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 ...
Paging George Soros School of Journalism...
How is someone in New Jersey going to sue someone in Washington state in State Court?
Well the I guess the next response to the Judge would then be, "Fine your Honor, I guess I'll just exercise my 5th Amendment right."
Indeed this is pure BS. Frankly this ruling should scare the MSM as much as it scares bloggers. Ultimately with this kind of decision the determination as to what is the mainstream will be up to the government, either through the courts or through some pimply faced unelected bureaucrat.
This is pure judicial tyranny at work.
To be a “jornalist” with protection from the State, you must support The Official Reality.
And bloggers, most bloggers, can’t be relied on to do that without supervision.
hahaha- oh man, I would love to see someone come after me for something I posted on FR. Honestly- It would make my life.
I live in Manhattan now, but still. LOL
So should we all start using TOR now to post?
Better to be safe than sorry (when Obama’s thugs raid the servers/confiscate them)
I think the issue is slander by an unknown party. If someone hides behind a screen name and says that ABC Grocery sells dog meat as steak without any proof and the owner is left with no recourse that is the problem.
I think it is always wise, when stating opinion that it be firmly understood it is your opinion, that is fair as everyone is entitled to his opinion.
“The New Jersey Supreme Court has gay orgies with barnyard animals...”
The NJ Supreme Court justices are Moslim?
Whodda thunk it?
So what kind of implications does that have for FR and Freepers?
If we had politicans who gave a hoot, we could advocate for them to make clear to the fascist court that freedom of speech applies to everyone like it does to the liberal media.
Anyone with any sense in NJ who is serious about creating an online media outlet creates a LLC or LLP, or offshores the operations to a non-treaty country.
Donald Trump’s son in law, the scion of the scumbag Kushner family, runs the politicker.com family of websites, including the articles/rantings/insider info of a anonymous nom de plume ‘Wally Edge’ who has posted seriously libelous articles over the years.
ON the other side, in Hoboken NJ, there are several blog/news type websites run as libelous rumor mills between old guard, new guard, and new opposition groups in the Dem political machines. The Feds just raided one of their offices last month, and has an open investigation.
http://hoboken.patch.com/articles/fbi-raid-at-city-hall-tied-to-it-office-investigation
The shield law in NJ is a tool of convenience of the powerful and connected. “Pierced veil” arguments in courts are used to get around it regularly.
ON the other side of things, Hundreds of people knew Jim McGreevey was gay, many knew since he was a teenager, dozens of Trenton bigwigs, and dozens of NJ’s top political reporters knew this even before he announced his first run for governor. Yet no major media OR online media dared publish the info.
When someone shopped info around that he saw McGreevey cruising around NYC’s red light district for male prostitutes, not a single media company in the tri-state would publish the info....
I agree with you here, and Federal law also agrees with your post.
Just remembered this article from last month because someone I know was asked to sign one of these release forms just days before this article was written up, the company in these articles, Medical Justice, has a large salesforce presence in NJ:
“When I walked into the offices of Dr. Ken Cirka, I was looking for cleaner teeth, not material for an Ars Technica story. I needed a new dentist, and Yelp says Dr. Cirka is one of the best in the Philadelphia area. The receptionist handed me a clipboard with forms to fill out. After the usual patient information form, there was a “mutual privacy agreement” that asked me to transfer ownership of any public commentary I might write in the future to Dr. Cirka. Surprised and a little outraged by this, I got into a lengthy discussion with Dr. Cirka’s office manager that ended in me refusing to sign and her showing me the door.
The agreement is based on a template supplied by an organization called Medical Justice, and similar agreements have been popping up in doctors’ offices across the country. And although Medical Justice and Dr. Cirka both claim otherwise, it seems pretty obvious that the agreements are designed to help medical professionals censor their patients’ reviews.”
thanks for the explanation.
wouldn’t this rule also apply to a newspaper? if not, why not? seems it gives the newspaper license to libel.
Of course licensing is the next logical step. That has always been one way to limit competition in any field, from hair dressers to physicians. Any thing that the Left can do to limit the voices of anyone who doesn’t toe their ideological line is alright with them. Requiring licenses to express your opinion would severely limit those opinions to only those willing to pay the fee. Requiring a license like a physician or lawyer severely limits the numbers, especially if those licenses require a college degree in ‘journalism’.....................
Excellent post.
Reporters claim protections not afforded to ordinary citizens and then want to have a guild where they get to decide who is part of the press.
When the Constitution was written, anybody (who had the money) could buy a press and start a newspaper to share his opinions. No restrictions on entry.
Today anybody can spread their opinions on the web, for free. Since you can access a computer at the local library, you don’t even need to own one.
The only difference from 1791 is that there is no longer a monetary cost to becoming part of “the press.”
The lamestream media sees the first amendment protection of a free press as a “business issue” and has always worked behind the scenes to deprive all others of the license.
To wit: decades ago when townships and communities began posting information on telephone poles and elsewhere regarding pedophiles who had moved into the neighborhood, the lamers did nothing to help citizens fend off lawsuits. No amicus, no nothing.
The lamers are low scum. And I would know because I used to work there.
Hmmm...bloggers, message boards, etc.
Wonder of GBTV will get protections...kind of interesting don’t you think? Moving away from MSM into alternative stuff and wham...you are not protected?
Time for the New Pamphleteers!
I wonder if this same law will apply to people who post lies and disgusting remarks on Left Wing sites?
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.