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....
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
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
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
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?"
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....
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.
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.