A U.S. District Court judge in Portland, Ore., ruled that a blogger who wrote about an investment firm that subsequently accused her of defamation must pay the company $2.5 million because she’s a blogger who doesn’t legally qualify as a journalist.
[...]
Despite Oregon’s legal definition of “any medium of communication,” Judge Marco A. Hernandez disagreed with Cox, saying that “although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ 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. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance.”
Her Blog is here.
I hope the judge likes his job.
AHEM—Everybody has the same free speech rights.
Journalist is a defined term to which “additional rights and privileges” attach such as the ISSUE HERE which was the protection of the Journalist Shield Law.
That said, some interesting issues of public policy remain all going to I don’t understand how the shield law works. If you are a journalist–you don’t have to reveal your sources==but I don’t think as a non journalist you “have to” either. Compelled to testified?
So, seems to me THE ISSUE HERE is simply whether or not a person has to reveal a source wherein a journalist doesn’t but the blogger or anyone else does have to BUT THEREAFTER all parties still need to prove their defamatory statements or be liable.
Pretty small isolated issue here having nothing to do with free speech.
What have I got wrong?
Would Thomas Paine have qualified as a journalist?
Yes. According to a dictionary definition, a writer that aims their work at a mass audience is a journalist.
Mark Twain would be a journalist under that definition.
However, there is a clear movement by the legal system to suppress free speech by narrowing the definition of journalist to those slaves that are owned by the corporate media.
So a blogger, aiming his/her work at everyone in the world (i.e. internet users), like Paine, is a journalist. Massive fail by the judge.
There is a good chance the decision will be overturned by an appeals court.
It depends on how well the lawyer argues the point in court.
Then we have no more journalist left because I see very little proof that “journalism” takes place under your definition.
I swear 95% of all the crap I read is opinions from “news sites.” I have to keep pointing out loaded words and emotional constructs to people claiming that X article is really good at explaining the problem or how Y article is factual and has no spin.
I’m still wondering if we ever really had journalism under the above rules you stated. Or if we’re all just looking at the past with our “good ol’ day” glasses. =)
You should bother to read the articles you post,Uncle Dave. The judge ruled this particular blogger isn’t a journalist not that all bloggers aren’t journalist. Your headline on this post helps make his case though, so congrats.
Rather nit picky, aren’t we? Technically, this case is against one individual, however it sets a precedence that can be used against others. So, expect to see all bloggers eventually held to this in the future, unless a higher court overrules or the laws change.
No, Semantics isn’t being nit picky at all. This person was engaged in slander but calling it blogging. So it’s correct that this blogger was “held to this”, and they should be “in the future.” Do you really think people should be shielded from destroying others simply by tacking the word “blogger” onto themselves? What the court did was right, so don’t expect a higher court to overrule or the laws to change, unless of course, you haven’t actually read the articles you post about.
Gotta be reversed on appeal !!! The government can’t determine what a “Press” is, any more than it can determine what a “Church” is ….