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
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.
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:
assange releases real evidence. he doesn't call people names without anything to back it up
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.
Most Journalist only write up a summary of events.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
But then how will people click on their links?
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.
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!
...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
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!
... 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.
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.
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! ;)
Which is the death of the first amendment.
Just wait till Homeland Security gets their hand in things.
The whole point of a free press and free speech is to protect not that which is socially or politically acceptable, but that which is not.
When you allow regulation of what is acceptable, you ensure that what needs be said will not be.
Check your premises.
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.
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.
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?
We give government the power to grant privileges to some people that we do not want granted to all people.
I think the point you were trying to make was that everyone should be afforded the protection of the Shield Laws, not just journalists. I disagree; 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. This boils down to people whose jobs are beneficial to the state and its people and who rely on public trust and confidential communication to do their jobs effectively. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, maybe some others. And the importance of confidentiality and trust and whether or not information was given in the context of those jobs is examined when the Shield Laws are relied upon.
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
...FOXNEWS has already been sued for deliberately being dishonest in its reporting.
FOXNEWS won that case.
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.
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
Well yes, but in the time of Thomas Paine you could publicly challenge to a duel and kill someone who made libelous statements that infringed upon your honor.
Are you suggesting that we bring back dueling to settle matters of character defamation?
Sure; and I'm going to start by defaming Ashton Kutcher and Kim Kardashian. I'll expect to see them and their seconds on the field of honor at dawn.