NH Supreme Court Hears Case On Protections For Anonymous Sources Online

fulldecent writes "The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that calls into question the legal protections available to independent Web sites that cover news. The case involves mortgage lender Implode-Explode, a Las Vegas-based site launched in 2007 that publishes stories about the meltdown of the mortgage industry. Associate Justice Carol Ann Conboy pressed the point with [defense lawyer Jeremy Eggleton], questioning, 'Can anyone who posts a blog be considered a reporter,' for the purposes of claiming protection of anonymous sources? Eggleton answered yes, within limits: 'The test is whether the person has an intention to gather, analyze and disseminate.'"

Begging the question

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You don't need to be a "reporter" to protect your sources. The attempt to pigeonhole a specific right to a specific type of profession is exactly the kind of intellectual manipulation that is going on in this country, and I'm sad to see it happening in the judiciary.

Take for example the idea that we need extra security for air travel. We argue about the limits of search and seizure, but we never argue whether such search and seizure is actually necessary.

Why should only reporters be allowed to conceal their sources? Why should only priests, lawyers, and doctors be able to keep client information secret? These assume that there is a special need for this kind of protection above and beyond what a normal citizen would need.

Well fuck that. I'd like to think we're all equal in the eyes of the law, no matter what our profession is.

Madd Writing Skilz

[sribe]

So, is Implode-Explode a mortgage lender with a blog, or a blog about mortgage lenders???

Re:Begging the question

[sys.stdout.write]

You have lived up to your username! Air travel is a bad analogy! Everyone has the right to conceal private information. It's a question of whether they can do it if the information is necessary to resolve a lawsuit. People won't tell their doctors confidential things needed to diagnose if they have to worry about potential disclosure. The same argument works with journalists. The Pentagon Papers, for instance, would never have been released if New York Times reports didn't guard their sources' anonymity. The law recognizes that these special cases because of their critical importance to society. You will have a tougher time arguing that Disney should be able to protect the anonymity of their Hannah Montana customers upon subpoena.

Re:Madd Writing Skilz

[Zontar The Mindless]

Why not have parseable summaries?

Why fear terrorists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why fear third-world terrorists, when some of the citizenry of the nation itself want to strip other citizens of their God-given rights?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[bsane]

Newspapers and other media have an agenda too, whether it be political bias, or the desire to make more money. Most (all?) have comprised their reporting, and continue to do so on a regular basis. Traditional press isn't some holy box of pure information- its in the same ballpark as the bloggers, except with a lot of money behind them.

I agree that it would seem to be more difficult to determine truth when there are 1000 random voices vs 5 established ones telling you 'the way it is'. Its always been up to you to figure out the real story from all the slanted reports, now there are just a lot more of them.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[crazyjimmy]

IMHO, this is dangerous. These days, if people see it on the internet, it's true until proven false. Of course in many newspapers that's also the case but it's much easier to come down on them like a ton of bricks and get people fired for spreading lies. Not so with a blogger. They aren't employed by a company generally who can reprimand them for not fact-checking and even if you get a court order to shut them down they'll just move the content to a different place.

You know, back when the Bill of Rights was written, ANY idiot with a printing press could declare themselves to be a reporter, and post news. The truthiness of the news was not the issue, nor was the individual reporter's goals and motivations. The issue was the government shutting down people who said things they didn't like.

I don't see how bloggers are all that different.

--Jimmy

Re:Begging the question

[Smallpond]

Well fuck that. I'd like to think we're all equal in the eyes of the law, no matter what our profession is.

Next you'll try to claim that any citizen has equal rights to own guns instead of just sworn police officers. [ca.gov] Although I don't understand what bad language has to do with it.