Rights of the Established Media?
So, if a newspaper or even The Register was paying her even a trivial sum then they could have bestowed immunity to her? Thats not right, the law stinks.
‘Blogger not a journalist’ says Oregon court
An Oregon court has denied a blogger protection under that state’s “shield laws” because she isn’t employed by a media organization – a distinction which has cost her $2.5 million in a lost defamation suit. Blogger Crystal Cox was accused of defaming Obsidian Finance Group in blog posts critical of the company’s founder Kevin …
-
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 00:29 GMT FozzyBear
It not only stinks
It's deaf, dumb and blind. It also has the frequent ability to contradict itself. In ol’ OZ we have self-referencing sub sections and machinery sections that basically enter you into an infinite loop. Yep, the laws’ a fuckin’ ass. But what do you expect from a bunch of friggin’ idiots who are typically in a drunken stupor or half asleep when they ratify these things into law
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 14:00 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@david kelly2
I think you miss the purpose of the shield law...
The law was designed to protect the journalist from being sued under defamation law as an effort to get to their inside source. If the journalist could not protect their confidential informant, then less people would be willing to speak out. Same too for the police's confidential informant.
What's at issue is how do you classify a blogger? Do all bloggers meet the requirements of being a journalist just because they post their blogs?
Suppose my real name was Seymour Butts and I post a blog under the title 'Kitty Liter Daily Journal'.
Now since I have a regular blog does that make me a journalist? Suppose I write rants about the Brit Royals getting randy in Buckingham Palace, citing an unnamed source. Clearly its not true, and when the Brit Royals sue me, can I hide behind my unnamed source?
And thats the point. Anyone can blog about anything. In the US they have limited protection under the first amendment. That doesn't make them a journalist.
Now had the blogger actually had an article picked up by a journal or some other publication, then she could have been protected as a freelance journalist.
Sorry you don't like the shield law.
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2011 23:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
so...
"fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system"
if she printed out some of her blog posts and handed them out at random, then she would qualify?
or posted stuff on youtube? or had self published or POD'd a collection posts?
assuming that the articles *are* factual, and she ends up revealing her source, does that then entitle her to counter sue? or will that then open her up to another lawsuit for betraying (under court order) her source?
Presumably if her source is an employee, so the consequences of being a whistle blower are rather high...
sorry for lowering the tone, but her name sounds like a sex toy.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 20:55 GMT Graham Dawson
75% eh? I'd say that compares well to the Daily Mail (80%), Independent (82%), Mirror (90%) and Sun (102%)*
Twitter is mostly full of noise, it's true.But, so is the rest of the mainstream media, which these days seems to largely rely on what's trending on twitter when it isn't copy-pasting Reuters and AP straight from the wire. Given that they're acting largely as a relay of what the public are nattering about, why do we need them any more?
And given that newspaper circulation figures are nosediving, and television news figures are in similar decline, it seems evident to me that a great many people agree with my stance.
*Like you I am, of course, making all of that up...
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 12:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Because the law says so
The relevant Oregon media shield law lists various forms of media communication, including newspapers and TV, but makes no mention of the internet or online distribution. So independent bloggers are not considered journalists (n.b. laws in other states are different). Arguably this is a flaw in the law that should be fixed, and she could probably win on appeal with the help of a decent lawyer.
On the other hand, taking a look at some of these blogs, the quality falls rather short of what I'm accustomed to from investigatory journalists. Long on outrage and hysteria, rather short on clear and reasoned arguments, and desperate for attention. I've seen better writing in high school student newspapers. It would be much easier to call her a 'journalist' if the posts read like something out of the New York Times instead.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 14:33 GMT Tom 13
And if she weren't a fool*
the verdict of the Oregon court would be overturned in a heart-beat because the law does not offer equal protection to all citizens.
I'm strongly against shield laws because they create privileged classes in society. Journalist should be held to the same standards as anybody else who says something in a public forum.
*from the common knowledge quote "only a fool represents himself in a court of law."
-
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 01:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Damn you could have asked me for a dollar and said you work for a news organization. You could have got a friend to give you a dollar and they could say they employed you.
On the other hand, this is a BAD LAW which needs to be nullified. Too bad I wasn't on her jury pool.
Maybe she could wait a year or so, and the DOD will replace the DOJ and then she can be indefinitely detained, tortured and killed by this fascist system of bullshit.
Bottom line, U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez is an oath breaking domestic terrorist.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 11:40 GMT westlake
The jury nullifies you.
"On the other hand, this is a BAD LAW which needs to be nullified. Too bad I wasn't on her jury pool."
The way jury nullification works in the real world is that the jury cuts some slack for the home town boy and hangs the outsider:
the nerd, the dork and the geek, among others.
Oregon doesn't requre a unaminous verdict even in a murder trial. (11/12) If you want to play the lone hold-out, get a job in dinner theater,
The judge does not want to exclude any relevant evidence.
He does not want to hear that your only defense to --- any --- charge is a witness who cannot be brought into court.
To re-imagine the printing press as a "license to libel" can do enormous damge to the innocent. That is why shield laws are construed narrowly.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 8th December 2011 11:10 GMT jake
@Red Bren: Web site management's ebbs & flows?
Remember, "paying attention to the a site's ebbs & flows" nazis are held to an even higher standard than double posting nazis ...
Seriously, ElReg, what's going on? Let us (TINU) know ... There are many here who are probably more than happy to provide hints & tips.
I probably missed the Elreg self-implicating article ... I'm good at that. ;-)
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 04:30 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Not a journalist
I think that's the problem - if she had been a journalist the nobody would have believed anything she wrote and so the comments would have done no harm.
But by not being associated with any of Murdoch's mighty organs - she automatically achieved a higher level of trust and so the comments had so much more potential to inflict damage,
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 11:16 GMT JimC
As Iunderstand it
The purpose of a shield law is to give journalists cover when the actions would otherwise be illegal. If you allow everyone to be decribed as a journalist on their own say so, then effectively you are making those actions legal for anyone who can talk fast enough.
So if its desirable that these actions should generally be illegal *and* its appropriate that journalists should have an exemption, then the lack of protection for amateur "journalists" follows logically.
If on the other hand you don't think what she did should be illegal at all, then that's an entirely different topic and absolutely nothing to do with the workings of the shield law.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 11:17 GMT James Micallef
Moronic
There is no substantive difference between a blog and a " newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system."
This judge is barely up to speed with the 20th century, let alone the 21st
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 11:17 GMT dotdavid
Pamplet
"the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system"
Pamplet? So, er, to get journalistic protection all she has to do is print out a couple of copies of each blog entry and give them to a few people, then?
What an idiotic ruling.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 11:21 GMT Ragarath
How did the newspapers and other organisations start?
Did they all of a sudden pop into existence or was it one or two people starting a business?
Just because one was on paper and the other is electronic why does it matter?
Seems to me that this judge may have been getting extra benefits from this ruling!
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 11:22 GMT haroldo
Actually the law makes sense on one level..
Think about it: If every 'blogger' (easily extended to include anyone who posts anything online at all) counts as a journalist in the eyes of the law, then you might as well scrap defamation laws completely, since you could say anything you like about any person or organisation, and when they sue you for libel, you just argue that the piece was factually accurate and that you have a source who you're entitled to not reveal..
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 12:15 GMT Ru
Wrong
Because you can trivially set yourself up as a media company; pay a few bucks, fill in a form and you're done. Incidentally, a person familiar with the matter told "haroldo is a big gay bear media llc" that haroldo was, in fact, a big gay bear. Naturally, HIABGBM will not be revealing their source.
The reporter's shield and general freedom of speech that's so often trumpeted by the yanks only goes so far in protecting you from the consequences of your actions.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2011 14:28 GMT Peter H. Coffin
The usual challenge to "factually accurate" is to in fact prove that the "factually accurate" is factually inaccurate in some sense as part of the libel suit. But apparently Mr Bigwig COULDN'T prove that any of the things blogged about were materially wrong, and was therefore required to fall back on intimidation and "deep pockets" attacks.
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
