This clearly cuts both ways. Huff-poop and Daily Cuz might not like being exposed to the light. It’s not like the light of “screwtiny” hasn’t been shined on every poster to the right of Mao.
So now judges have to define what is a news source and what is not a news source?
Does this judge even know of television yet?
Yeah!
Got that, Shannyn Moore? You’ll be the first, so waddle your fat azz up, bend over and take one for your team.
It’s one thing to criticize Sarah Palin’s policies and decisions, but you’re asking for trouble when you perpetuate false rumors. The First Amendment doesn’t cover slander, so the game’s up for you and your ilk, b!tch.
I'm leery of this decision. Sure, this Sarah-harrassing punk deserves a hard time. But, an all purpose lowering of the suit bar can work big-time against all forms of commentary, including conservative commentary. I think we would be better served if Sarah found a way to go after some of the formal news organizations that spread the unfounded crap they spewed about her, or if there were punishments for the obviously frivolous ethics lawsuits.
Shannyn Moore is the lib with the radio show who is causing Sarah a bit of a headache in Alaska. She may not be “THE” blogger but she is a very visible antagonist to Sarah.
Simple solution: bloggers should join journalist associations.
Shield laws are crap anyway.
>Thus, it should come as no surprise that the judge has now ruled that Hale is not protected by shield laws because she has “no connection to any legitimate news publication.”
Now school papers don’t have protection via shield-laws, nor do self published papers.
Yep, the 1st amendment’s freedom of the press is clearly restricted to only those papers legitimized by the government. [/sarc]
That should make for interesting legal case law.
Is there any justification for allowing journalists of any kind to conceal their sources from a court? I think not.
The author maistakenly believes that the judge has no clue in this case. He apparently doesn't understand that the judge is concerned about real and significant legal issues. The key issue comes straight from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
The First Amendment does not mean that laws against slander or libel are unconstitutional: "freedom of speech" was not intended as an unbounded right; nor was "the press" exempted from constraints against libel or slander.
However, the First Amendment does identify "the press" as being explicitly protected in some sense. The obvious legal question is the extent to which people or organizations can claim to be "the press."
Your neighborhood gossip is a purveyor of "news," but it's not likely that anybody would seriously consider her to be part of "the press" in any legal sense of the term.
By the same token, an organization whose stated purpose and efforts are bent toward the dissemination of information (e.g., National Review Online) is clearly covered as part of "the press."
The legal issue here is whether this particular blogger falls into the "gossip" category, or is "a legitimate news source." There is a line somewhere, and this case has brought the issue forward. It's a serious and significant point.
The distinction between slander and libel is also crucial to this point. "Slander" is something that a gossip might commit. "Libel" is something that "the press" commits. The lawyer is suing on the basis that this blogger is a gossip.
Blogs need to form a “professional” news and commentary union with no rules of membership but laying out the protections of the first amendment given to the corporate media. It would be wise for conservatives to do this before liberals because liberals will make rules to exclude conservative bloggers from the professional union.