Again, this is coming down to where the defendant is having to prove their innocence, rather than being assumed innocent, as they should be. The plaintiff is getting the luxury of simply being able to say, "They libeled me!" without having to prove that the statements were, in fact, libel.
Contrary to/. group-think ignorance, simply writing something absolutely does NOT make you a journalist.
Why not? Not that it matters, as it's not "journalism" that's protected, but Freedom of the Press. One does not have to be a journalist to avail themselves of that freedom.
Again though, where does the Constitution give the authority to determine who is and is not a journalist, or who is using the freedom of the press?
And phone hacking/breaking and entering are already illegal in the first place, so it doesn't make sense that a journalist would have protections from those to begin with.
Who's going to last longer in a court case, though? A common farmer, or a multi-national corporation who can afford to keep entire legions of top-notch lawyers on retainer, who can then draw things out time and time again?
Except for Prometheus Labs, who is suing the Mayo Clinic over this patent. And really, if you can't sue doctors over a patent that doesn't just cover a method of testing something, but that the levels of the something correlate to something else, then what's the point of the patent?
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.
No, the defense against libel would be to have it proven that what she wrote was untrue.
And no, she shouldn't go down for libel, unless it can be proven that what she wrote was untrue, and that she knew it was untrue before writing it. Simply saying, "That's libel!" should NOT be justification enough to require someone to reveal their sources.
While the defendant is definitely a scumbag, I can't agree with the "standards" for being called a journalist outlined. Why do I need to go to school to be a journalist? Why do I need to toe the line to be hired by a news organization to be a journalist? And if checking the facts or getting both sides of the story are requirements for being journalists, most of the people on TV definitely can't be called journalists, and therefore don't deserve the protections of journalists.
the news media goes out of it's way to say alleged and not call people thieves until they get convicted in a court of law. which is the way it should be
This is the only part of your statement that should be agreed upon. The rest of it is nonsense.
This blogger does not rise to the level of journalist, because she fails to meet this list of qualifications we expect traditional journalists to have.
Are you going to try and say that most "journalists" on TV do meet those qualifications? I would imagine that if this were the threshold, most of Fox News would be sued into oblivion.
Doesn't that mean that developers would have to be licensed by the state? And that the developers would be required to write bug-free code or be held responsible?
Care to give your reasoning why Apple and Google are "overpriced"? They consistently deliver good profit margins, and have good advantages over their competitors that they are able to leverage.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it at all reasonable to require you to prove your innocence, when I should be having to prove your guilt?
Again, this is coming down to where the defendant is having to prove their innocence, rather than being assumed innocent, as they should be. The plaintiff is getting the luxury of simply being able to say, "They libeled me!" without having to prove that the statements were, in fact, libel.
It is hard to prove a negative.
That's not my problem. You should have to prove that the statement is not true before you force me to reveal my trusted source.
Contrary to /. group-think ignorance, simply writing something absolutely does NOT make you a journalist.
Why not? Not that it matters, as it's not "journalism" that's protected, but Freedom of the Press. One does not have to be a journalist to avail themselves of that freedom.
Again though, where does the Constitution give the authority to determine who is and is not a journalist, or who is using the freedom of the press?
And phone hacking/breaking and entering are already illegal in the first place, so it doesn't make sense that a journalist would have protections from those to begin with.
And tell me, were those people able to go after others with whom their plants had naturally cross pollinated?
Yes. Basically, the idea that there is licensing involved with genetic material in the first place, really.
The idea that there can exist "unlicensed genetic material" is absurd on it's face.
Who's going to last longer in a court case, though? A common farmer, or a multi-national corporation who can afford to keep entire legions of top-notch lawyers on retainer, who can then draw things out time and time again?
Except Monsanto can better afford to draw things out long enough to where the guy simply can't afford to keep going anymore.
Except for Prometheus Labs, who is suing the Mayo Clinic over this patent. And really, if you can't sue doctors over a patent that doesn't just cover a method of testing something, but that the levels of the something correlate to something else, then what's the point of the patent?
I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there's a finite number of seats in the White House Press Room.
random non-lawyer person commits obvious libel
Care to point out the evidence that shows she committed libel?
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.
No, the defense against libel would be to have it proven that what she wrote was untrue.
And no, she shouldn't go down for libel, unless it can be proven that what she wrote was untrue, and that she knew it was untrue before writing it. Simply saying, "That's libel!" should NOT be justification enough to require someone to reveal their sources.
Not really. It's not hard to say that hacking into someone's private voice mail isn't protected any more than breaking into someone's house would be.
While the defendant is definitely a scumbag, I can't agree with the "standards" for being called a journalist outlined. Why do I need to go to school to be a journalist? Why do I need to toe the line to be hired by a news organization to be a journalist? And if checking the facts or getting both sides of the story are requirements for being journalists, most of the people on TV definitely can't be called journalists, and therefore don't deserve the protections of journalists.
the news media goes out of it's way to say alleged and not call people thieves until they get convicted in a court of law. which is the way it should be
This is the only part of your statement that should be agreed upon. The rest of it is nonsense.
Where does it say that a judge should be able to determine who is and isn't a journalist?
This blogger does not rise to the level of journalist, because she fails to meet this list of qualifications we expect traditional journalists to have.
Are you going to try and say that most "journalists" on TV do meet those qualifications? I would imagine that if this were the threshold, most of Fox News would be sued into oblivion.
I know you can pass, but if you are going to bid, isn't there a minimum amount you have to bid? The open, so to speak?
Doesn't that mean that developers would have to be licensed by the state? And that the developers would be required to write bug-free code or be held responsible?
Care to give your reasoning why Apple and Google are "overpriced"? They consistently deliver good profit margins, and have good advantages over their competitors that they are able to leverage.
That's assuming that even non-bubble companies won't feel pain.
I'd say being able to keep up that jolly attitude, and not letting things get you down, or at least projecting that image, is a skill.
The exemptions are for political organizations. I would imagine these guys are going to claim they are one.