Bloggers Not Journalists, Federal Judge Rules 353
New submitter squideatingdough writes "On InfoWorld, Robert X. Cringely covers a recent case of a blogger accused of libel and defamation. The federal judge ruled that journalists warrant more protection from libel suits than bloggers, but it is obvious from the article that bloggers' rights can vary by state, depending on the 'shield laws' in force." Reader blindseer adds a link to this AP article on the case,
and asks "If the government can define who is part of the press, and therefore gets First Amendment protections, then where does that place the freedom of the press?" The slippery slope is a steep one; even some relatively open societies require licensure for journalists (visiting ones included) with predictable results. (And the Labour Party would like to see a similar system in the UK.)
They have it backwards (Score:5, Informative)
Journalists don't have more rights than anyone else. Freedom of the press means that all people are allowed to publish their opinions. Thomas Paine was a blogger, not a journalist.
What is a journalist? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know how I feel about the precedent this sets for "what a journalist is," but I'm definitely not weeping for this SEO-ing scumbag:
The case is a bit different... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Now she says that what she wrote is based on information from a source which she wants to protect. If someone tried to sue the unknown source for libel, then shield laws would protect or not protect that person, and whether she is a journalist or a blogger would make a difference. But it isn't the source who is sued, it is Mrs. Cox herself. And to defend herself, she would need to have evidence that she wrote the truth. If her only evidence is a witness who doesn't want to come forward, and whom she doesn't want to present to the court, then she has no evidence that the statements she wrote are true.
Where shield laws would make a difference: If an employee gives a blogger or a journalist evidence that a company does something wrong. The blogger or journalist now _has_ the evidence. The company wants to take revenge and fire the employee. But here the situation is different; she can protect her witness all she wants, but if she does, she will go down for libel.
NYPD Credential Journalists (Score:5, Informative)
Here in NYC, the NYPD already has a licensing program for "official press". If you start asking a cop tough questions, they're liable to ask for your license. They also get priority seating in courtrooms.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The case is a bit different... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Exactly. The judge is not attempting to force her to reveal her sources; there has been no subpeona nor warrant issued. The judge has merely determined that 1) her completely unsubstantiated claim that a source told her these things does not in itself comprise admissable evidence; 2) one of her posts crossed the line from expressing opinion to presenting her accusations as fact; 3) the facts that she claimed, if untrue, could be liable; 4) since the the company she was accusing of criminal activity denies the accusations, there's grounds for that company's lawsuit to proceed. So, now, the company can attempt to do exactly what you propose they should be required to do, prove that she knew it was untrue.
The ruling about whether or not she is a journalist is actually just a sideshow. She raised it, so the judge addressed it, but it's actually irrelevant. She is under the false impression that the law which might prevent her from being forced to reveal a confidential source, means that she can walk into court, say "a source told me so", and have that accepted as fact.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:2, Informative)
A bad example -- outside of the UK, truth is an absolute defense when accused of libel :-p
Oh god, not this again. In the UK, truth is an absolute defense against defamation suits. In the US it is not, because the claimant has to establish grounds for the believing the statement to be untrue before the suit can be pursued,
The UK libel laws are fairly shit, but they are not quite as bad as is sometimes claimed, especially following some House of Lords decisions in the past 15 years which expanded the range of defences dramatically. See for example Jameel and others (Respondents) v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (Appellants) [bailii.org] in which the WSJE won their case because they had met reasonable journalistic standards despite the fact that the claims that some people were associated with terrorists were ultimately untrue.
Bear in mind that when you read about UK libel laws - whether in a left-leaning or right-leaning publication - you are most likely to be reading the words of professional journalists and writers. They have a deep interest in having as much of a shield from liability as possible, just like the audit firms say they shouldn't be responsible when firms collapse right after receiving clean audit opinions, and like doctors claim that medical treatment would be really cheap if they (or their insurers) didn't have to pay when they cripple their patients. After all, most of the media is a business. Even if the paper is not making much bottom line profit, there are still a lot of people making their livelihoods from it and if they never have to pay to clean up the mess they make of other peoples lives it makes their jobs a lot easier and more profitable.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:3, Informative)
I don't remember the target, but I remember a long-running smear campaign a few years back. Some guy registered a domain named something along the lines of so-and-so-is-not-an-idiotic-jerk.com then put up a website full of innuendo. Things like "Are the rumors that so-and-so molests children true? We here at so-and-so-is-not-an-idiotic-jerk.com don't believe them for a second. Anonymous sources claim that so-and-so enjoys torturing kittens, but we don't think those sources are credible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall [wikipedia.org]
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:4, Informative)
Libel is not a crime, and you are not presumed innocent in a civil disagreement. My wife was sued a couple of years ago for defamation for some statement she made in a formal complaint she filed against a certification board. The details are unimportant and probably not wise to discuss. The point is, my wife's statements were true, and caused some level of harm to this other person. She sued my wife, and won, because there was no way to prove one way or the other the actual truth of those statements. Regardless, in the jury's mind the evidence was apparently on the side of the plaintiff, and my wife lost her case.
This is in spite of the fact that my wife's statements were true. I know they were true, because I was in the room when the precipitating events took place and saw/heard everything. My wife certainly was not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The situation was simply murky. If you're a criminal defendent, murky is a good way for things to be, since there is still some possibility that you're innocent. However, this was not a criminal trial and things don't work like that. Luckily, our insurance paid for everything.
On the one hand, I am still very angry at what happened to my wife. On the other hand, I have a more realistic understanding of how bad things can get when adults make serious sorts of accusations about each other. You better be sure you're right about it -- you can completely ruin someone's life if you aren't.