

Online Journalism Same As Print/TV 128
jeffy124 writes "The NY State Supreme Court has ruled that online journalists have the same rights/protection as do print and television journalists in issues of public importance. The decision comes from the case of National Bank of Mexico v. Narconews.com, which last year reported that the bank's then-president was involved with narcotics trafficking. The bank claimed the allegations were fabricated and demanded the story be retracted. The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment, referring to the case NY Times v. Sullivan, the case that gave freedom of the press." Update: 12/12 16:23 GMT by T : gregorovius writes with a correction: "Banamex is a private bank that has no relationship whatsoever with the National Bank of Mexico, which is our government's FED equivalent. It must be noted that from some months ago Banamex is not even a Mexican bank; it's an American bank that operates in Mexico, being owned in its entirety by Citigroup."
Its about Time. (Score:1)
Re:Its about Time. (Score:1)
Depending on your definition of "love", I'm sure the thriving porn industry will help make this happen.
Thank god (Score:2, Interesting)
Just one insight though: this ruling doesnt effect any corporation that doesnt pay taxes to the us goverment. could that of influenced the decision?
--theKiyote
Re:Thank god (Score:1)
Freedom (Score:1)
Was there any question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Was there any question? (Score:2, Insightful)
American law is based upon English Common Law, that rulings are based upon legal precedents. Therefore, that a precedent like this is set means that similar cases will use this established precedent.
And the other thing is, it may have been obvious, but a ruling does more or less have to be made if a case goes to the courts, no? And that, then, will establish a precendent anyway.
Re:Was there any question? (Score:1, Informative)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should you have to be a journalist to have your 1st amendment rights protected?
Re:So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)
Everybody benefits from the protection of the First Amendment, but journalist have a higher protection, for the public's benefit.
Anyways, all of this is very theoretical as both parties concerned are based in Mexico. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this decision will have in reality.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Your ellipses make it seem to state that the 1st is about freedom of the press only, rather than freedom of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and right to petition the Government.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Reasons:
More often than not (IMHO) journalists tend to be those people who write the stories that piss off large corporations. Hence, the court was reiterating that the protections of the first amendment extended to the journalist, regardless of the medium of publication.
Yes, I agree, there are people who have had their rights violated, lest we forget about Dmitry Sklyarov [freesklyarov.org], but that is not the point of the case.
Or maybe I'm just overreacting to a poignant question.
Re:So? (Score:2)
umm, unless I am misremembering, Dmitry Skylarov is a russian citizen, so he doesn't have first amendment protection. Although since he shouldn't be prosecuted under the laws of a foreign country for a 'crime' committed outside that country either, maybe he can get the protection of their constitution too, after all...
Re:So? (Score:1)
I disagree: every person in the world is entitled to this protection. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant these rights... they exist for everyone. If he is going to be arrested under US law he should get every right a US citizen enjoys.
Re:So? (Score:1)
I agree with you that if the other laws should apply, then the bill of rights should too.
I don't have those rights, to the best of my knowledge. I certainly don't get them granted to me by the US Constitution.
(*) I just had a quick look, and the bill of rights doesn't actually mention citizens, just 'the people'. Presumably that is taken to mean 'US Citizens' rather than just residents or vistors.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:it is (Score:2)
1) you yell fire, there is no fire, and nobody panics: Nothing happens. You did nothing wrong.
2) you yell fire, there is no fire, everybody panics and somebody gets trampled to death. You get arrested for charges related to the death of the person, NOT for yelling fire. Yelling fire was perfectly OK. You're charged with something other than "illegal speech".
See my point?
Re:So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Anyway, since he was a journalist reporting on a public issue, to win a lawsuit against him the company has to prove both that the story was false, and that the falsehood was "malicious". The company claimed to have enough evidence that the story was false as to require a full trial, but the judge decided that they didn't have evidence of malice. The win is basically that the journalist didn't have the expenses of defending himself in a trial...
With rights comes responsibilities (Score:1, Insightful)
Do posters count as "online journalists" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Do posters count as "online journalists" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Do posters count as "online journalists" (Score:1)
One month later, headline story talks about how the judge specifies that one must be under employment of said online source, and we (the community) lose.
Don't challenge something in your favor.
Missed first post... (Score:2, Interesting)
If I post on Slashdot or a community board, do I have these same freedoms?
These are not questions that we can automatically answer. This has the potential to revolutionize rights on the internet.
/* note: I was here first! Not redundant */
Re:Missed first post... (Score:1)
No, you only have the same rights if you have the money to defend yourself in court when someone sues you for exercising free speech.
Re:Missed first post... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, posts on message boards are opinions, not facts [slashdot.org], so your posts on
Re:Missed first post... (Score:1)
By this are you suggesting that all reporters only speek the truth and don't give opinions.
I suppose the press also don't lie either, after all we all know we can trust the press, don't we ?
Yes, you would. (Score:1)
Re:Missed first post... (Score:2, Insightful)
This stems from the fact that one of the major things freedom of speech was set up to protect was the people walking around passing out handbills and the like, speaking against the British government.
So as long as what is being said by the publisher is something that would be consider to be protected, ie poltical speech, opinion, not defamation or libel, and etc, then it would be protected. This would cover website publishers.
What is most important, IMHO, about the NY Supreme Court saying this is that it may mean that the Supreme Court may either have to hear a case about this and set precedence or that they will refuse to hear it and then the precedence set by the NY Supreme Court will stand.
Obvious decision (Score:1)
Why wouldn't it be? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, it's probably part of human nature to fear the unknown, or misunderstood. IMHO the governments of the world should be doing something to promote the technical education of politicians and the justice system.
Well, perhaps that's what the vote is for.
Re:Why wouldn't it be? (Score:2)
It's one thing to try and get their hand into the pot of internet money (that has since dried up), but the precedent they sent, really bothers me... Are we going to have to treat every single thing differently now, when the next big thing comes out , and the next one after that and so on... It's almost like we have to have a contract for:
carved in stone, carved in wood, burned into wood, presented on white paper, presented on off-white paper, presented in html, presented in ascii, presented in ebsdic, base 16... it just seems crazy to me.
Re:Why wouldn't it be? (Score:3, Informative)
Contract law can not prevent dumb or short sited contracts. Nor should it. What might look like a dumb contract to one person may make a lot of sense to someone else. And if you don't like a contract don't sign it.
not a fear of the electronic (Score:2)
When people/corporations choose to abuse anything that is not defined specifically in law, it is fair game in court with a plethora of lawyers.
Internet vs Print for example has a few very different outcomes.
Internet publishing should probably have:
it's own rights as a media, and previous print publishers do not have the right to reprint their work for free. they wouldn't get it for free if it was audio. (not exactly different rights, but this defines internet publishing as a type of media, and each media has it's own rules)
Internet vs Print journalists should have equal rights. (same)
Past internet news should be available in public archives, just like print (not sure if this differs from print archiving, it may depend on what country you're in)
Retractions online can edit the original, and add a note that an error was made and it has been fixed. This is very different from print media, as it's a technology difference. (different)
Very misleading article (Score:5, Informative)
The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment, referring to the case NY Times v. Sullivan, the case that gave freedom of the press.
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
NYT v. Sullivan had a much narrower scope. It stated that a journalist who, without malice, makes errors of fact regarding a public official cannot be sued for defamation.
Re:Very misleading article (Score:2, Informative)
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
As far as state law is concerned (and this was the NY State Supreme Court), the First Ammendment does not apply. Freedom of the press with respect to state law is given by the 14th ammendment.
Unsettling contradiction (Score:1, Troll)
~wally
For those who don't care to read the decision..... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nice to see the courts supporting the First Amendment online. Let's hope that decisions like these continue.
Who constitutes a journalist? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope not. (Score:2)
Beware as this is a "latest" thing so will change.
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?...because the Mexican court threw the case several times.
Not a Mexican journalist (Score:1)
Re:Not a Mexican journalist, and also a Mexican (Score:1)
What's the issue here ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, please forgive me if the following question is dumb, I am a law idiot :
If the story is indeed fabricated and the bank can prove it, doesn't the journalist's story become libel ? As long as the bank doesn't have proof that the allegations are false, isn't the article simply considered an opinion ?
If the article is considered libel, can't the journalist (or the newspaper) be prosecuted, 1st amendment or not ?
Re:What's the issue here ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the issue here ? (Score:3, Informative)
If the bank can prove fabrication, then the story does indeed become libel.
Libel, in most states in the US, requires statements which are false and defamatory, AND requires that the author knew they were false or showed a "reckless disregard" for the truth.
What may complicate things is the degree to which the plaintiff is a public figure. Public figures have a bitch of a time making libel cases that private people can make easily enough. That's how Star, Weekly World News, etc. stay in business. I don't know where the bank president fits into that continuum.
What does confuse me: This was a dispute between a Mexican bank president and a Mexican journalist that the Mexican courts shitcanned at least once. How did it end up in New York's state courts?
Also, I think one other thing is worth noting: IIRC, The courts in NY which are titled "Supreme Courts" are the trial courts. Other states would call them Circuit or District or Common Pleas courts. The highest court in NY's state system is (IIRC-I could be wrong) the Court of Appeals. In plain English, that means that this case is of limited value as precedent.
Disclaimer: I'm a dumbass traffic cop, not a lawyer
Re:What's the issue here ? (Score:1)
So what's a "journalist?" (Score:3, Insightful)
If I report something in an online forum like this one, am I a journalist?
If I have a free GeoCities home page and I report something on it, am I a journalist?
If I write for a major corporation that puts my words down in ink on paper every day, distributing said paper around town, am I a journalist?
If a major corporation puts me on TV or radio to talk about things I have learned, am I a journalist?
This is a good ruling. But I am afraid that it will only apply to, say, abcnews.com and not drudgereport.com, or even smaller fish, like, say, me if I turn newshound.
Who is a journalist (sort of) (Score:2)
This reminds me of somehting.... (Score:1)
Does anyone feel the need to have a law granting us the right to have qwerty keyboards? More than likely not. The reasoning, it could be assumed, is that we already have that right and there is no need to make a law saying so. If a person really has the right to be treated equal, or the right to free speach... WHY does there need to be a law that says it is so? Granted there might be people that would infringe on these rights, but by setting the example that we must give these rights and that they are not explicitly given anyway goes to show that we DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH.
Is a law saying it is wrong (thus illegal) to kill a person needed for our society (as a majority) to actually believe it's wrong? Furthermore, I am willing to conceid that there might be people (such as my mother) who's only excuse for following some laws is merely that they exist, but does that make the laws (or the things the laws are supposed to protect) any more or less valid?
The ruling that online press too have freedom of the press just shows us that it isn't a right, and could be (and in the future, might be) taken away.
non-sig: Let's ban all books, and call it free speach!
Re:This reminds me of somehting.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This reminds me of somehting.... (Score:1)
Re:This reminds me of somehting.... (Score:1)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of those governed, [...]
As you can clearly see, all human beings have inherent rights, and the law is there only to protect them.
Re:This reminds me of somehting.... (Score:1)
Print/TV *identical* to online journalism (Score:2)
Re:Print/TV *identical* to online journalism (Score:1)
Re:Print/TV *identical* to online journalism (Score:3, Informative)
I cancelled my local newspaper subscription when I started seeing stories in there that I had read on Yahoo the previous day... They were just printing the stuff that came off the AP newswire.
*Virtual High-5*
Going one logical step further, I actually stopped watching CNN Headline News on television a few years ago (I don't even know which channel it is anymore) when I began to realize that any story of interest I had read hours or days ago while browsing through breaks at work. Furthermore, the online news was always more in depth, more informative, and often came with links to related stories I might have missed. T.V. news had become inadequate.
Though I suppose none of this is news to /. readers...
Re:Print/TV *identical* to online journalism (Score:1)
Who checks the AP sources? What is the AP? (Score:1)
I am a broadcast news photographer, and I cover all of the news that all the AP reporters get, and at the same time. Personally, I believe that you are misinformed... nothing wrong, just misinformed.
The AP reporters are the same that give you the news on television and in the paper. It is a service that almost all contribute to. When they see something on the air that they want to know about, they call us and talk to our reporters and ask us to contribute information, we do the same in return. Newspapers are especially AP heavy, as they cover national and local news... unlike the dilineation of broadcast.
AP does assign individual reporters for events, but that is pretty much it. They are the effective "this thingee happened here" guys.
Really, when someone tells me that generically my work is inadequate because the TV is a load of crap, I get upset. After all, television people only work insane hours for little pay so that you can see something happening WHEN IT IS HAPPENING.
Newspaper people make phone calls about events. Broadcasters go to hell and back to bring it to you. Show you the pain. Show you the players and scams.
Simply put, the mediums are not the same.
Then again, newspapers can't show full motion of a plane hitting a building, the wailing of a mother who lost their child in an errant bombing run, the touchdowns that win superbowls, and most importantly...
The television can let you see the persons face when they are obviously LYING. So that the quote doesn't get taken out of context. Like they do DAILY in ALL newspapers.
I recheck the AP all the time. They get it as wrong just as much as everyone else does from time to time.
I would suggest getting your news from several sources. Ones that you think are the most unbiased. The internet isn't well known for its objectivity... but there are some really good ones out there.
The poor man's press (Score:3, Interesting)
The first amendment, and specifically the freedom of the press, was a direct reaction to the Revolutionary War. The cause of the patriots depended very much on the underground pamphleteering of men like Thomas Paine. A major criticism of the freedom of the press was that it may have applied to all, but it was only practical to those who had a printing press.
Enter the internet. Now, one does not have to own a basement filling machine and have access to a nationwide distribution network to make his opinions known. A computer from Sears and an internet account are all that is necessary for nationwide coverage. This court case is merely affirming the founder's intentions. A person has the right to make his opinion home.
Which of course brings me to freedom of association (see Warez in the previous story)...
Well based in existing law. (Score:4, Informative)
Even so, a website is similar to any other news media, except that there is a lower cost of entry.
In libel cases it is preferred that determinations are made earlier, as this can chill free expression and debate.
Protections, sure, how about responsibility? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, gentlemen of the press, where do you stand?
Re:Protections, sure, how about responsibility? (Score:1)
Re:Protections, sure, how about responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyhow, to the issue, its more a case of you folks (and in this case I mean
Believe it or not, I don't really mean to flame or troll here. Its an honest question. On line journalism is gaining momentum (for example, more people where I work were looking to the web for news on Sept 11, even though there were multiple news feeds around the buildings on various tv's). You folks have immense readership, but the responsibility issue is something I haven't seen addressed (here I speak in generalities, not specifically about
I am more interested in people accepting the responsibility that they get with their protections than how they feel that everyone is tromping on their rights.
Want to know more about NY Times vs. Sullivan? (Score:3, Informative)
For those of you who have an interest in learning about American laws, http://www.findlaw.com [findlaw.com] is a wonderful resource.
Ouch! Let's get a few things straight (Score:3, Informative)
It sure makes a journalist cringe when somebody writes that NYTimes v. Sullivan gave "journalists" freedom of the press. Like they said in Civics class, the First Amendment did that. Sullivan's precedent established the level of protection - strict scrutiny - accorded political speech, as the ministers' ad in the NYT was.
Also, and this is a question that seems to come up a good bit on
"Journalists" don't appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution - freedoms of speech and of the press mean basically the same thing: and that's been interpreted to mean free political, social, religious, etc. expression in whatever medium. Sure, Congress can regulate even pure political speech, but only within amazingly circumscribed limits. That's why (Texas v. Johnson) burning flags is legal, and why the bastards need to burn the First Amendment itself to ban it.
This decision, of course, is good news for people online, but it's not really new - the Supreme Court has already presumptively granted Internet content the same high-level protection it gives print media (but not broadcast, notably). And there will be more said about this - the pervasiveness of online content is such that it puts radio/TV to shame. There's a reason porn is pay TV and not NBC, and the web won't be so free for long, unfortunately. Enjoy it while it's still up.
Oh, would that Skylarov... (Score:2)
I'll bet 2600 is looking long and hard at this to see if it can help them even a bit. Maybe the NY courts can try to extend 1st amendment protection to US citizens in the US. That would be a pleasant reversal of the past few months' trend.
This NarcoNews case was being watched (Score:1)
Search Google for the relevant keywords for more information, particularly since the Grey Lady [newyorktimes.com] was also a target of Mr. Giordano's investigative talents, and thus they're not likely to give it the coverage it deserves ...
NY Times v. Sullivan (Score:1, Interesting)
Tuck
Tulane University
Libel is not Free Speech (Score:2)
Did I read this right? The reporter that falsified information about a banker smuggling drugs was covered under the First Amendment? Libel and slander are not covered under the first amendment. You can actually get sued and what not for these. I say take down the nosy reporter always looking for a story...even in his fortune cookies!
Re:Libel is not Free Speech (Score:2)
Re: ClubStewed (Score:1)
First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
From my readings here, a lot of people don't understand the 1st Amendment. Technically, it doesn't say you have the freedom of speech/press/etc... - rather it says that the congress shall pass no law to abridge these. This wording is *extremely* important because the former implies that rights are given by government, where the later implies that they exist above government and the law forbids the government from trespassing on them. The 2nd amendment is worded like this too.
Times v. Sullivan (Score:1)
Great for saying what you want but... (Score:2)
psxndc
So they also have the same responsibilities? (Score:1)
Don't matter anyway... (Score:1)
For those of you who don't know, Citibank was also accused of handling accounts for big mexican druglords.
A victory for the reform movement (Score:2)
The print media has begun to acknowledge the worldwide shift in attitude towards drugs (and especailly, the war on them) - but still mass media outlets including large American newspapers and especially TV still spew ridiculous retoric straight out of 1980's Just Say No propoganda.
What this article also didn't mention is that the EFF [eff.org] had a hand in helping Narconews with their court victory. Bravo to these brave individuals!
Banamex IS NOT the National Bank of Mexico (Score:1)
It must be noted that from some months ago Banamex is not even a Mexican bank, it's an American bank that operates in Mexico, being owned in its entirety by Citigroup.
thats great but... (Score:1)
anyone?
RA7
---
An alternate view. (Score:1)
The heart of this matter is not in the facts to me. The facts speak to themselves on guilt or innocence. Slander and libel is based upon whether your printed facts are true or "under reasonable expectation."
I would say that Narconews are activists. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be protected. Just not like broadcast and print (because they are expanded for press because of LEGITIMATE REASONS to stay in business against corporations) and more like regular citizens First Amendment Rights.
I would first like to respond that I respect activists... in a sense that they are promoting what they believe in, and that is altruistic (that causes change in the world, and gives me something to talk about, BRAVO
IMHO the Narconews people are not journalists. They are activists. They are printing for a very tangible, expected outcome of their work. They are observing and placing in OPINION. With a name like Narconews talking about changing drug regulation, you lose your objectivity.
True journalists don't seek a specific outcome.
Seeking an outcome makes you an activist or trade magazine. For example, Cat Fancy Magazine should not necessarily be afforded the higher journalist protections that a non-specific daily newspaper should. Although, this approach might be more appropriate on a story by story basis.
Journalism is about seeking the truth. Journalists should not be concerned about the outcome other than reporting the outcome. In other words, what makes a journalist? Being fair, and not seeking a specific outcome.
In other words, Narconews shouldn't be considered journalists and protected at "the higher level" if their ultimate goal is to publicly smoke "the big fatty." Its not about the groundswell of public support or whether they are right or wrong.
It just doen't ring true to being a journalist. Its similar to saying that carrying a fire extinguisher in your car makes you a firefighter.
Re:An alternate view. (Score:1)
Wow. That was out of left field. (Score:1)
Honestly man, don't you think you haven't really passed into the activist role? Honestly, in the news business its the easiest thing to do. You have to watch for it. Not pick sides.
It isn't bad being an activist. If you had read my comments a second time I don't think that you would be so upset. Y'know what? I probably would like you if I got to know you. Y'know, talk to you. Listen to you. Did you think that I MIGHT BELEIVE THAT THE NEWS LIFESTYLE WAS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET TOO BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT I THINK THAT EVERYONE IS TRYING TO GET IN THE GAME WITH SMART LOOKING SUITS, BIG MONEY, SLANDER, AND RIDICULOUS WEBSITES TO THE POINT WHERE NO ONE KNOWS WHICH WAY IS UP ANYMORE?
Honestly, where are the men we can listen to? Are you the solution or the problem? Are you one of those solutions? Or are you a lone conspiacy theorist? Right now, you just sound angry. I don't talk to angry.
I wish you were going to tell me why Narconews was legit and why I should read it... but now I don't know if I can... not when you just fucking go off on people. Please spare me the ridiculousness of thinking that because my opinions differ that I am the big evil corporate enemy. I have a dead coal-mining grandfather because of that corporate evil you infer that I am supporting.
Apparently I touched a nerve. I didn't say what Fox, now did I? Did I say that I was slumming for O'Reilly or Geraldo Rivera? No... because I am a ground pounder. I work the streets. Every day. My caste-system indeed. I am on the bad side of it. It ain't glamorous. I've now missed three Emmys because I dream it and shoot it, and my awards-conscious reporter submits it without my name for money purposes. My hubris indeed. My dinner is crow, so don't tell me that I am in with that white-bred superiority thing that you just made up and threw on me. Cuz I ain't in "the conspiracy," baby. How many conspirators do you know that read slashdot?
I represent what you aim to topple? Topple? DO I EVEN HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU HAVE TOTALLY PASSED INTO "ACTIVISM LAND" WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT TRYING TO TOPPLE OTHERS? Does a journalist topple anything, or does he observe and report? You know this one, dude. If you've become an activist, be an activist. Support it. Go all out. Be happy with it. Argue until the cows come home. I've thought about it too when I see things I believe in.
And finally, don't EVER bring anyone's family into this, please. I won't bring yours into it either. If I am misinformed or my opinions differ, then tell me what you think I need to know.
"FUCK YOUR MOTHER" gets zero response out of me. I've been spat on too much by rednecks to really have that rattle me. Just tell me why Narconews is worth it... and I'll read it.
Re: Authentic Journalism (Score:1)
Much better. (Score:1)
First of all, thank you for speaking clearly.
Second, it just looks like we disagree. That's fine. I personally believe that if you would show the world this insight to the mainstream media a little more, then you would proably get a lot more attention. I just can't see why I or anyone else would pass up on these stories you say you have. Latin America is still a hotbed of activity... I had a friend that was an Uncle Sam trained killer that is now an alcoholic because of what he did as a young man in "the service of his country." Marine light force recon. He killed a drug lord in his home, and TWO YOUNG BOYS. Why? Because those were his orders, and "apparently someone didn't get paid off in time." Just because I try to remain objective doesn't mean that I don't know. I could never get a way to get a fellow camaraman on the news wihtout him losing his job.
I just don't know about the angry talk part . Its a philisophical thing with me. Personal. I used to be an angry, screeching guy and it did me so little good that I was literally useless.
And when I said leave my mother out of it, I meant it. I don't like to hear anything about that. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. I personally believe that you still are.
Puedo hablar espanol. Aprendi a hablar por dos anos en un universidad despues de mi vida total en las escuelas con un clase cada dia en espanol.
I do care. But with my job I try to be objective. I still think that is the way to be. Objective doesn't mean asking creampuff questions or not digging around. You've probably been around enough murders to know that objectivity goes out the window at those things. I still like to nail a good story, just not a person. What they have done is slap enough. As they say on the X-files, the truth is out there.
Journalism is about seeking the truth? (Score:2)
I am using WIPO.org.uk and SWIPO.org to make people aware that the authorities are hiding the solution to trademark and domain name problem.
As the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) take away like sounding names, do you not find that even slightly newsworthy?
My logic is reasoned and rational, I make no egotistical claims that the solution was my idea - just present my findings.
Indeed, the answer to this problem was so self-evident, the authorities must have always known.
So - why do Journalists not want to seek the truth?
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see for yourself.
Supreme Court Won't Be So Forgiving (Score:1)
-Darius
Re:The Reg (Score:1)
Re:The Reg (Score:2)
Re:NY Supreme Court == Lowest Court (Score:1, Informative)
But the highest NYS court is not the "Superior Court," it's the NY Court of Appeals. IAAL.
State of New York court system (Score:2, Informative)
high court = Court of Appeals
intermediate court = Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
trial court = Supreme Court
New York state has other courts, too, but the courts listed above are most in the public eye.
Here's more information [state.ny.us].
Re:State of New York court system (Score:1)
Hmmm, that explains a lot about "Law & Order" - I wondered why all of their cases went right to the NY Supreme Court :)