Court Victory Gives Blogger Same Speech Protections As Traditional Press 137
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."
Somewhere Sen. Feinstein throws her laptop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Better luck pissing on inalienable rights next time. Why not try banning the second amendment again. That'll make you feel better.
Re:yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
How can anyone be entitled more free speech than others??? everyone is entitled the same free speech, journalist, blogger or bum.
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:5, Insightful)
code of conduct/ethics...traditional journalist
Have you been sleeping for a few decades?
Put AdSense on your blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy Distinction to Make (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:yes! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that's the same bullshit rationalization that they used. The problem that you and they are ignoring is the fact that the you can suppress someone else's speech by overwhelming the room with your money.