before the law'.
A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not a journalist when she posted online that an Oregon lawyer acted criminally during a bankruptcy case, a decision with implications for bloggers around the country.
the government, including the judges want to shut you up. Shut up and do as you told, consumer number (*insert social security code here*).
Judges like to shut people up, by the way, listen to this starting at minute 19
You can't handle the truth.
Hell, Journalists aren't reporters these days.
Reporters aren't reporters.
They just regurgitate corporate press releases without any critical analysis. Since it no longer pays to report in the public interest, we're left with PR whores chasing $$$, opponents with an axe to grind and obsessed amateur sleuths on the web.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The headline is "bloggers are not journalists", but there is a bit more to the case.
Mrs. Cox wrote stuff in her blog that would be clearly libel if untrue, and clearly something someone wouldn't want people to hear if it was true. So she is in court for libel, and the defence against libel would be that she wrote the truth.
Now she says that what she wrote is based on information from a source which she wants to protect. If someone tried to sue the unknown source for libel, then shield laws would protect or not protect that person, and whether she is a journalist or a blogger would make a difference. But it isn't the source who is sued, it is Mrs. Cox herself. And to defend herself, she would need to have evidence that she wrote the truth. If her only evidence is a witness who doesn't want to come forward, and whom she doesn't want to present to the court, then she has no evidence that the statements she wrote are true.
Where shield laws would make a difference: If an employee gives a blogger or a journalist evidence that a company does something wrong. The blogger or journalist now _has_ the evidence. The company wants to take revenge and fire the employee. But here the situation is different; she can protect her witness all she wants, but if she does, she will go down for libel.
official journalist status. Like a Dr.
So to call your self a journalist you must:
Check sources
Make reasonable effort to remove bias
Investigate claims.
Make that journalism.
No, I am not for only journals get free speech protection.
And of course, the medium is irrelevant.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If that judge does not acknowledge bloggers as journalists, I do not recognize him as a judge. What an idiot.
hey!
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not of journalists. At the time it was written, "the press" meant "the printing press", not "people who write". So it means that people have the right to publish their ideas. It does not mean that certain people have the right to publish their ideas. So defining "journalist" should have no affect on First Amendment freedoms.
Of course, if judges are too stupid or corrupt to realize this, then we're all screwed.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
...insert a clause requiring licensing for journalists with the promise of protection - if you behave yourself.
Read: don't criticise Government, and you're fine. Don't insult anyone with connections, and you'll be fine. Misbehave and your licence is revoked.
The Government of the UK does this already. They have the power (and have exercised it) to revoke broadcasting licenses for anyone who goes public on a broadcast medium (TV, radio, newspaper) with information that can damage Government or those with connections. The Tunisian Government have also done this, only far more visibly.
Fortunately, there are those publications that are not afraid to present the facts as they emerge. The example given here is one that has a guaranteed readership of 1500 in one building alone (I do read the Column regularly, and have the desk numbers of the editors on speed dial).
To give Government the sweeping legal power to shut down blogs on the grounds of controlling information or dealing with accusations by those it has already referred to "amateur, unlicensed and unregulated journalist types", is one more nail in the coffin of public information awareness - without which we cannot apply checks and balances on Government abuses of the voting Public, we cannot apply legal arrests when the Government commits assaults, murder and genocides on what it considers to be enemies, both foreign and domestic, and we cannot correctly apply our power and obligation to vote out bad Government whether at Election time or interelection following a vote of "no confidence" or an impeachment.
Information is power. Information should not be the sole property of those with the legislative whip.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Here in NYC, the NYPD already has a licensing program for "official press". If you start asking a cop tough questions, they're liable to ask for your license. They also get priority seating in courtrooms.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Cox decided to forgo an attorney, relying on a number of Oregon state laws that protect people who have a legitimate interest in exposing corruption or corporate malfeasance.
Next time lawyer up, dumbass. Representing yourself in court is one of the single dumbest things you can do.
A more accurate headline might be, "random non-lawyer person commits obvious libel and has a fool for a client". I don't see anything in TFA implying that case law has been made denying bloggers these protections when they conduct themselves as journalists. Getting a companyXsucks.com domain and posting libel on it is not the same as exposing well documented fraud on blogX.com.
Gov't defines Press . . . Always has, in the US at least. Ever heard of a Press Pass? Government parcel out Press Passes to those who it recognizes as Journalists. Not to every Dick that owns a Police Scanner.
I don't think Gov't should define the Press, only that it always has.
... it is no longer free.
Check your premises.
The first amendment applies to all of us, not just journalists.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From the article: "He added that the shield law does not apply to civil actions for defamation."
So journalist or not she still would have been sued?
From the slashdot reader comments: "If the government can define who is part of the press, and therefore gets First Amendment protections, then where does that place the freedom of the press?"
Note that the first amendment protects your right to publish. It does not necessarily make you immune from all repercussions of what your write. There is nothing unconstitutional about suing newspapers for liable, defamation, etc. There may be a different level of evidence required for a newspaper vs a private citizen though. The question seems to be if a blogger does *not* act according to professional journalistic standards does a blogger get treated as a journalist or a private citizen making a public statement.
From the article: "Hernandez said Cox was not a journalist because she offered no professional qualifications as a journalist or legitimate news outlet. She had no journalism education, credentials or affiliation with a recognized news outlet, proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story."
Publishing does not necessarily make one a journalist. In the pre-internet era someone could write something and post it in a public forum (window, wall, light pole, etc), hand out their writing on the street, etc. Doing so did not make them a journalist. Simply being a blogger seems comparable. However if a blogger has had some training and acts like a journalistic professional then it seems the judge has left the door open to a blogger being recognized as a journalist.
Freedom of the Press and shield laws have never been absolute defenses against being an asshat. They're meant to protect the right to publish information and analysis, not personal attacks and character assassination.
When you read the article, and more importantly the judgment, you find the summary is (as usual) more inflammatory than factual and that Cringlely is spinning it quite heavily. The judge did not find that bloggers did not rate protection, but that Cox by conducting a deliberate campaign of defamation was not acting as a journalist and thus by extension was not protected as one.
I'd argue that even if you have that press badge and are considered a journalist they can still block what you have to say. The NYPD intentionally arrested 5 press badge carrying journalists when they evicted occupy wall street. The press were telling the NYPD that they have a press pass and a right to cover the story and the NYPD responded saying you don't have press freedoms here. When they tried to force the issue they were arrested. The LAPD also had a lottery limiting the amount of press members that could cover the occupyla eviction to 12.
You also hear a lot of press saying 'we're being told we can't cover this' by the police and abiding to it. The police are considering their actions to require the same selective reporting that wars do. I'm not sure if this has gone on a long time and it's the first time I've seen the press talk about it so openly, or if it's part of the militarization of the police departments that we've seen since 9/11.
Apparently, though, the libel there would be what one uses to describe a journalist. For Fox News, anyway.
I would cautiously support a "Journalist License" because I think it would more clearly define the rights of journalists and provide security and confidence to sources. I would insist on the following points.
There's a lot of potential for abuse by government, but formalized simply and clearly I think it could be done right. That said, I would read very carefully before supporting any attempts to implement such a license.
She's a nutcase and a spammer. If FOX is journalism, so is this.
First: Anybody who cares can examine the Cascadia bankruptcy in the WD Washington and can read the Judge's order denying Obsidian fees because of an obvious conflict of interest. They advised the bankruptcy debtor in trying to sell property, while at the same time trying purchase an interest in that property for themselves. Kinda obvious??? I for one welcome any scrutiny Obsidian gets.
Second: That judge would probably have granted First Amendment protection to a Revolutionary Era broadsheet editor-even if he shared the same ethical scruples as the poor fool lady in Oregon--notwithstanding the fact that the Oregon blogger has far more readers. Both the liberals and the original intent freakazoids are going to hate this decision.
When this goes up on appeal every blogger in the USA can and should file an amicus curiae brief with the Court of Appeals. This is about Liberty!
To the barricades! ;)
This is, of course, the entire premise behind every government that has ever existed: there can be nobody "above" government, otherwise it wouldn't be government at all. The business of government is unaccountable by definition to the people they rule over.
The objective definition of government (the only one) is the organization holding the unique "right" (defined by the government in question of course) to employ physical force as a business model. Logically, you cannot influence or control such an entity from the bottom up, only from the top down.
In pretty much every case lately where certain someones have wanted to stomp on the freedom of the press, it hasn't really mattered whether they're a blogger, a radio news journalist, a television news reporter, or a mechanical-typewriter toting hardliner for the New York Times. The cops haven't made any distinction between these at all and have simply done their level best to completely silence the press.
This is merely a distraction from the actual problem that freedom of the press is as big of a joke as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If you want any of those 'freedoms' you basically have to bribe someone for them or you get thrown in jail for daring to use them.
The line between "the press" and the average citizen has to be drawn somewhere otherwise anyone with a copy machine or now a computer and internet connection can say they are a journilist. The those who penned the constitution understood this or else they would have just had the freedom of speach clause and not the freedom of the press clause. They even set up a government organization to draw that line. The court system.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
My understanding is that at the time of the Constitution being ratified, owning an actual printing press was the only barrier to entry to being a journalist. That's where the phrase "freedom of the press" comes from -- once you have a printing press, you can print. If you think about it, all that's really required to be a journalist is to keep a journal. The barrier of entry is gone to print to the public -- now you can do it from a public library's computer for free. That doesn't change the intention of the Constitution -- clearly they were saying anyone who can print to the public is allowed to print to the public, and their right to do so will not be abridged by Congress.
When you swear to uphold the United States Constitution, and flagrantly refuse to do so in cases like this, you are guilty of treason in my eyes. http://blog.voogru.com/2011/12/04/the-arbitrary-injustice-system-the-more-laws-the-less-justice/
Too much potential for abuse here. The courts might have an anti-communist bent, and refuse to acknowledge that a publication by Communist Party USA is a newspaper. A few high-level criminals might take advantage of laws intended to protect journalists, but the enormous good done by protecting journalists from prosecution outweighs any potential problems with criminal abuses. Our justice system does not exist as a way to punish every guilty person, it exists as a way to protect people -- protect us from both dangerous people and from overreaching government agents.
Palm trees and 8
it looks like crystal cox went out of her way to criticize obsidian, to the point of obsession. she registered numerous domain names like obsidianfinancesucks, bankruptcytrusteefraud, and oregonshyster, tried to hide her ownership of them, and gamed search engine results so that the first page was filled with her efforts. is this what you call blogging?
can i duct-tape my iphone to an ak-47 and call myself a journalist?
obvious from the article that bloggers' rights can vary by state, depending on the 'shield laws' in force."
How is this any different than what's been the status quo with gun rights for years? I couldn't begin to tell you how many times I've seen an anti-gun rant justifying some states having stricter gun laws.
Now that speech is being given the same treatment were supposed to be outraged?
Then I'm of the opinion that /all/ of our rights should apply in all our states and see absolutely no difference between these laws and legal decisions.
I'd like a little consistency in my moral outrage please.
Yes, you can offer protection to your sources -- you can have your sources send messages to you anonymously. Use Tor, set up a hidden service and have your sources contact you via that hidden service. Part of the job of a journalist in the 21st century is to use whatever technical measures are available to protect the confidentiality of sources. It may come to the point of being imprisoned for taking such a stand, but journalists are expected to be prepared for imprisonment before they betray their sources. If bloggers are journalists, then bloggers need to start acting like journalists.
Palm trees and 8
This is a random person on the internet without any evidence of her claims or history of journalistic integrity.
You should be required to provide at least *one* of these things before you can ruin someone's life or business.
My other sig is clever.
...journalists who enjoy a scosh more legal protection than most civilians under the law and the bloggers who don't.
Why do 'journalists' get more legal protection from ANYTHING? If a journalists writes something libelous, why is that OK?
...FOXNEWS has already been sued for deliberately being dishonest in its reporting.
FOXNEWS won that case.
We may no longer be free to write or speak about issues or people. But at least we can still shoot them.
Have gnu, will travel.
Journalists gain a certain amount of respect and authority; People are more likely to believe them when they speak. They should therefore be MORE vulnerable to libel and slander lawsuits, because when they spread lies they do more damage than when Joe Nobody the blogger does.
There's a local blog that I LOATHE. But I still read it because it often has timely relevant local stories. However, he will often post stories without verifying facts like a journalist would, and posts those chain articles that you get in emails as fact, such as saying Medicare is going to increase by a massive amount more than it actually is. This blog censors comments, because I'll often comment with the factual correction but it doesn't get allowed through. Even polite discourse, if it's an intelligent disagreement doesn't go through. Bloggers claim that they have first amendment rights, but they can trample all over other people in the name of "transparancy" and getting the "real" scoop. The few blogs I've followed over the years simply don't care to check facts or issue corrections when they're wrong, and they SHOULD be susceptible to libel and slander cases for that. You can't amass thousands of readers and lead them to believe false information that defames people based on rumors, and claim free speech. It's wrong. They need to be held accountable.
No, you don't ask for a license to practice free speech. But you _should_ ask for a license to call yourself journalist.
It's no rocket science.
A lot of people - here, and everywhere else - say that there should be no distinction between bloggers and journalists, and ask why should they need to attend some school to become a journalist... well, I say exactly because they are asking these questions.
If anyone who writes some crap on the internet can call themselves a journalist, then why shouldn't anyone who can add 2+2 call themselves a mathematician, and who can insert a video card in a motherboard call themselves IT professionals?
Come on people, wake up.
"Freedom of the Press" now goes to the guy with the big red button.
Thing is... I don't seem to remember the term "journalist" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Check your premises.
I know from personal experience, this particular woman (Crystal Cox) either needs to be locked away - or never allowed to use a computing device attached to the Internet again.... or pay a price so high she will never have the financial means to even buy a computer. What she does is register [a company or person that made me mad]sucks.com... She creates a blog and posts all kinds of nasty things about them. She did it to my former employer - and she's VERY good at getting her blogs up in the google results. She tried to extort money out of them several times! The result is, she (in part) destroyed their business because anybody who did a google search about the company saw that garbage.... It ultimately resulted in me being laid off as their Information Technology Director a few months ago. So.... her irresponsible actions have real-world results.
If you're getting paid for your content, you deserve to have journalist's credentials and a press card from whoever is paying you. But if you're a blogger who only makes a bit of ad revenue, if that, from your site, then you do not deserve the same protections the press gets.
Just because you want to be treated with the same respect as a professional does not mean you are a professional or that you deserve that respect.
I consider this argument flamebait, because it presumes that the bloggers are press, and as I've already stated, I don't feel that's the case.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
One of two things is going on here. Either the author didn't quote the important pieces of the decision (can't check since the site linked to is down) or the author has some reading comprehension issues.
Nothing in the quote from the decision says anything about the internet or the method in which the defendant was distributing their information. "Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of..." and the judge lists off seven different things that the defendant could have done that would have shown evidence that the she was a journalist rather than just someone spouting stuff on the web.
If a blogger were to appear in this judges court who could show evidence of fact-checking, disclosures of conflicts of interest, keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted, had a mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between them and their sources, created independent products rather than assembling writings and postings of others, and contacted "the other side" to get both sides of their stories, I'd bet that the judge would consider them media.
So to take the source material and twist it around to the eye catching headline "Bloggers Not Journalists" without providing any evidence within the article that it is in fact true, makes me think that maybe the author considers himself a blogger and not a journalist since there is little, if any, evidence to the contrary in this article.
Note that the first amendment protects your right to publish. It does not necessarily make you immune from all repercussions of what your write.
Hmm...so I have the right to say anything, but if I say the wrong thing, I could face punishment for doing so?
Palm trees and 8
Arrest all children. EVERY LAST ONE. They all have been publicly making libelous claims of others, calling them "liars" with flaming trousers, other derisive terms are too profane for me to repeat in the presence of adults.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED. I'm sick of all the morons ignoring the fact that Computers have indeed revolutionized the way we function to a large degree.
Just because you hand every teen a phone doesn't mean they'll stop saying those things -- They'll text each other the naughty bits they'd show off to eachother in the broom closet, because they've always done this. People will say bad things in public about other people -- Hit up a pub and see for yourself. Now we have pubs that span the globe, we're still carrying on the same conversations, but it just happens to be digital now. Instead of passing notes in class or mailing letters people post on eachother's their social sites.
Hey, if it weren't for faster reliable transportation our "communities" would be a lot smaller. We wouldn't commute as far, maybe we wouldn't use so much cheap electronic SPEECH tools?
I'm fully aware of how Libel laws work. I don't need to discuss whether or not it's illegal to defame someone. What you need to think about is how MANY of the current laws need to be revised since we've entered the Information Age. Or, hell, let's conider EVERY SINGLE PERSON a publisher?! No... that's not what's really going on.
At what point is is proper to NOT bury your head in the sand, and instead do something about the situation? I suppose once we arrest all of your children or fine you heavily for name-calling... maybe then? No?
The real issue is: NO Sticks & Stones were Involved! PROVE DAMAGES. Otherwise GTFO the court!
This lady's rantings are only slightly more intelligible than the Time Cube guy's. But they're way less entertaining. While I still think this is BS that she's getting sued into oblivion, perhaps if she kept her tone a little more civil and less crazy-person-y, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Of course, this ruling is probably the best thing that could have happened to her if her sole objective is to make it known that "Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance is a liar, thief and a fraud."
Bloggers need more protection than the professional press. In fact the smaller you are and the less money you make the more protection you need.
The more money you make from what you write and the more respected your writing is the more you should vet what you write.
The national enquirer for example counts as gossip.
I happened across a blog (http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/crystal_cox_oregon_blogger_isn.php) that had some potentially illuminating facts.
- she was her own legal representation
- the law seems to say that he should be shielded
I'm not surprised there would be a shocking verdict in a case when the defendant is acting as their own legal counsel. From the snippet of the law in the blog, it seems like it should have been an open an shut case.
No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by ... a judicial officer ... to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise ... [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]
Unless her blog was so bad that it could not be considered "any medium of communication to the public"
That rules out most professional journalists.
Does it?
Or are you just gaming Slashdot for an instant mod-up to +5, Insightful?
See http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n000/a243.html?2051 re NY Supreme Court Ruling on libel charge against Narco News
Note that the first amendment protects your right to publish. It does not necessarily make you immune from all repercussions of what your write.
Hmm...so I have the right to say anything, but if I say the wrong thing, I could face punishment for doing so?
Wrong as in libel, slander, etc. *Not* wrong as in unpopular, politically incorrect, challenging the powerful, etc.
Hence concludes Fox News not a news channel.
J.Murdoch of course knew that a long time ago.
Wrong as in libel, slander, etc. *Not* wrong as in unpopular, politically incorrect, challenging the powerful, etc.
So... who decides the difference? That's the crux of the issue, in the final analysis.
Don't forget that the charge in Soviet China political prosecutions of the press is usually something equivalent to "slandering the State", typically by sharing unflattering truths with the public.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I would argue that if Andrew Brietbart is a "profession journalist," then the journalistic standards don't mean anything.
What outrages me isn't that a blogger got hit with defamation, it's that journalists don't. What Crystal Cox did was clearly unethical, but it sounds to me that her actions would be perfectly legal if she was part of a news organization. So Andrew Breitbart can fabricate photos of OWS protesters defecating on cars, edit a clip of a USDA official to make her look racist against white people, and send out videos of ACORN officials edited to make it look like they are giving criminal advice on conducting a child prostitution rings (when two DA's found otherwise), and that's all perfectly okay because all of this disinformation and defamation is being executed by "professional journalists"???
The idea that journalists are somehow licensed to defame others is what offends me about this ruling.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
I'm torn on this topic. You give a list that's fairly hit-and-miss on special privileges:
Think for a minute. No special privileges granted to police officers to enter premises in case of emergencies, carry weapons openly, or detain people against their will despite not witnessing a crime? No special privileges granted to fire-fighters to restrict people from entering their own homes or to enter someone's home without permission? No special privileges granted to ambulance drivers to go through red lights?
I'm in favor of open carry being legal everywhere, and in many US jurisdictions it is. I also wasn't aware that the Firefighter's authority to enter burning buildings or prevent civilians to enter them derived from anything more than moral authority - they don't want you to die. I'll have to study up on that, as it would make sense to shield them from lawsuits brought on by idiots (it only takes one)...
Then you come back with probably the best point I've read so far in the thread:
. . . the privilege to withhold information from a court, despite due process being followed via a subpoena, is powerful. That privilege should only be given to people whose refusal to disclose information about potentially criminal activities is, despite appearances, a good thing for the state and its people.
And yet, while agreeing with you, I find myself conflicted on the topic. Carrying guns and 100gal/min hoses to peoples houses is one thing, and I'm happy to regulate that. With journalism we're talking about restricting the right to have an opinion and speak the truth. We should always be protected against fraud, especially when the speaker has a position of unique knowledge or authority. On the other hand, what special position can most bloggers claim to have? And in a case where the truth of the message isn't in question, why should the government get to say who is and isn't performing a public service (and therefore deserving of protection)? I can see problems arising if the message is anti-government (or anti-public-servant, same thing effectively)...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Wrong as in libel, slander, etc. *Not* wrong as in unpopular, politically incorrect, challenging the powerful, etc. So... who decides the difference? That's the crux of the issue, in the final analysis.
The judges elected by voters, the judges appointed by the president and confirmed by congress, ... all acting in accordance to the us constitution. In other words the same folks from pre-internet days.
Really, it is just what happens in the rest of the free world, even the non-corporate nation-states.
If you want to be a journalist blogger, well, first you get an undergrad degree on journalism, then you register yourself as press, and you blog. It IS that simple. Until you get that done, you stay your hand on anything that would land you in the courts due to the lack of the journalist protection afforded by law.
In Brazil, you get the right to keep your sources anonymous and you are not punished if you do that. You can always keep them anonymous, even if you're not a journalist, but if the judge orders you to reveal them and you cannot(!) or you do not, you go to jail. When you're a journalist, he cannot order you to reveal your sources.
And in either case, you can still get sued for liebel, so you better be able to back up any news you post with evidence.
Fortunately I live in the US where the difference usually involves some bearing on provable facts. To defend against a libel and slander suit, you need to have a modicum of evidence supporting your claims.
The license is free... provided you are part of one of the approved organizations.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Sounds right to me... you've got the right to say anything; not the right to be protected from the results, nor the right to be heard. It's always been this way.
For all intents and purposes, this paves the way for the professionalization of journalism parallel to the professionalization of law. Journalism will become a occupation requiring a postgraduate degree requiring, of all things, a JournD (Journalismus Doctor). There will be a Press Exam (Bar Exam) for entering the profession once acquiring said degree. Once the path has been made the law of the land, will there be a cause of action called "Journalistic malpractice" since for all intents and purposes journalism will have become just as rigorous and regulated a profession as law?
Congress shall make no law...however the judiciary can do what they please.
Didn't the courts decide, in the Citizen's United ruling, that the government can't tell what is a media outlet and what isn't? It seems like a contradiction to then turn around and say that bloggers do not qualify as journalists. A cynic might think that entities with money can have the rights that come with being recognized as part of the media, but not ordinary individuals.
With journalism we're talking about restricting the right to have an opinion and speak the truth.
No, we're not. We are expressly talking about the Shield Laws that exempt journalists from disclosing the sources of their facts; not their right to disclose facts in general. It is the applicability of the Shield Laws to non-print media and amateur journalism that is in question.
It's a balance of what is good for the state right now (getting information used to catch and prosecute illegal activity) and what is good for the state long term (protection from undue threat of exposure for whistleblowers, leaks, and sources). The history that led to the creation of Shield Laws clearly indicates that we the people want a balance. People whose roles are critical to a progressive society may be afforded the privilege of freedom from subpoenas - in limited situations. But we also don't want to de-claw subpoenas as a tool of justice by giving everyone carte blanche exemption.
Regardless, freedom of speech is secure (well, as secure as it is regardless of this issue!) and this is strictly about being forced by a court to disclose sources.
But if your intent is to harm someone (e.g. tell everyone about some adultery of a co-worker to get them sacked), then the fact that it's true doesn't stop there being harm.
In fact, the USA has the same ideal: Bradley Manning was telling the truth about the USA's army actions in the leaked info.
But truth isn't a defence against the harm done to the USA.
Great reply, I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this. I'm adding you to my friends list so I can boost the score on your comments; I hope all of your posts have this much insight. I think we agree in principle, and that our differences on this issue are due to perspective.
At risk of invoking class warfare rhetoric, I think my concerns on the issue stem from looking for balance on a different scale: risk of unscrupulous publishers defrauding the public vs risk of unscrupulous public figures (politicians, celebrities, corporations, state agencies) using the law to silence critics.
Granting everyone protection under the shield laws would greatly favor the "speaker of truth", democratizing the ability of amateurs to engage in the public dialog and expose wrongdoings without the barrier of being vetted by a central authority. Unfortunately, there's no way for a court to distinguish a moral blogger with a confidential source of damaging truth from an unscrupulous twit broadcasting lies to his twitter followers. One provides a public service, the other damages an innocent public figure's reputation. Conversely, an innocent public figure should be able to discredit a lying publisher by demanding they provide proof or retract the lie; however, unscrupulous public figures use their wealth to silence truthful critics, defraud the public, and use the law to cover their crimes. They deserve none of the protections nor privileges they abuse.
My personal prediction is that this will get balanced out by public figures growing thicker skins, bloggers with no evidence beyond the word of a confidential informant will become warier of publishing, and coverage by shield laws will be determined by criteria like the judge used: journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest. In a just world the same criteria would be used for employees of major news outlets; if you don't have notes, independent research, or actual confidentiality agreements with your source then you get no protection under shield laws. In that same perfect world the protections journalists receive wouldn't be meted out by those who most need public scrutiny; the conflict of interest is too great.
I think it's reasonable for bloggers to push for leveling of the journalistic playing field, and I hope that those who take their roles as amateur journalists seriously get the respect they deserve.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
I think it's reasonable for bloggers to push for leveling of the journalistic playing field, and I hope that those who take their roles as amateur journalists seriously get the respect they deserve.
Definitely. And with the decline of print media, it's bound to get cleared up sooner or later. Hopefully sooner!