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."
Better luck pissing on inalienable rights next time. Why not try banning the second amendment again. That'll make you feel better.
How can anyone be entitled more free speech than others??? everyone is entitled the same free speech, journalist, blogger or bum.
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
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....
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.
A great victory for the blogosphere
Very much so. And I will also point out that Eugene Volokh is quite an interesting fellow with a great blog. Lots of interesting commentary there. Legal Insurrection is another great legal blog.
Volokh worked for 12 years as a computer programmer. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old.
Because child prodigy is no longer in Soviet Russia, free speech comes to you!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.)
"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
Nevertheless, why would it be ok for an "official" journalist to do this?
For example Fox news in every second one of their stories....
You are arguing a different point here....
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
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 just free speech, but the meaning of freedom of the press, as that is called out as a separate "line item" if you will in the first amendment. What does that mean in a context distinct from speech? In the rare situation that circumstances make it impossible for everyone to be in a given location - for example, in a courtroom, on Air Force One, etc. - it makes sense to designate a "pool reporter" to take that spot in exchange for agreeing to share the information with everyone else. Often it's likely that the spot will be reserved for the pool reporter, because it ensures that a wide variety of media outlets have access to the information.
In that way, for example, some press might get preferential treatment over other press. On the other hand, if a large group of bloggers wanted to get together and make a pool for reporting on things like that, I suspect their pool reporter would also get similar preferential treatment.
Also, consider places like crime scenes where police used to* allow designated members of the media closer access than the "general public". While any given member of that public could tweet or publish an Instagram and suddenly be a journalist, the police officers may be willing to give a little more leniency to someone they know personally or by reputation as someone who won't get in their way. *I say "used to" because with rulings like these, maybe they won't do this any more, but also with the increased militarization and adversarial nature of police forces, they may be as equally likely to lash out at a "member of the press" as they seem regularly to at the general public.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
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?"
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.
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....
Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it
Something about this just seems wrong. How may times have people had their lives ruined by false accusations in the Press only to have the accusations shown to be false. Richard Jewel is a good example. Seems to me that just being a notable person should not be a free pass for folks in the Press to ruin them, accidentally or otherwise.
True, Obsidian would normally under these circumstances, have to show negligence, either that the information
was false or that she had no information at all, and was merely slandering Obsidian.
However, Cox (apparently) tried to hide behind journalism privilege, without providing evidence in court,
perhaps trying to protect her sources, or perhaps because she really never had any verifiable
information. Its not clear from TFA.
But had she substantiated her claims, that's when journalistic protections should kick in.
And had that she provided proof, it would have worked for a private citizen as well, although
the private citizen might not get to protect sources.
The problem here is that Cox did not have entirely clean hands. From TFA:
Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities "and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
So once again, we are in a situation where this might be the Law of the 9Th, but it may well not fly elsewhere.
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.
I would argue the distinction has ALWAYS been unworkable its just that the internet has made it more obvious.
That's exactly it. The Supreme Court said
âoeWith the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media ⦠the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.â
Guess where they said it? Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. Yes that Citizens United. How that decision became popularized as "corporations are evil because the system is corrupt" I can't figure. Protection of First Amendment freedoms is good, full stop.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
But that's just it - the finding was that if a person has freedom of speech and of the press, then a group of people have the same freedoms, whether incorporated or otherwise. In the modern world, any attempt to get your ideas heard in the national conversation requires money, unless you are a professional journalist with a soapbox provided for you. If we are to believe that freedom of speech and of the press are not something restricted to professional journalists (as I strongly believe), then you cannot restrict the money needed to power speech without restricting speech.
It's very clear that anonymous political speech is needed to insure free political speech. That's a somewhat separate discussion, but one that seems quite obvious to me: Anonymous Coward can be a total asshole, to be sure, but there are so many governments that kill or imprison those who speak out against them that we know that anonymous speech may at times be the only political speech.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Corporations are not 'groups of people'. It's like saying that your plumber can use your house to post political ads in your front yard, because the contract you signed for his job makes you two a 'group of people'. This is the problem with that decision. It's a nice 1st amendment statement, but applied in a nonsensical way.
You might say, "well, public entities sometimes incorporate exactly to promote a common position!". Yes. And those are entirely different categories of organizations.
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
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].
The problem that you and they are ignoring is the fact that the you can suppress someone else's speech by overwhelming the room with your money.
Those who can personally buy a newspaper company or TV station already have this ability. You don't make it better by forbidding a group of people to pool their resources to compete with the richest few! How would that even make sense?
Look, you can either have political speech only by the most wealthy, you can allow groups of people to act in concert to air their collective view (which in the modern world means a financial entity designed to pool money: a corporation), or you allow the government itself to select specific viewpoints to be aired. All three have problems, but the first and last are vastly worse than the middle!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.