Slashdot Mirror
Court Victory Gives Blogger Same Speech Protections As Traditional Press
cold fjord writes "Reuters reports, 'A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. Crystal Cox lost a defamation trial in 2011 over a blog post she wrote accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. A lower court judge had found that Obsidian did not have to prove that Cox acted negligently because Cox failed to submit evidence of her status as a journalist. But in the ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Cox deserved a new trial, regardless of the fact that she is not a traditional reporter. "As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable."... Eugene Volokh, [a] Law professor who represented Cox, said Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it. ... "In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it's harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press."' Further details are available at Courthouse News Service."
I totally agree with you.
I would argue the distinction has ALWAYS been unworkable its just that the internet has made it more obvious.
Although I am sure corporate media organisations will disagree...but fuck them.
And if this gets overturned or is not the case in other countries I would suggest that bloggers form a collective media organisation - Independent Media United. :)
As a side bonus they could use it as a blogging community, buy hosting in bulk or whatever....
Well I made that quip because Feinstein purposed an amendment a while back that would strip certain journalistic protections under the first amendment UNLESS you worked for an established news organization. Which would give the federal government an avenue to attack anyone they didn't like the message of.
You are being very naive.
Who defines "bad" and "good"?
And why is i that a for profit corporate such as Fox News (to pick the most disgusting mainstream example I can think of) is given special privilege given their well documented bias and motivations....
As I said...naive....
What makes it evil is it equated money with speech as well as said corporations are entitled to the same rights as people in a much stronger stance than any other decision. By allowing anonymous donations to political campaigns, there is no saying where the money actually came from be it local or from a foreign nation seeking to upset our political arena.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.