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.)
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:5, Interesting)
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. Very few other bloggers have those same qualifications, so they can expect to not be treated as journalists by this court.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:5, Interesting)
-Standard IANAL disclaimer-
I am pretty sure that "libel" and "defamation" are separate from mere "opinion".
examples (not necessarily indicative of my own personal thoughts on the subject)
Opinion: I think Obama is a mediocre president who is failing in the campaign promises he made as well as failing to live up to the ideals he espouses.
Libel: Obama is an antichrist muslim terrorist. He lied, cheated, and stole in order to get elected. He did so purposely to steal money and use his power to help himself and his friends get ahead at the expense of the common guy. He's an asshole, a racist, and a hatemonger.
Now, discussing a position with as much power and as much of a public persona as the presidency of course, there is more leeway before slander laws come into effect. I'm pretty sure that the bar is set lower for discussing regular people, especially if the potential slanderer is doing so in a medium that may carry some legitimacy.
Cities arresting press pass owners (Score:3, Interesting)
You also hear a lot of press saying 'we're being told we can't cover this' by the police and abiding to it. The police are considering their actions to require the same selective reporting that wars do. I'm not sure if this has gone on a long time and it's the first time I've seen the press talk about it so openly, or if it's part of the militarization of the police departments that we've seen since 9/11.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:4, Interesting)
Having read part of the blog, this blogger needs a course in basic writing. It may be hard to conceive, but it reads WORSE than many of the summaries here on slashdot.
If instead of writing like a teenager posting on facebook or myspace, she had written articles that actually told the who, what, when, where, why, and how in a coherent fashion, she may have been able to avoid being seen as "not a journalist."
If you're going to call someone a liar, whether it's in a blog or in print or on radio or TV, there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. The right way, you make your case point by point, you present your evidence in a fashion that is easily digested by the reader, and you present your conclusion that the person lied based solely on that evidence. Not speculation. Not "Did so-and-so lie?" That's just innuendo., and not protected.
The judgment also points out that it helps if you can also show that you contacted the person before publishing, either to get their side of the story or to confirm the actual events.
What Cox did was called "yellow journalism", originally known for the colour of the cheap paper the scandal rags were printed on well before they went main-stream at your local grocery checkout counter.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet, CNN often runs blogs and tweets on the air. If an established news organization can use the content from blogs on the air, doesn't that change things a bit?
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:1, Interesting)
A lot of company directors don't have business qualifications, should we ban them too?
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
When the Constitution was written, there were hundreds of small presses producing hundreds of often one-page fliers/newsletters/libels daily. This was the environment of the day, and this was the press whose freedoms were not to be infringed upon.
Re:The case is a bit different... (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you for actually bringing up the facts of the case!
Of course, the knee-jerk response to "bloggers are not journalists!" is "some of them are!" The judge did not say that you can't be a blogger and a journalist at the same time. He gave seven examples of evidence that the defendant could have provided to prove that she was a journalist, and apparently she provided none of them. The article seems alarmist in suggesting that she would have had to provide all 7. Even someone that did not go to journalism school and is not employed by a major news outlet should be able to provide "(3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest" if they are going to blast someone in public and then not produce any evidence.
Re:It's Not ALL Bloggers (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to run a news blog for my industry. It topped out at 140k monthly readers before I got sick and couldn't do it any more (cancer).
We got sued 5 times while I ran that blog - one of those being by ABC News, and another being a township in South Africa. Every time we invoked the press shield law, and every time we won (even cost an ABC producer their job).
Why were we counted as press and she wasn't? It's simple, we acted like journalists - she does not. When I wrote a story, I investigated my stories, and backed it up with fact and research. When something was my opinion (and a LOT was my opinion), I made it clear that it was my opinion ("In my opinion, blah blah blah" or move to the next paragraph and italicize the opinion statement) as opposed to fact.
She made no attempt to act like a journalist, and does not deserve the protections of one.
Re:If not the government, then who? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about we don't have special rights for special people? Everyone gets the same rights regardless of whether or not the government or someone else feels like a particular class of people shouldn't have them.
Think for a minute. No special privileges granted to police officers to enter premises in case of emergencies, carry weapons openly, or detain people against their will despite not witnessing a crime? No special privileges granted to fire-fighters to restrict people from entering their own homes or to enter someone's home without permission? No special privileges granted to ambulance drivers to go through red lights?
We give government the power to grant privileges to some people that we do not want granted to all people.
I think the point you were trying to make was that everyone should be afforded the protection of the Shield Laws, not just journalists. I disagree; the privilege to withhold information from a court, despite due process being followed via a subpoena, is powerful. That privilege should only be given to people whose refusal to disclose information about potentially criminal activities is, despite appearances, a good thing for the state and its people. This boils down to people whose jobs are beneficial to the state and its people and who rely on public trust and confidential communication to do their jobs effectively. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, maybe some others. And the importance of confidentiality and trust and whether or not information was given in the context of those jobs is examined when the Shield Laws are relied upon.
Protecting sources (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is a journalist? (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, because the shield law of Oregon is written to only protect journalists.
This is a case where someone wants special protections from a libel lawsuit. Basically, it is alleged that defendant made statements about plaintiff that were damaging to his business. Defendant claims that (1) the statements are true, but (2) she can't prove that in court because it would require her to expose an anonymous source. In Oregon, there is a law called a shield law, which says that journalists do not have to reveal their anonymous sources in state court. However, this kind of law effectively says "we trust our journalists to make responsible use of anonymous sources, so that they don't just blindly republish their statements, but check the facts."
The judge found that defendent did not adhere to journalistic standards, which means she basically didn't make appropriate use of anonymous sources. Therefore, there's no reason to offer her the protection from civil lawsuits that is given to journalists on that basis. If you want that trust from the law, you have to earn it by following the proper procedures.
A journalist makes money; a blogger doesn't (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're getting paid for your content, you deserve to have journalist's credentials and a press card from whoever is paying you. But if you're a blogger who only makes a bit of ad revenue, if that, from your site, then you do not deserve the same protections the press gets.
Just because you want to be treated with the same respect as a professional does not mean you are a professional or that you deserve that respect.
I consider this argument flamebait, because it presumes that the bloggers are press, and as I've already stated, I don't feel that's the case.