FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 05/27/2014 8:47:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Edited on 05/27/2014 9:03:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a last-ditch bid by the lawyers for Colorado movie theater shooting suspect James Holmes to compel FoxNews.com reporter Jana Winter to reveal confidential sources from a story or face jail.
Winter earlier had won her case before New York's highest court, which in December ruled that -- thanks to New York's strong media shield law -- she would not have to comply with a Colorado subpoena demanding she testify.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Good ruling and I’d like to see strong shield laws for reporters extended to bloggers, etc.
Shield laws should absolutely extend to bloggers when they receive confidential information. The problem though is that there are bloggers out there who just make up “confidential” information.
Like there aren’t “mainstream” reporters who make up “confidential” information? Why is that a particular problem?
Journalists and reporters who write for major newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news (tv & radio) have to answer to their editors and their organization’s legal team. While they have obviously manufactured evidence (CBS/Rather), there is some organizational structure in place to lessen the likelihood of manufactured confidential sources.
The same can’t be said of independent Internet bloggers. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be shielded; they should. Without editors and legal teams to review their claims, it is inherently easier for bloggers to manufacture confidential information.
There are Senate majority leaders (well, at least one) who make up “confidential” information.
But that just goes to credibility. The blogger should have to earn the trust of readers before they should accept anonymous or confidential sources at face value.
Credibility isn’t the legal question at issue. The legal question is whether or not bloggers should enjoy the same legal rights under media shield laws.
My initial reaction is that they should. I do, however, see the potential for inherent abuse if they are shielded.
Slander and libel law take care of that domestically.
My point is exactly that the credibility of the source should have no bearing on the legality - the only real difference between a “blogger” and a “journalist” is one of credibility (deserved or not), and as that is subjective, the law should apply equally to both in order to not be capricious.
A blogger - or a journalist - who abuses their protections will suffer a loss of actual credibility and may subject themselves to civil liability in some cases. Any protected activity or right can still lead to criminal or civil penalties if they are abused.
Certainly, credibility has no bearing on the legal question.
You said, “The blogger should have to earn the trust of readers before they should accept anonymous or confidential sources at face value.” My point was that earning the trust of the readers isn’t relevant to the question of whether or not bloggers should be shielded.
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.