Posted on 06/07/2011 8:09:45 AM PDT by Rational Thought
TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists.
The court ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not apply to such message boards.
The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
So in the opinion of the New Jersey state Court only state sanctioned media has the protections of the 1st Amendment.
How fascist of them.
Also Hmmm...
from the article:”New Jersey’s highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don’t fit the definition of news media as described by the law.”
I didn’t know there was a legal definition of “news media.”
I wonder if CNN qualifies...
But it would be racist to have any literacy requirements to get one.
WTF?
Who decides which are “real” journalists?
Will New Jersey start requiring licenses? Very, very steep slippery slope for the media dare have even one inch, even once trod.
Government has become utterly corrupt. The judiciary has become
just another tool to rubber stamp the unconstitutional aims of the
sitting politicians.
Freedom of the press applies to all people. Either everyone should have the shield law applied or no one should.
I'd be curious to get any input from Freeper lawyers on this.
One thing is obvious. The mainstream, in-the-tank for Obama media qualify as news media. The objective, fact-based sites like FR are not news media.
Dear NJ Supreme Court: I have a source that is ready to announce exactly what you are. My source is too dignified to say it in public, but if compelled by the force of law I'm sure my source will comply. [Hint: even Weiner is not as low as the "justices" of what passes for a court in your state.]
This is the same NJSC that ORDERED Gov. Christie to bust his budget on school spending. What would you expect?
ping
“So in the opinion of the New Jersey state Court only state sanctioned media has the protections of the 1st Amendment.”
It is not and, for MOST of the nation’s history, has not been clear, Constitutionally, that “freedom of the press” - the right of “the press” to publish something without prior censorship over what it publishes - provides any right to hide the sources of the information published, if asked to do so by proper court proceeding or court approved warrant, when the court has accepted the argument that the information can lend material information to the case.
In fact, in accordance with the Constitution, the “shield law” concept has not been accepted in Federal cases; and there is as of yet no Federal “shield law”.
Keep in mind, the Federal Constitutional provision is a matter of preventing prior censorship over what the press publishes. It does not imply a right given to the press to censor, from properly constructed judicial proceedings, the sources of what it publishes; and it never has in Federal cases.
The lack of any Federal “shield law” and the Federal judicial history of the matter is, historically, closer, on the issue, than the “shield laws” to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, then, on the other side, in New Jersey and with regard to it’s own “shield laws” as applies in a New Jersey case, why should any modern form of “publishing” on the Internet NOT be afforded the same “shield” as any other commercial publisher.
Is not the older media and the Internet simply too forms of “the press” and entitled to the same “shield”, if one exists? If a “shield” exists, it does seem wrong for government to pick and choose between different forms and different media of publishing.
Back to first principles, and the Federal history, which, again as I say I think is closest to the Constitution, I do not think “shield laws” reflect original Constitutional protection of either “free speech” or “freedom of the press”.
Real journalists aren’t shielded from libel...freedom of the press has NOTHING to do with libel or prior restraint.
Well said but once you are affording luxeries such as a shield law to the press it then creates an unfair advantage to speech for those you deny it to... no? In essence it then creates two levels of free speech, Constitutionally it becomes on shaky ground by not providing equal protection under the law.
Plus now I guess in New Jersey we start standing on the ground of defining who has the protections of the press and who does not. Being that much of the press is politically orientated we of course stand the course for the liberal activist judges of New Jersey to politically punish those they see fit for their politically incorrect speech.
The NJ Supreme Court is among the most corrupt Courts in the country.
You and I are in agreement.
“Real journalists aren’t shielded from libel...freedom of the press has NOTHING to do with libel or prior restraint.”
Of course “freedom of the press” does not protect someone from libel. No one suggested it did.
But, “freedom of the press” is in a sense a protection AGAINST “prior restraint”, i.e. censorship of the press.
But, are you suggesting that the Supreme Court of New Jersey was not deciding a New Jersey constitutional shield law issue? Are you saying that if the Star Ledger newspaper quoted - reported - the words of an anonymous source, and someone else found those words to be libelous to them, that (a)the Star Ledger could have been sued for libel, or (b)the Star Ledger would have been required, regardless of the state’s shield laws, to reveal who was the anonymous source of the allegedly libelous words?
If either of those options are correct, then (a)the title of the story is misleading, and (b) the issue is not the court making a distinction between different “media” (press), but (c) that the shield laws don’t protect media publishers or their sources in a libel case, new or old media alike.
Is that what you’re saying?
In fact, in accordance with the Constitution, the “shield law” concept has not been accepted in Federal cases; and there is as of yet no Federal “shield law”.New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law.
What is your background? "Are you now, or have you ever been," a lawyer?Is not the older media and the Internet simply too forms of “the press” and entitled to the same “shield”, if one exists?IANAL, but I've thought long and hard about the First Amendment, and "the freedom of . . . the press."My position is that no one would propose that "speech" is a privileged classes of individuals, and "the press" is no different from speech. Rather, speech and "the press" are rights of the people neither of which are dependent on whether a given person owns a press yet, or not.
Shield laws conferring special dispensations in law for people who own presses is not what the First Amendment contemplates. To the contrary, The First Amendment makes it difficult to justify any special treatment, positive or negative, for people who speak or print.
My position on that is clear: although mention in the Constitution of the telegraph, the typewriter, the radio, or any other modern technology would stand as conclusive proof that the Constitution was a fraud which was written much later than 1788, they all are coveredArticle 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .by the patent intention of the Constitution to foster progress.
For purposes of understanding the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 means that no one should assume that the Framers would have been surprised that newer communications techniques should have eventually superceded type, ink and paper.The true constitutional meaning of "the press" is, the spending of money to apply technological means to the problem of disseminating information and opinion. The mission statement of the Constitution is[to] . . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterityArticle 1 Section 9No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10.
No state shall . . . grant any title of nobility.
Those who claim the title "the press" are claiming either a title of nobility or a title of priesthood of a sort. In neither case are their claims such that an American needs to defer to them as a matter of law. IMHO.
2. Federal courts do not exempt members of "the press" from revealing their sources when a Federal court has demanded such from them in a case.
So, the Federal judicial history seems to NOT acknowledge the concept behind the "shield law" as far as a Federal Constitutional protection. Is that not true? Or, are you saying the Federal courts have never properly understood the Constitution, on this issue.
I agree that a shield law is unconstitutional.
If I lived in NJ. I would definitely have some reservations about posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.