Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Your Rights Online

Online Journalism Same As Print/TV 128

Posted by chrisd from the fundamental-shift-time dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Journalism Same As Print/TV More

Online Journalism Same As Print/TV

Comments Filter:
  • Discrimination based on the method of dissemination was bogus. Love live the Net.

  • Thank god (Score:2, Interesting)

    by theKiyote ( 542132 )
    After all the previous rulings on the first amendment that seemed to hurt more than help finally one supports it.

    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
    • So, what your saying is that the us government, given the choice to attack a side they control with an iorn fist or one they have no control of whatsoever, chooses to attack the group that it has no control over, in an attempt to gain control over it. Man, that is so scary it works... --theKiyote
  • Publicity is to Freedom as code is to OpenSource ;)
  • Did a legal precedent really need to be set here? This should be obvious. We need less laws, not more.
    • IANAL, but the issue here is something like this --

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        precedents are valid only in the state they were made (athough other state courts often use them as consideration) and can be overturned by a higher court or a law.

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @09:51PM (#2690868) Homepage
    The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment...

    Why should you have to be a journalist to have your 1st amendment rights protected?
    • Judging on the lawsuits that 2600 are going through, sometimes even the journalists don't get protection under the amendment. :( --theKiyote

    • Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by bareminimum ( 456719 )
      This court finds that Narconews is a media defendant and is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment," wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Paula Omansky, citing New York Times v. Sullivan. [emphasis from me]

      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)

      by rsd1s1g ( 519812 )
      Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of...the press. Seems pretty clear cut to me..
      • Here is the full text of what you are quoting:
        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)

      by Misch ( 158807 )

      Reasons:

      1. To differentiate between "author" and "person who runs into a crowded theatre and yells "Fire!"
      2. Journalism n.
        1. The occupation of gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or broadcasting news
        2. newspapers and magazines; the press
        3. a course of study for a career in journalism
        4. Material written for a newspaper or a magazine
        5. Writing marked by a popular slant

      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)

        by Howie ( 4244 )
        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.


        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...
        • >> Dmitry Skylarov is a russian citizen, so he doesn't have first amendment protection

          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)

            by Howie ( 4244 )
            he may have those rights, he may deserve those rights as a matter of basic human rights, but he doesn't get them as a result of the US constitution and it's first 10 amendments, which is all I said (*).

            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)

        by PD ( 9577 )
        It's not illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell fire.
    • Basically you've committed this "sin". p->q does not imply q->p. Think about this for a long hard while until you've come to see why you're point is entirely irrelevant; that is, if the +5 moderation wasn't a big enough tip off.
    • Journalists have more protection in libel cases, as long as they are reporting on public issues or public figures. On the other hand, it's pretty rare for anyone to have cause to sue a non-journalist for libel -- if you don't publish the news, your chances for publishing anything derogatory are slim. (For example, I'd think anything on /. would at most count as slander, but IANAL.)

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't think anyone ever seriously disputed that online journalists had the same rights as print journalists. However many people think that they can slander anyone they like because of some 'freedom' inherent in the digital format. That is wrong.

  • Do posters count as "online journalists" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Urthpaw ( 234210 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @09:52PM (#2690875) Homepage
    Does someone posting on Slashdot gain the same rights, or do they have to actually be part of a news-reporting organization? Or something.

  • Missed first post... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Eneff ( 96967 )
    Now, where the next question may come is whether everyone is a publisher on the Internet. If I put up a webpage, do I have the same freedoms as outlined by the press?

    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 */
    • If I put up a webpage, do I have the same freedoms as outlined by the press?

      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)

      by taion ( 304184 )
      If I post on Slashdot or a community board, do I have these same freedoms?

      Well, posts on message boards are opinions, not facts [slashdot.org], so your posts on /. and community boards are protected from libel charges and the like.
      • Well, posts on message boards are opinions, not facts

        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 ?
    • As long as what you write isn't libel. However, libel is a tricky thing. You would have to be careful about what you portray as facts and what you say is opinion. But then again IANAL.(Thats the first time I have used the IANA* disclaimer)
    • When it comes to who is a publisher, if my understanding of the law is correct, it is open to anyone with means to publish something.

      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.
  • The decision made by the court seems like a no-brainer to me. If they had come to a different conclusion, it would have indicated a serious lack of integrity in the courts. Of course, the courts fail in many other ways, but this one would have been fundamental.

  • Why wouldn't it be? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gandalf_grey ( 93942 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @09:57PM (#2690904) Homepage
    Why do people insist that electronic media is any different than more "traditional" forms? Why this fear of the electronic?

    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.

    • If you go back a few months (ok more than a few), on the case where the writers sued NY Times, etc. that digital is different than print media. Since it is different, they should then have an additional contract covering just that type of distribution (which to me seems insane, when they signed that paper years ago, before the Internet they believed at that time they were giving up all their rights to the publisher).

      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.
      • Apples and oranges. When the writers sued the Times et al they were saying you are paying us for A and then taking our work and doing B with it. That case has nothing to do with the first amendment or freedom of the press. It is about contracts to produce the content. If the original contract had said "Newspaper and other media" there would have been no case but I assume that the contract was worded in such a way that this was not the case. I assume (IANAL) that it would be quite easy to write a contract such that you could publish works in format A but not format B.

        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.
    • It's about loopholes in legislation...

      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)

    by leshert ( 40509 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @09:57PM (#2690905) Homepage
    From the original post:

    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.

    • 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.

  • As a former paralegal, I can say with some certainty that this verdict directly contradicts the ComputerXpress vs. John Doe [slashdot.org] decision in California a few weeks back, which states that proving defamation from online sources requires a higher standard of evidence than from print sources. After reading this verdict I am left with the distinct impression that this judge has put online publications on an equal footing with printed publications, which may be a Bad Thing(tm) depending on just how easy it is to publish content. After all, many things that aren't intended to be published on the web seem to make it there anyway [slashdot.org].

    ~wally

  • For those who don't care to read the decision..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CmdrSlack555 ( 451965 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @09:59PM (#2690914)
    Basically, the case of NYT v. Sullivan requires that defamation plaintiffs prove that malice existed in the publication. It's a malicious or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements made.

    It's nice to see the courts supporting the First Amendment online. Let's hope that decisions like these continue.
  • Does anyone with $10/month for a hosted minisite count as able to post "Leahy is really the goatse.cx dude!! Exclusive pictures click here!" or do you have to actually have a registered business? After all, slander is slander, and facts are facts.
    • This morning I submitted this [thebrainstrust.co.uk] fact about Richard Whitely and gave my real e-mail. That was stupid.

      Beware as this is a "latest" thing so will change.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZeroConcept ( 196261 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @10:02PM (#2690932)
    The interesting part about this story is that a Mexican banker was trying to sue Mexican journalists that run a Mexican website...guess where?...In the US.

    Why?...because the Mexican court threw the case several times.

  • What's the issue here ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @10:05PM (#2690944)
    "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"...

    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 ?

    • This issue (libel) comes essentially down to if the journalist/news-source knew it was false to begin with. Also: people in the public domain (in the pulic's eye, or people with a status, as granted by the public, elevated even slightly from the general populus) are not always protected against libel and slander, infact in cases such as this it has been ruled on prior occasion that a person who has a public image and is slandered or libeled against should be able to conceivably defend themselves on their own in public. (thank you U.S. Consitutional law class)
    • 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 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

      • 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?
        Al Giordano comments on this in the followup discussion of his Indypendent interview [indymedia.org]:
        Tony writes:

        My question is, does the fact that the judge dismissed the case based on your protection as a journalist mean that the venue of New York was in fact a valid venue for such a trial? Did you even bring up that issue with her? It seems that the judge, by dismissing the case, did in fact take jurisdiction, thereby setting a precedent that a Mexican newspaper and a website published from Mexico can be sued outside of Mexico (in the United States)?

        Al replies:

        Let me nip that rumor in the bud right away!

        The Court found NO JURISDICTION over my co-defendant, Mexican newspaper editor Mario Menendez. The Court found CONFLICTING FACTS from Banamex and from our side over whether there would be jurisdiction over Narco News or I over what was published on Narco News (she did, as I read it, find likely jurisdiction over me on one charge, the slander charge, over statements I made at Columbia University and on WBAI, but not on the Internet). Judge Omansky said that the question of juris over Narco News or I for my internet statements would have to be subject to further discovery, but that the fact that she determined that we had the same protections as commercial media meant that there didn't even need to be more discovery, that another set of issues then destroyed Banamex's case.

        He also goes on to note that the EFF has published the full text of the decision on their web site.

  • So what's a "journalist?" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IronChef ( 164482 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @10:16PM (#2690996)
    I have a DSL line and I run a web server on it. I create web sites and serve them to the public. If I put news on one of my sites, am I a journalist?

    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.
    • IANAL by any means, but I know that through many decades of precedent there are very logical and reasonable standards by which a court decides if someone is acting as a journalist. For example, does someone derive (or attempt to derive) regular income from their work? Any lawyers are free to elaborate... :-)
  • Why must we have laws taht grant us rights and freedoms? I know that question is above, but i will elaborate on why it must be asked.

    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!
    • ...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.

      ...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.

      At least in the case of the US Constitution, and rulings drawn from it, you may want to take a closer look at the language of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't grant rights, it restricts the ability of the government to infringe on the rights that it lists:
      • "...Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."
      • "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
      • "...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
      etc. No rights are granted. Existing rights are acknowledged.
      • You are correct in that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution only acknowledges these existing rights, and i'm not arguing the language and issues with the construction of the basic tennants of the U.S. rights structure. What I am saying is that by even allowing these issues to be brought to court it admits that there is a question of if the rights that are extended in the BoR are really there. Sure the way the BoR was structured may not be harmfull, but the ability to even have a need to question these rights is flawed. And beyond the BoR the constitution is full of granting rights....
    • 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?

      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.
      • Oh yes, I almost forgot... now inherancy must be expalined too... To be inherant, it must be self-evident and have no need to be explained. Taking into account the fact that the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt the need to actually say that these truths were/are self-evident suguests that they feared that in actuallity these truths weren't so clear/inherant. Need me to explain further?
  • 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.
    • Ehh gads and they charged you 50 cents for it to be printed on paper and delivered to your door. Then they followed up with local coverage, editorials, classifieds and so on. This is why it's called your local paper. There are very few papers that do actual national or international reporting. AND most of them allow local papers to purchase and run their stories. If you want genuine unique national stories buy a national paper.

    • 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...

      • TV news is like a backup tape you have to go past the crap you don't want to get to the crap you want.

      • 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)

    by tych0 ( 519146 ) <tych0NO@SPAMblazenet.net> on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @10:49PM (#2691125)
    The first amendment does not only apply to journalists. Freedom of the press is a right held by all Americans, and indeed to all people iff they can get away with it. The thing that sets Americans apart from the Afghans is the first amendment.

    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)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @11:04PM (#2691177) Homepage
    It is not a suprising ruling. The US Supreme Court ruled in Lowell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938) ruled the protection of the press extends to "the lonely paphleteer."


    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.


    [S]ummary judgment procedures are especially favored in defamation cases. Godbout v. Cousens, 396 Mass. 254, 258 (1985).

    "Allowing a trial to take place in a meritless case 'would put an unjustified and serious damper on freedom of expression.'" Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32, 37 (1985), quoting National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 233 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 935 (1980).
    Even if a defendant in a libel case is ultimately successful at trial, the
    costs of litigation may induce an unnecessary and undesirable self-censorship. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra at 279."

    King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705, 708 (1987),
    cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940 (1988).

  • Okay, so lets just say that maybe something odd pops up on say, /., something that most people think might be factually questionable [slashdot.org]. Most papers have to print a retraction. Especially if they want credibility.


    So, gentlemen of the press, where do you stand?

    • Well, since it's been been proven to my satisification, I don't plan on printing a retracation.
      • Hemos, I write with all seriousness more about the concept than the story. I too thought (and posted) that the story looked goofy. If you have proof, would it be possible for you folks to show us (I looked for days for JohnKatz or yourselves to show it)?


        Anyhow, to the issue, its more a case of you folks (and in this case I mean /. specifically) moving up in the world regarding on line journalism. Its important to have checks and balances to ensure this sort of forum has bothered to do the legwork to check the validity of the posted comment (I am referring to the stories you post, not the comments that follow).


        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @11:25PM (#2691326)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=376&invol=254 [findlaw.com]

    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)

    by Durindana ( 442090 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @01:09AM (#2691828)

    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 /., there's no such thing as a "journalist," much as many professionals and academics in my field would like it otherwise. There is no privilege, for example, between a reporter and a source - ask Dallas writer Vanessa Leggett, who's been in jail for six months now for refusing to do a federal prosecutor's job for him by turning over her interview notes. The Morning News ran a story by a good friend of mine on her last Sunday, look it up if you want some truly foolish justice.

    "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.
  • Had gone to NY instead. At least there the courts take issue with folks being hit for things they did outside the country. On the other hand, why are they trying to grant 1st amendment protection to mexican citizens in Mexico? Sounds loony to me.

    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.

  • Wow, this is great news. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) [fair.org] did a big piece on NarcoNews and the Banamex scandal recently. Unfortunately the story / interview doesn't seem to be up on the FAIR web site.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe I'm just being a nit-picky law student here, but just to clarify: Times v. Sullivan didn't create freedom of the press, the 1st Amendment did that. The Sullivan case held that the First Amendment protects the press from defamation suits by the people named in their stories. For anyone who cares, to succeed in a defamation suit against the press you have to show what the Sullivan Court refered to as "actual malice". That is, you must show that the media ran the story/ad with actual knowledge of (or reckless disregard for) the falsisity of the accusations. So, the case here in question simply says that people who are part of the media online get the same defamation protections as those in the print/tv/radio/etc. media. Not a wholly unexpected decision, but it's important nonetheless.

    Tuck

    Tulane University

  • 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!

    • All speech should be free, true or not. You just have to get it from a reliable source. Tabloids aren't true, yet protected.. this should be no different.
    • Stew, This reporter doesn't falisify information. I doubt you've spent five minutes looking at the facts that are readily available: http://www.narconews.com/warroom.html Oh, well, the world needs provocateurs. Don't worry, despite my recently gained legal expertise, I won't be suing you. Sunlight is the better disinfectant. Al Giordano Narco News

  • First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @03:03AM (#2692140)

    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.

  • Be careful. The Sullivan standard applied in this case says that journalists can be sued for libel only if they exercise knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. But that standard only applies when you're talking about public figures; if you call your next door neighbor a drug trafficker on the Web, you'd better be able to prove it.
  • If online journalists have the same RIGHTS as TV and print ones, I take it they are just as responsable for libel, and accurate reporting, as well as being consiedered as having a "public duty" to report honestly and unbiasly. No rights or freedoms come without duties. ~DW
  • Because National Bank Of Mexico is no longer a mexican bank. Now its owned by citinarc, er... citibank.

    For those of you who don't know, Citibank was also accused of handling accounts for big mexican druglords.
  • This was an awesome victory for those of us in the reform movement [neoteric.nu]. Quite simply, the drug reform movement is about as grassroots as you can get, and most of our journalism is online: DRCnet [drcnet.org], MAP [mapinc.org], Cannabis News [cannabisnews.com], and of course Narconews, as mentioned in the article.

    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!
  • This is an omission that ought to be corrected in the front page post. 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.

  • but doest it cover other press freedoms such as the right not to reveal your sources? what about if it conflicts with new digital laws like the DMCA? Does this mean that the 2600 case can be thrown out the window? or does it mean that online press only has limited rights uner press freedom laws and the first amendment as long as it doesn't conflict with newer web oriented and digitaly oriented laws?

    anyone?

    RA7
    ---
  • I am a journalist. A television photojournalist. I work for mainstream media. Fox to be specific.

    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 :P). Go ahead, change the world. Be my guest. It is also your priveledge to cover my windshield wipers with fliers. I think that is fine. Print as you please. Whether you can claim "higher journalistic protection" for what you say is another matter.

    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.
    • This is Al Giordano, of Narco News, the guy who you (from FOX??? Oh, that is precious!!!) say is not a journalist? ----- Fuck your mother, Fox Newsman! ---- I've published in the Washington Post, American Journalism Review, and dozens of other newspapers and magazines ---- I spent a decade of my life full-time in newspaper newsrooms, hosted a daily AM radio show for four years, hosted a TV show on an ABC affilliate, and ain't I a journalist? --- really, fuck your father, your children and your spouse, too. Yours is exactly the caste-system hubris of false journalism that we aim to topple --- you, at Fox, a "real journalist"???? Fuck your grandparents too!

      • 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.
        • According to your false dialectic, Orianna Falacci was not a journalist, but an "activist." Same with Studs Terkel, Gore Vidal, I.F. Stone, Andrew Kopkind, so on and so forth... In other words, the greatest journalists of the past century would not have made your cut as journalists. "Objectivity" is a rather recent myth in "journalism." When a journo says he's objective he is either very naive or dishonest from the get-go. There is a tradition of passionate journalism; what Falacci called "the study of anti-power." It's so rarely allowed in the commercial media but still thrives in some corners, many of them online. The partisan press is at least as much press as the falsely objective press. Okay, I'm sure your mother is a very nice person. Chinga su madre is what we say in Mexico as a verbal slap. But if you call yourself a journalist, you HAVE to talk to angry. Public anger (not just mine) is fueled by the way the commercial press does business these days. I don't need to "sell" you the idea of reading Narco News. You will read it or not, by your own choice. And you will keep reading it or not, by your own choice. What you will find are, A., translations of what the Latin American press (yes, many of whom write for commercial media) are reporting on the war on drugs; B. analysis of that information, most of which does not appear in the US press, and; C. original investigative reporting and commentary. That a media discloses its bias, as I do (mine is that the US-imposed "war on drugs" impedes democracy, human rights, justice, the ecology, the economy and, yes, even press freedom in our hemisphere), IMHO, makes that media more faithful to the best qualities of Authentic Journalism. Disclosure is what allows the reader to form his and her own opinion, without being manipulated by this "objectivity" myth. In this case, a conscientious judge read 568 pages of Narco News, terming her revision "careful", and concluded that it walks like a newspaper, talks like a newspaper, has responsible journalistic practices like a newspaper should have, allows letters to the editor like a newspaper, and although it is online, it is still a newspaper under the eyes of the law. Terms like "activism land" are just another way to try and enforce a caste system. That you work, as you say, in one of the bottom castes indicates that you are even more wrongheaded to try and justify the mentality. If you join a union, do you stop being a journalist? Is an opinion columnist an "activist"? No, because he has the backing of a commercial enterprise. I still publish in commercial ventures; the Boston Phoenix, the Nation, the Philly City Paper, Evergreen Review... just in the past year, but I do the majority of my work online where I have no boss and more freedom to say what I mean. But get off this "observe and report" objectivity horse. If you observe atrocity, and remain indifferent in your reporting, you become something less than human. Many colleagues have chosen that path. That is where the jobs are. But there is also a grand tradition of Authentic Journalism that rides a different horse, one that gallops and aims against tyranny in all its forms. That, too, is journalism. Best to your mom!

          • 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.
    • I have contacted over 100 journalists and editors about a story that none want to investigate.

      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.
  • If this ruling is ever appealed to the Supreme Court, they will not be so forgiving. I'd predict yet another 5-4 ruling on the conservative side (provided it's the same court we have as of today).

    -Darius

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close