• New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Bloggers Cannot Be Journalists
    27 replies, posted
Video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsr8P8KtIe8[/media] Article: [release]The latest chapter in the never-ending story - aka "journalist versus blogger - took a new turn on Tuesday when New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that bloggers and online posters don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists. In this case, the court determined that that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not extend to online message boards. The case centers around a New Jersey-based software company called Too Much Media, which sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal her sources used on message board posts. The blogger, Shellee Hale posted comments about the company on her website, Pornafia in connection with a story she was preparing about porn. A lower court ruled in 2009 that she was not entitled to shield law protection and an appellate panel upheld that decision later that year. In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio wrote that the courts "are now being faced with the task of evaluating a virtually limitless number of people who claim to be 'reporting' on issues, but who are, many times, doing little more than shouting from a digital soap box." Hale, who works as a private investigator in Washington state, wrote that Too Much Media engaged in fraud and "illegal and unethical use of technology." She also claimed that the company's principals "may threaten your life if you report any of the specifics." In concluding that Hale doesn't rate protection under the state shield law, New Jersey's high court has reopened a debate about who should be described as a "journalist." What with the increase in citizen journalism - a trend on display during the "Arab spring" movement, where bloggers put their lives in danger to report the news - that decision is likely to strike more than a few as being behind the times.[/release] [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20069672-501465.html]Source[/url] I find this to be pretty negative in that it is leading to a public state defined definition for what journalism is and there is likely to be many unintended consequences. The other issue I have with the ruling is that it doesn't make any sense to make an argument based on traditional mediums. To put this into perspective, imagine all the different forms of art, and a new medium of art came about. Let's call that new medium video games. Should this new medium not be apart of the public definition of art because it is not apart of the traditional mediums used in art? I find this issue to be similar with the courts trying to put limitation on what can be considered free speech in that now the court is trying to put a limitation on what can be considered journalism.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30398092] I find this to be pretty negative in that it is leading to a public state defined definition for what journalism is and there is likely to be many unintended consequences. The other issue I have with the ruling is that it doesn't make any sense to make an argument based on traditional means. I find this issue to be similar with the courts trying to put limitation on what can be considered free speech in that now the court is trying to put a limitation on what can be considered journalism.[/QUOTE] i find it pretty positive because it means people cant just slander and deface companies and people under the guise of journalism
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30398194]i find it pretty positive because it means people cant just slander and deface companies and people under the guise of journalism[/QUOTE] There are already means to protect companies and people from such issues. If there is legitimate journalism in a blog, it should be treated just the same as legitimate journalism in a newspaper. If there is illegitimate journalism in a blog, it should be treated just the same as illegitimate journalism in a newspaper.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30398354]There are already means to protect companies and people from such issues.[/quote] what means? how can you prove someone is slandering if they can protect their source? [quote]If there is legitimate journalism in a blog, it should be treated just the same as legitimate journalism in a newspaper. If there is illegitimate journalism in a blog, it should be treated just the same as illegitimate journalism in a newspaper.[/QUOTE] a newspaper is easier to monitor than the literal sea of blogs out there a blog should have to go through a special process before it can be considered real journalism
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30398393]what means? how can you prove someone is slandering if they can protect their source? a newspaper is easier to monitor than the literal sea of blogs out there a blog should have to go through a special process before it can be considered real journalism[/QUOTE] The question you should then ask yourself is "should the traditional media be able to protect their sources". If you say yes because they are credible, then your argument implies blogger journalism cannot be credible. The second argument you make is news is easier to monitor, which is true, but does not provide no reason limit the definition of journalism rather than to make it more convenient. To go further with this, slander really only goes to court when it causes direct harm that can be proven, meaning that the "literal sea of blogs" argument is useless when it is easy to identify a blog that did provide slander and did cause harm. This isn't to say that Apple wouldn't sue The New York times immediately for slander if they suspected it, but it is more to say Apple wouldn't be likely to sue your local newspaper for slander unless it actually caused harm. I have to disagree with the third point because I don't think there should be any state definition of journalism because of the unintended consequences that could occur. To make an example, imagine if the Iranian government had control of what could be considered journalism. That may be a bad example because they already censor heavily, but I think you get the point.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30398718]The question you should then ask yourself is "should the traditional media be able to protect their sources". If you say yes because they are credible, then your argument implies blogger journalism cannot be credible. [/quote] it isnt that it cannot be credible, its that it is mostly not credible [quote]The second argument you make is news is easier to monitor, which is true, but does not provide no reason limit the definition of journalism rather than to make it more convenient. To go further with this, slander really only goes to court when it causes direct harm that can be proven, meaning that the "literal sea of blogs" argument is useless when it is easy to identify a blog that did provide slander and did cause harm. This isn't to say that Apple wouldn't sue The New York times immediately for slander if they suspected it, but it is more to say Apple wouldn't be likely to sue your local newspaper for slander unless it actually caused harm.[/quote] the thing is that suing a newspaper or news corporation for slander because it caused direct harm is hard because they can protect their sources should this be the same for every private citizen? should anyone who wants to call themselves a journalist be able to say whatever they want and claim they have an anonymous source? [quote]I have to disagree with the third point because I don't think there should be any state definition of journalism because of the unintended consequences that could occur. To make an example, imagine if the Iranian government had control of what could be considered journalism. That may be a bad example because they already censor heavily, but I think you get the point.[/QUOTE] i get the point but its a bad argument, there has to be a standard for journalism otherwise journalism is no longer credible
"Hey private citizen, since you won't reveal your sources we're going to sue you for libel" If anything, the company should just shrug it off as baseless criticism and not get their panties in a bunch like that. Obviously if they're reacting that way there's truth to what she was saying. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] Citizen rights are going backwards while technology goes forwards. Such is the way of the world.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30399003]it isnt that it cannot be credible, its that it is mostly not credible the thing is that suing a newspaper or news corporation for slander because it caused direct harm is hard because they can protect their sources should this be the same for every private citizen? should anyone who wants to call themselves a journalist be able to say whatever they want and claim they have an anonymous source? i get the point but its a bad argument, there has to be a standard for journalism otherwise journalism is no longer credible[/QUOTE] Which is your own opinion and does not provide justification for saying that something isn't journalism. If a person's opinion is that no journalism is credible, does that mean no journalism should be protected? Or should only the journalism that you believe to be credible be protected? Instead of asking these questions, I'd rather suggest that credibility is not a factor in this because it implies not credible sources do not have a right to do journalism. And to go back to my other argument, what are the dangers of a state determining journalistic credibility? It actually isn't that hard to sue big publishers if the journalism is slander and can be proven. The journalists know this and is why they verify their sources and their source's credibility. It is logical to claim that less known sources are likely to get away and not be challenged on their slander, but then your argument that not as known sources should not be considered journalism, which I would also disagree with. Yes, and they should receive the same treatment as any other news source. You made a claim that it is a bad argument, but you rebuttal doesn't address why it is a bad argument, unless you are claiming that in order for journalism to be credible it must be verified by the government. You also imply that journalism for some reason has to be judged as whole. I can certainly say Fox isn't a credible source of news. You can certainly say that NPR is a pretty credible source of news. I don't think your views at all reflect how people see the different outlets of news and journalism because people make up their own mind as to what is good journalism and what is bad journalism. I could take this point further, but again, I don't believe credibility should be a factor in determining journalist protections.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30399452]Which is your own opinion and does not provide justification for saying that something isn't journalism. If a person's opinion is that no journalism is credible, does that mean no journalism should be protected? Or should only the journalism that you believe to be credible be protected? Instead of asking these questions, I'd rather suggest that credibility is not a factor in this because it implies not credible sources do not have a right to do journalism. And to go back to my other argument, what are the dangers of a state determining journalistic credibility? It actually isn't that hard to sue big publishers if the journalism is slander and can be proven. The journalists know this and is why they verify their sources and their source's credibility. It is logical to claim that less known sources are likely to get away and not be challenged on their slander, but then your argument that not as known sources should not be considered journalism, which I would also disagree with. Yes, and they should receive the same treatment as any other news source. You made a claim that it is a bad argument, but you rebuttal doesn't address why it is a bad argument, unless you are claiming that in order for journalism to be credible it must be verified by the government. You also imply that journalism for some reason has to be judged as whole. I can certainly say Fox isn't a credible source of news. You can certainly say that NPR is a pretty credible source of news. I don't think your views at all reflect how people see the different outlets of news and journalism because people make up their own mind as to what is good journalism and what is bad journalism. I could take this point further, but again, I don't believe credibility should be a factor in determining journalist protections.[/QUOTE] but then nothing should be considered journalism and everyone should get journalist protection regardless by your logic
God dammit I remember a conversation I had with one of the old-time "age of Journalism" reporters that would've been perfect for this (since he talked about bloggers extensively, but I remember it was quite harsh,) but I can't for the life of me remember what he had to say.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30399578]but then nothing should be considered journalism and everyone should get journalist protection regardless by your logic[/QUOTE] No, I thought I expanded upon posted a paragraph on this to clarify, but seems I haven't. My argument would be that anyone attempted to do journalism should be treated as a journalist. They don't need to be treated as though they have credibility, but if they prove an intention of journalism, they should be treated as journalists legally. I would say you were making a straw man argument, but it'd be better to assume that I'm not explaining myself well enough.
This is bullshit.
What is a journalist? That is the question that needs to be asked. Define the mother fucking terms.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30399906]No, I thought I expanded upon posted a paragraph on this to clarify, but seems I haven't. My argument would be that anyone attempted to do journalism should be treated as a journalist. They don't need to be treated as though they have credibility, but if they prove an intention of journalism, they should be treated as journalists legally. I would say you were making a straw man argument, but it'd be better to assume that I'm not explaining myself well enough.[/QUOTE] no then that is saying everyone should be given journalist protections because then anyone can say they are a journalist
The problem is with credible new sources they spend a lot of time writing their stories. Bloggers can come up with some random bullshit which fuels things like oooooh I don't know...Obama not being an American?
bush caused 9/11 i know cuz i have a very reliable source but i cant divulge it to you guys
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30398194]i find it pretty positive because it means people cant just slander and deface companies and people under the guise of journalism[/QUOTE] what ever happened to free speech? if someone is a complete idiot and says bad things about a company without any good reason, then ignore them because [b]they are an idiot[/b] but don't pass a law that prevents people from speaking their mind on the internet without a valid citation
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30403495]what ever happened to free speech? if someone is a complete idiot and says bad things about a company without any good reason, then ignore them because [b]they are an idiot[/b] but don't pass a law that prevents people from speaking their mind on the internet without a valid citation[/QUOTE] That used to work. But an idiot disagreed with some policy of Obama's then we got a huge fucking shitstorm about his birthplace. One of the results? Sarah Fucking Palin actually has a large political backing. "You abuse it, you lose it" is the phrase that comes to mind when I read about this bill.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30403137]no then that is saying everyone should be given journalist protections because then anyone can say they are a journalist[/QUOTE] You imply that is a problem, but I disagree if they are clearly attempting journalism. [QUOTE=Swilly;30403223]The problem is with credible new sources they spend a lot of time writing their stories. Bloggers can come up with some random bullshit which fuels things like oooooh I don't know...Obama not being an American?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;30403269]bush caused 9/11 i know cuz i have a very reliable source but i cant divulge it to you guys[/QUOTE] It seems to be more about not protecting people you disagree with. Again, the system implied here is that non credible sources should not have the right to do journalism. The only way for that to work is a state determining what journalism is and isn't. [QUOTE=lavacano;30403839]That used to work. But an idiot disagreed with some policy of Obama's then we got a huge fucking shitstorm about his birthplace. One of the results? Sarah Fucking Palin actually has a large political backing. "You abuse it, you lose it" is the phrase that comes to mind when I read about this bill.[/QUOTE] The indication that something has changed is a argumentative tool used all the time, but it is at most time illogical. The same semantics used to ushering in the Patriot act, the war on terror, the cold war, the war on the internet, the war on video games, the war on rock, the war on jazz, the war on drugs... You give something on a craze that you were against that had large online following, and you imply that it wouldn't exist without the internet. Next you imply that Sarah Palin wouldn't be popular without the internet. I don't think either of those statements is accurate, but even if they were, does it make sense to silence questions and statements you don't like? Does it make sense for the government to silence questions and statements they don't like?
[QUOTE=lavacano;30403839]That used to work. But an idiot disagreed with some policy of Obama's then we got a huge fucking shitstorm about his birthplace. One of the results? Sarah Fucking Palin actually has a large political backing. "You abuse it, you lose it" is the phrase that comes to mind when I read about this bill.[/QUOTE] so because a bunch of stupid people wanted to see a birth certificate nobody is allowed to speak their mind? you don't "abuse it and lose it" when dealing with your inalienable rights protected by the constitution
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30403495]what ever happened to free speech? if someone is a complete idiot and says bad things about a company without any good reason, then ignore them because [B]they are an idiot[/B][/quote] umm free speech ends when you are infringing someone elses rights what if someone claimed you were a pedophile and he was allowed to scream that you molested his friend even though you clearly didnt that destroys your reputation as a person, thats why they have libel and slander laws [quote]but don't pass a law that prevents people from speaking their mind on the internet without a valid citation[/QUOTE] it doesnt mean everyone needs a valid citation on the internet, it means that people who are claiming serious things about a person or company that could cause damage dont get to protect their sources in court, it allows the plaintiff to cross examine the source of information
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30416107]umm free speech ends when you are infringing someone elses rights what if someone claimed you were a pedophile and he was allowed to scream that you molested his friend even though you clearly didnt that destroys your reputation as a person, thats why they have libel and slander laws it doesnt mean everyone needs a valid citation on the internet, it means that people who are claiming serious things about a person or company that could cause damage dont get to protect their sources in court, it allows the plaintiff to cross examine the source of information[/QUOTE] then prosecute that person, but dont say that all bloggers are unable to be journalists what constitutes journalism? working for a huge corporate news machine with local channels in every state? having a terrible bias against any political party that doesn't follow your strict set of rules and morals?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30416174]then prosecute that person, but dont say that all bloggers are unable to be journalists[/QUOTE] it doesnt say all bloggers are unable to be journalists, its saying a blogger is not inherently a journalist [quote]what constitutes journalism? working for a huge corporate news machine with local channels in every state? having a terrible bias against any political party that doesn't follow your strict set of rules and morals?[/quote]its about reputation, because cnn, bbc, al jazeera, reuters, etc. have a reputation of giving credible information they are allowed to protect their sources anonymity because it encourages more sources to come forward to give information without fear of persecution, prosecution, or job loss
Since when was blogging journalism?
Wait, does this mean I can't express negative opinion about companies on my blog?
[QUOTE=johan_sm;30416354]Wait, does this mean I can't express negative opinion about companies on my blog?[/QUOTE] no it means you cant slander a company on your blog
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30416226]it doesnt say all bloggers are unable to be journalists, its saying a blogger is not inherently a journalist[/QUOTE] The ruling specifically states that bloggers and other online journalists cannot be protected under the shield laws and says that in order to have protection you need to use traditional means. The statement being made is that journalists not using traditional media should not legally be considered journalists. [QUOTE=yawmwen;30416411]no it means you cant slander a company on your blog[/QUOTE] No, it means you don't get the same protection that traditional journalism. If you have a credible story and want to protect a source, you cannot do so unless you go through traditional media.
Well then, if New Jersey can do without bloggers, then perhaps bloggers can do without New Jersey?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.