Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bloggers Not Journalists, Federal Judge Rules

Posted by timothy on from the occupation-foole dept.

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.)

8 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. They have it backwards by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. What is a journalist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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:

    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.

    Cox said she considered herself a journalist, producing more than 400 blogs over the past five years, with a proprietary technique to get her postings on the top of search engines where they get the most notice.

  3. The case is a bit different... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The case is a bit different... by sribe · · Score: 3, Informative

      And no, she shouldn't go down for libel, unless it can be proven that what she wrote was untrue, and that she knew it was untrue before writing it. Simply saying, "That's libel!" should NOT be justification enough to require someone to reveal their sources.

      Exactly. The judge is not attempting to force her to reveal her sources; there has been no subpeona nor warrant issued. The judge has merely determined that 1) her completely unsubstantiated claim that a source told her these things does not in itself comprise admissable evidence; 2) one of her posts crossed the line from expressing opinion to presenting her accusations as fact; 3) the facts that she claimed, if untrue, could be liable; 4) since the the company she was accusing of criminal activity denies the accusations, there's grounds for that company's lawsuit to proceed. So, now, the company can attempt to do exactly what you propose they should be required to do, prove that she knew it was untrue.

      The ruling about whether or not she is a journalist is actually just a sideshow. She raised it, so the judge addressed it, but it's actually irrelevant. She is under the false impression that the law which might prevent her from being forced to reveal a confidential source, means that she can walk into court, say "a source told me so", and have that accepted as fact.

  4. NYPD Credential Journalists by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even your example of libel is pretty borderline. Usually, it has to be something that is a clear statement of fact. An ordinary person would not think that you are genuinely accusing him of criminal terrorist acts, or that "lied, cheated, and stole" is meant to be a specific accusation. A better example of libel would be "Obama robbed my grandfather's grocery store in 1997." That's a definitive statement of fact (a specific criminal act, in particular) that either is or is not true.

  6. Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers by PsyberS · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't remember the target, but I remember a long-running smear campaign a few years back. Some guy registered a domain named something along the lines of so-and-so-is-not-an-idiotic-jerk.com then put up a website full of innuendo. Things like "Are the rumors that so-and-so molests children true? We here at so-and-so-is-not-an-idiotic-jerk.com don't believe them for a second. Anonymous sources claim that so-and-so enjoys torturing kittens, but we don't think those sources are credible."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall

  7. Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers by pclminion · · Score: 3, Informative

    Libel is not a crime, and you are not presumed innocent in a civil disagreement. My wife was sued a couple of years ago for defamation for some statement she made in a formal complaint she filed against a certification board. The details are unimportant and probably not wise to discuss. The point is, my wife's statements were true, and caused some level of harm to this other person. She sued my wife, and won, because there was no way to prove one way or the other the actual truth of those statements. Regardless, in the jury's mind the evidence was apparently on the side of the plaintiff, and my wife lost her case.

    This is in spite of the fact that my wife's statements were true. I know they were true, because I was in the room when the precipitating events took place and saw/heard everything. My wife certainly was not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The situation was simply murky. If you're a criminal defendent, murky is a good way for things to be, since there is still some possibility that you're innocent. However, this was not a criminal trial and things don't work like that. Luckily, our insurance paid for everything.

    On the one hand, I am still very angry at what happened to my wife. On the other hand, I have a more realistic understanding of how bad things can get when adults make serious sorts of accusations about each other. You better be sure you're right about it -- you can completely ruin someone's life if you aren't.