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.)
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
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
How about we don't have special rights for special people? Everyone gets the same rights regardless of whether or not the government or someone else feels like a particular class of people shouldn't have them.
The laws of probability forbid it!
The press is an item. Everyone who owns one has freedom of the press. Computers are the modern equivalent of the press, they serve the same fundamental purpose, disseminating information. So everyone who owns a computer has freedom of the press.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That rules out most professional journalists.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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.
While the defendant is definitely a scumbag, I can't agree with the "standards" for being called a journalist outlined. Why do I need to go to school to be a journalist? Why do I need to toe the line to be hired by a news organization to be a journalist? And if checking the facts or getting both sides of the story are requirements for being journalists, most of the people on TV definitely can't be called journalists, and therefore don't deserve the protections of journalists.
That's a really interesting point. In the minds of the Framers, the press was literally that - the printing press, an object. Certainly Thomas Paine (who published Common Sense anonymously) didn't have a journalism degree, nor ascribe to the other journalistic criteria the judge in this case is enumerating.
The decision does raise an interesting question, though - what makes you a journalist?
It's the wrong question to ask. The right question is to consider each publication individually and ask whether it was journalistic. Someone's history or credentials should have no bearing on how they're protected by law. What should determine whether the law protects you is whether you follow journalistic standards in the publication of the story or article. Do you confirm the facts you present? Are you upfront about any bias you might have, including advertising revenue you receive? Even stuff as simple as whether your articles are checked for spelling and grammar mistakes. But the important part is that the standard is applied to work rather than to people. It shouldn't matter if someone has written Pulitzer-level work in the past...if they take shortcuts and don't adhere to a Journalistic standard, they shouldn't receive protection for that work. Likewise, if someone with a history of shoddy work produces something that meets the criteria, that work should be protected.
Asking what makes you a journalist is akin to making an ad hominem argument. Being a journalist is reflected in your work, so you need only examine the work to determine when someone is a journalist.
And most newspapers run letters to the editor. No difference at all.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
And in those days, as now, if you libeled someone and they found out who you were and were wealthy enough to get a lawyer to go after you, you suddenly joined the ranks of the destitute. The shield laws providing extra protection to bona fide members of the press are a modern invention. This protection from lawsuits did not exist 200 years ago. This judge just doesn't think they apply to this "blogger".
Still, the reasons provided for stripping someone of a contitutional right seem, at the very least, short sighted, and at the most, incredibly idiotic.
They didn't strip someone's constitutional right. You have a constitutional right to free speech, but you don't have a right to libel or defamation. If you publicly declare that someone is a crook and a thief, like this person did, then the first amendment will not protect you. You need to have evidence to support your claim.
On the other hand, we as a society recognize that people who are in the business of digging up news will sometimes dig up information that makes people mad. And they will be sued with frivolous lawsuits just out of revenge. Congress has the power to grant them protection beyond the first amendment rights.
If this woman had been able to show anywhere that she was in the business (paid or unpaid) of digging up news, she might have been eligible for protection. If she'd had any of the qualifications listed by Hatta, she might have had an argument. But she had none. If there is absolutely zero evidence that she is anything more than a ranter with a blog, who wanted to insult someone publicly. And thus she was classified by the court.
There are some parts of the legal system that are bad, but I think they got this one right.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's a really interesting point. In the minds of the Framers, the press was literally that - the printing press, an object. Certainly Thomas Paine (who published Common Sense anonymously) didn't have a journalism degree, nor ascribe to the other journalistic criteria the judge in this case is enumerating.
...and this has nothing to do with her right to publish. Only whether she can be sued for libel for *what* she published. Taking your example, Thomas Paine would be sued if he wrote and published libelous material. Nothing is *preventing* him from doing so, but nothing is protecting him from the repercussions for said writings.
Shield laws, as others have stated, are a modern device. They did not exist during Thomas Paine's time. If you published lies, you could be sued then as today. If she wants to qualify for Shield protection there are certain qualifications that we require from her. That she did not have *any* of them is of paramount importance here. She did not fact check, she did not get both sides of the story she did not even bother with the basic 5 Ws of Journalism.
If she had evidenced even *some* of the requirements the judge outlined, she might have been ok. That she had none makes her a hack on a personal vendetta whether her accusations are true or not. The judge was correct in this case and it does not weaken the 1st Amendment in any way. This particular blogger is not a journalist. I do not believe this decision does anything to any other blogger but give them a wakeup call. If you want to be treated like journalists, start acting like one. Granted our current media rarely, if ever, act like journalists either but that is a separate rant.
Nothing in this decision diminishes or even impacts Freedom of the Press. Anyone can print anything they like, but just like Freedom of Speech does not grant you the right to scream fire in a crowded thater Freedom of the Press does not automatically exempt you from the repercussions arising from your writings.
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