Real journalists aren’t shielded from libel...freedom of the press has NOTHING to do with libel or prior restraint.
“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?
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.