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."
A great victory for the blogosphere
Better luck pissing on inalienable rights next time. Why not try banning the second amendment again. That'll make you feel better.
I think you mean "restores"? After they tried to take it away?
I find it hard to believe that there is a judge in the USA who has the common sense to actually let this happen.
What about EULA's and copyright issues?
As one that ban bad press about X item / person / corporation?
Fuck you! People should only get full rights if they have the threat of losing their job weighed against them? Go back to your fucking cave.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The Constitution makes no distinction between a "traditional journalist" and anybody else. When the Constitution refers to "freedom of the press", it is not talking about news media, or journalists. It is literally talking about printing presses. Just because journalists have told us that it applies to them and only to them does not mean that was what the Framers were referring to.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
code of conduct/ethics...traditional journalist
Have you been sleeping for a few decades?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
For a blogger to be entitled to the same free speech protection as a traditional journalist, then they must follow the same code of conduct/ethics as a traditional journalist.
Until then, what the blogger writes is unregulated. Personal unregulated commentary are not the same as regulated publication, and therefore the same rules can't be applied to both.
A professional is one who gets paid for his work. Put AdSense on your blog and you're a professional.
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation), so what do they care if they write false accusations?
A journalist would be more professional - if they make an accusation, they'd have their research to back it up. Their accusation could be verified by other journalists, or from multiple sources.
The journalist would(by and large) have to follow a code of conduct/ethics, whereas a personal blogger is unregulated. The situations are not the same, so how can the law apply equally for both cases?
Pie in the sky is the most expensive kind. Journalists don't follow a code of ethics or conduct, and even if they did there is no reason that they should somehow be granted greater First Amendment protection than the common man. Nothing you said is relevant because the Constitution requires equal protection under the law for everyone. Singling out journalists as having the right to protect their sources is equal to differentiating "everyone else" as not having that right. Freedom of speech includes freedom FROM speaking, and the Fifth Amendment reinforces that in any potentially self-incriminating interaction (which, in case you don't realize, is every interaction that exists due to overcriminalization in the United States.)
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation)
It is if the blogger has ads on his site.
A journalist would be more professional - if they make an accusation, they'd have their research to back it up.
So does someone become a "journalist" merely by properly citing sources? If so, the biggest difference between a journalist and a Wikipedia editor is that unlike a Wikipedia editor, a journalist is allowed to make an original synthesis of information from published sources.
The journalist would(by and large) have to follow a code of conduct/ethics, whereas a personal blogger is unregulated.
By whom is a journalist regulated?
The situations are not the same, so how can the law apply equally for both cases?
Because the law allows for a blogger who cites his sources and who makes and follows a reasonable code of ethics.
There have been numerous accounts of secondary school students censored or reprimanded as well as public university students who have felt the heavy hand of administration for having their say online.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"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."
It's easy to distinguish those who are members of the institutional press; they never ask challenging questions of the wealthy and powerful, reliably support one of the overly simplistic two-party positions on all wedge issues, and don't publish stories like the Snowden trove until the non-traditional press has left them no other choice. These are the very reasons that the non-traditional press needs as much or more protection than the mundane, risk-averse mainstream media.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
the same code of conduct/ethics as a traditional journalist.
You mean none?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
isn't saying much these days.
People in the free press are meeting with "accidents" and the "misfortune" if your article covers bankers, their cronies mischief in the NSA.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.
In modern times, pretty much anyone can own one.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
A traditional journalist would be less likely to make false accusations in their line of work, because they could lose their job, and their employer could be taken to court.
A traditional journalist is also less likely to pursue politically sensitive stories for the same reasons. When was the last time you remember the White House press corps really hammering the President on a sticky issue?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Mean, mean pride .still. . .cried"
Punched real hard and he. .
Duh-DUH Duh-DUH
(Thanks, I'm here all week.)
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
>And so a blogger could make accusations(false ones, in particular), with few consequences
Certainly. And it's a self-minimizing problem - A random person walking past you on the street could scream out random false accusations, and you'd have a hard time silencing them legally, but not many people are going to listen to them. A blogger might be able to yell his accusations in a medium where more people will hear him, but the size of that audience will be largely based on the historical value and/or provocativeness of their blog, something they jeopardize any time they make claims that are false and/or boring.
Bottom line, so long as "professionals" like Rush Limbaugh can hide behind journalist protections I don't see any reason that even the most casual bloggers should be short-changed.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Well, that is the way it is supposed to work in a free country. The people are the sovereign and they hold all the rights, the government is the subject and outside a few specific roles, they are to be bystanders in our prosperity. The people are presumed to be able to do anything unless there is a law barring the action. The US constitution even makes this clear in the 9th and 10th amendments
Somehow, in modern times, we have shifted from that concept to one which seems to specifically requires permission from the government in so many ways. This is probably because of the over regulation and the use of regulation as law to avoid a public debate in congress over the so called new law (regulation with the force of law). Along with that regulation comes licensing and so on and exists at almost every level in government to some degree. If you start a business in some areas and do not obtain proper permits or licenses, you can be fined or even jailed. I remember a story about a kid's lemonade stand being shut down a while back because they lacked the appropriate health department permits or licensing and it doesn't seem to be an isolated incident.
So I can see how some people might start thinking the government grants you rights. It's just a shame that it is possible for that to happen.
Well there you go, it's right there in the constitution: If you own a printing press, or work directly for someone who does, you are a journalist. Otherwise get stuffed.
Heh.
Considering the valuable and recurring role that pseudonymous pamphleteering played in the formation of the US , I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim the "The Press" is a formal institution with special protections.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I'm confused here. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; among other things not pertinent to this discussion. But in nowhere that I can find does no law seem to imply "only if you agree to act in a certain way". Can you please point out to us where this might be? From what I can tell, no law means it would bar even the establishment of criteria in order to qualify as "the press" in the first place as it would limit who can be the press. and this is still ignoring the free speech portion of the same article that intends to limit the powers of government.
It's not like the government, or anyone else, can make you say something against your will
try telling that to the inmates of gitmo and bagram
defamation laws don't inhibit your right to free speech... you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
just as you are free to bear arms, but if you shoot someone in anything but self defence you face a murder trial.
every action has consequnces.
rights don't come without responsibilities. the bill of rights covers your rights... various other laws cover your responsibilities.
the bill of rights is itself merely a law. "inalienable" merely means those rights can't be transferred by force or contract, not that they absolve you of any responsibilities.
only idiot americans think they can say and do whatever they want without any repercussions.
then they must follow the same code of conduct/ethics as a traditional journalist.
So instead of sticking to the facts and citing reliable sources I should just write sensational fear mongering claims.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
go easy on him... he obviously watches CNN ;-)
the constitution ensures your right to bear arms, but it doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
the constitution ensures your right to free speech, it doesn't give you the right to libel someone.
it's not rocket science.
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation), so what do they care if they write false accusations?
I pride myself on the quality of my blog, and have the sources documentation and research to back up everything I write about. I also provide contact details so that I can retract any inaccuracies if they do appear, which fortunately has only ever happened once. I also have no editors to sabotage the final print before publishing meaning the end product is always what I intended. The same cannot be said for journalists.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation), so what do they care if they write false accusations?
"I pride myself on the quality of my blog, and have the sources documentation and research to back up everything I write about. I also provide contact details so that I can retract any inaccuracies if they do appear, which fortunately has only ever happened once. I also have no editors to sabotage the final print before publishing meaning the end product is always what I intended. The same cannot be said for journalists."
I botched the quote tags.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Well there you go, it's right there in the constitution: If you own a printing press, or work directly for someone who does, you are a journalist. Otherwise get stuffed.
Actually, yeah, I'm cool with that. We have a printer at the office, so I would count as a journalist, and given that low barrier to entry (owning, or working for a business that owns, a printing device), pretty much everyone counts as a journalist already or could quickly become one. And remember, a cheap inkjet is a faster and better printer than the best press money could buy back in 1776.
The problem is not consequences, it is the establishments of sanctioned verses none sanctioned. Or to put it bluntly, separate laws governing speech depending on if you are associated with a specific organization or not and having stricter penalties when any association is not legally recognized.
It doesn't matter if it is the New York Times, or Joe Simpleton who printed 500 flyers at Kinko's, or in this case, a blogger with viewers, when the laws are different, then not only is the first amendment in violation, but the equal protection clause is too. The press is not just a News Corp, it is a term that literally means printing press and several of the founders used them personally in order to sway public opinion their way. The concept of the press in the constitution is simply to disseminate information which is why it is implicitly linked to free speech by a comma and not separated by a semi colon.
True, true; however, that printer isn't actually a printing *press* is it? And as it says right in the name its the *press* part that gets you protections. Perhaps having an antique printing press mothballed in your basement might qualify you, but not some piddly little printer that just anyone can get their hands on.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Um, Fox corroborates their stories before they air them.
YOU might not like what they say, (and really it boils down to that, doesn't it), and YOU might find their sources suspicious, but
I suspect you had no problem believing CBS.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
lol.. The press concept was specifically because it was a way, the best way I might add, to disseminate your "freedom of speech". The entire concept of the press in the constitution is about being able to put ideas and opinions out into the world in order to influence your surroundings and government. This is why there is only a comma separating the freedom of speech, or of the press instead of semicolons which is used in the same amendment in order to separate different concepts like religion.
Justice Black wrote in his concurring opinion for 403 U.S. 713 New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) in which Justice Douglas joined
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."
In this he echos the sentiment that the press is simply a way to disseminate or publish their information/sentiments. The only distinction between speech and the press that should be allowed is the distinction between the medium the speech was composed with and how many people saw it. No other legal distinction should be there and a media group verses ordinary person/citizen completely ignores the history, intend, and plain language of the Constitution.
The Ninth Circuit totally gets it right. Any other ruling would be massively un-American.
If you limit First Amendment rights to professional reporters, then what you are REALLY doing is limiting First Amendment rights to the people who employ those reporters.
You do realize that rags like The National Enquirer and The Sun are "traditional" journalists.
Regardless of the case in TFA, anyone from Joe Simpleton to the NY Times can be charged with libel. The defference comes down to capacity to mount a defense.
Existing case law is often contradictory and requires interpretation on a case-by-case basis. The outcome of the case in TFA will no doubt be used in future cases, but it won't necessarily dictate the outcome of future cases.
The law seems a bit messy due to defamation being usually under state jurisdiction, which can be overturned by the federal courts but convictions have and do stick, particularly if a statement is considered defamatory "per se".
Statements are only determined to be sanctioned or not after they have already been made (is isn't always possible to know if someone is going to be libeled by something you intend to say, particularly in the age of the internet where even the most innocuous comments can go viral), so this could in itself be considered a form of prior restraint; if you want to say something that could possibly be construed as defamatory, perhaps you should refrain from saying it in case it is ultimately found to be.
This isn't necessarily restraint on the right to free speech, but is possibly somewhat related to your right to due process per the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). There's also consumer and corporate law, such as prevention of false advertising, not to mention national security interests, etc.
All interesting stuff :-)
If the first amendment means anything, the only difference in capacity to mount a defense that can be is the difference between your financial means and mine and the people we employ for the defense. Any difference in standards for implementation of a law or it's application is in violation of the entire free speech concept (let alone equal protection under the law and the 5th as you mentioned).
If the burden is knowingly false, then it should be the same for a news paper reporter, Joe Simpleton, you, me, your neighbor and everyone else in the country. When the burden shifts to a greater or lesser level because of someone's failure to be legally associated with some organization or profession, we have problems. If an evening news reporter can say X did Y while doing Z and be protected from libel, then you or I shall have the same opportunities to do the same with the same levels of protection. This portion of the case was about different standards being applied- one that would be involved if a person using their freedom of speech was associated with a news organization and one where they were not.
Now, once the case is reheard with the same rights and privileges for everyone, Crystal Cox may lose again. It completely appears that her statements may be false. The difference is that now everyone is on the same playing field and your right to say something is not less then my right due to some association or employment.
It is also worth noting that while I agree with the rest of what you said, laws such as false advertising are considered laws against fraud or defrauding the public not regulations on speech. I know that seems like an excuse, but I believe it is a distinction of importance. As for national security interests, I believe New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) took care of that with the publishing of the pentagon papers.
It's not a coincidence that anonymously-printed hand bills, distributed, in London, in the 1600s and 1700s, were often referred to as 'libels'; they challenged the status quo and those whom maintained dominance.
Clearly when the Founders sought to protect ownership of printing presses, they also sought to protect libelers, as one man's libel was another man's free speech and a third man's entertainment - they did not see fit to decide for those men, or their peers.
When I was reading a book on the CIA's cocaine smuggling, published by the Christic Institute, I was struck by how they preceded each controversial statement with the phrase, 'based on information and belief'. I have since discovered this is a formulaic legal expression with precedents whereby controversial facts may safely be introduced into the public debate, and I have used it religiously, with good effect.
Of course, this requires that one have some sort of information to base one's belief upon - but that's not a bad thing, we'll all agree.
Furthermore, the term 'journalist' hearkens back to a time when not everyone knew how to read, and fewer still were inclined to write, but, of those whom DID know how to write, they felt - as a sense of responsibility to those whom would come after them, in life - that they had a duty to record their experiences, so that others could learn from them, in books, that were often referred to as 'journals', hence, those whom kept journals were referred to, as 'journalists'.
And so we see there is no inconsistency between owning a press ... publishing one's opinions ... annoying those in power ... exercising one's freedom of speech ... adhering to the law ... and being held responsible for one's statements, when one does not.
The web hasn't changed anything; it's just lowered the cost of ownership, printing costs and distribution costs. That's ALL.
~childo
CAPTCHA: 'tested'
Blair: Quoth the Sheeple, "Nevermore."
you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
That makes absolutely no sense. I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us... they just suffer severe consequences if they do absolutely anything that the government doesn't like. If the government punishes you for doing something, you're not free to do it. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
not that they absolve you of any responsibilities.
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you. Otherwise, it's not a right at all.
What about the government's responsibility to uphold the constitution? They explicitly agree to do so.
I know that seems like an excuse
That's because it is. You could do the same thing with just about any kind of speech to avoid recognizing that you're infringing upon people's free speech rights.
This victory is important, and handily demonstrates the impartiality of the circuit court judges involved, and Eugene Volkoh's intestinal fortitude. Why? Chrystal Cox is, to be frank, a horrible person. A nutjob. A known extortionist. The trial that will now take place will be a waste of everyone's time and money (she's going to lose), and it's unlikely the plaintiff's will be able to recover they now-extensive legal costs and the damages they are almost certainly due.
Example: She decided to go on a vendetta against Marc Rendazza (who, ironically, is a well-known civil-liberties attorney)... First, she asked Marc Rendazza to pay for her "reputation management services." When he hold her to take a hike, she got revenge by posting all sorts of utterly made-up horrible things about his 3-year-old daughter.
Make no mistake, when this does go to trial, she's going to lose, and she's going to lose hard. All she won here was an acknowledgement that despite being a horrible person, and despite the fact she's being sued for doing the exact same sort of thing she's done in the past, the defamation has to be proven in a court instead being assumed because she isn't a professional.
Now that the 1st-amendment issues have been settled, will Volkoh now drop her like a hot potato?
On one hand, I can see what the court is getting at here, but in terms of practical effect, it could be ugly. As if we needed more reasons to not trust anything we read on the internet.
The next song will be Synchronicity II.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I guess you've never watched a political speech first and then went to fox to see what they do to it. Quite often going off in a tangent about something that was never even in the speech. If you want to head to fox first, fine. But do yourself a favor and then go to youtube and watch it "uncensored". They're usually posted there a while later.
Remember, fux is NOT an American company. The owner (Rupert Murdoch) is out for the money. Sensationalism is how he sells news world wide.
But the main problem with all media today... they all have an opinion. Years ago if a journalist had an opinion on air... he'd get fired. Today, if it creates controversy, he gets a raise.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
And this case upholds your right to say such things about her without positively demonstrating them to be correct.
I am not an american. I don't watch ANY of your 24 hr news feeds for my news. They are all corporate driven media and biased in their own way.
Try watching BBC or some other respected non-US news source once in a while to see what else is out there - you may be very surprised.
And taking your smear to the full extent I feel compelled to say I also don't like either of your 2 political parties either - I think they are both complete shit and find your whole political system a complete farce and a bad joke as do most americans it appears. (and believe me I wish I could afford not to give a toss about it but you keep spying on and invading on other countries!)
Again, try investigating another well respected democracy etc...
Not that any of them (countries or news orgs) are perfect but none of them are as blatantly biased as Fox news. And that has been PROVEN with leaked memos and other analysis much of which has been mentioned on this very site.
So you might really love what Fox news has to say (and really it boils down to that, doesn't it) and YOU might find their sources beyond suspicion but I suspect you had no problem believing Bush and Cheney[Evil tyrants.com].
First, off, I don't head to Fox first, or even CNN, and certainly not NBC. I'm generally aware of most stories before they even break on the national news. I watch the BBC, CBC, I surf newspapers from all over the world, even Al Jazeera, Pravda, etc.
However, every time one of my (way ot liberal) friends starts the liberal Fox New Lies rant, I invite them over to watch the nightly news.
We each start with 10 bucks on the coffee table.
Every time they call something a lie, they have to prove it with an un-impeachable source right then and there using the internet.
If they can, they get the money. If they can't, I get it.
They've lost so much that they refuse the wager. I probably lost once or twice, only to have Fox correct themselves in the next hour.
So here's the assignment for every Fox Hater: Post back to this thread with a current news event (today) where Fox told a lie, and cite an un-impeachable source that proves it a lie. Today, not 6 months from now. Prove it. You lose if any of the other big networks also make the same statements. You lose if Fox states that they can't yet corroborate the facts, but are just stating what are un-confirmed reports from people at the scene.
I think most haters are still going to hate, because Fox does not feed them what they want to hear, but they aren't' going to find any lies.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Not that any of them (countries or news orgs) are perfect but none of them are as blatantly biased as Fox news.
Well a I have to assume you are speaking from total ignorance here. Why? Because you said so yourself:
I don't watch ANY of your 24 hr news feeds for my news.
I can get the BBC here, as well as the CBC, Al Jazeera, and I am internet close to anything else.
If you think Fox is biased, you clearly haven't seen MSNBC. Oh! My! God!
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Actually, my laser printer does have a hot roller that presses/fuses the ink to the paper, so it is, technically, a printing press.
You inkjet slackards are in trouble, though. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Like I said "that I could think of".
I am sure there are much more shitty news orgs out there. Probably none of them with the viewership of Fox news....
And I am not speaking from ignorance. I used to flick back and forth between Fox and BBC when they were on after midnight to compare.
The difference was mindblowing....
The First Amendment isn't there to protect speech you like; it's there to protect speech you detest. Remember Larry Flynt's statement:
"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst."
I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us
the real question you should ask yourself is: do you really have any more freedom than citizens of north korea?
if you are an ignorant fool you would answer "of course", but i think fundamentally the governments of north korea and the united states aren't as different as you would like to think
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you
no... actually if the government had no right to punish citizens then there wouldn't be much point in having courts would there
government's responsibility to uphold the constitution?
"governments" don't have rights or responsibilities because it isn't a tangible thing... only individuals do
how would you sue the government? even if you managed to win a lawsuit, the "government" wouldn't pay you anything... individual taxpayers would have to foot the bill