Replies

“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”.

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.

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.

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”.

What is your background? "Are you now, or have you ever been," a lawyer?
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.

Is not the older media and the Internet simply too forms of “the press” and entitled to the same “shield”, if one exists?

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 covered
Article 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 posterity
Article 1 Section 9
No 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.