Should Bloggers Be Afforded The Same Rights Granted To Journalists?

from the lawsuits-galore... dept

Mon, Mar 9th 2009 9:21pm — Mike Masnick

Paul Alan Levy writes "Together with the ACLU of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Center for Freedom of Expression, we have intervened in a case pending in Buckingham County, Virginia in which a plaintiff in a defamation case retaliated against a blogger who covered his defamation suit in less than flattering terms by sending a highly invasive subpoena that demands production of the blogger's communications with his sources, IP numbers of all who posted on his web site or even READ the web site. There have been only a handful of cases in which courts have addressed whether bloggers should be treated as journalists for the purpose of considering the reporters' privilege. We are also arguing that, in addition to protecting the commenters on the blog for the reasons usually argued -- protecting their right of anonymous speech -- posters on a journalist's blog should be treated as "sources" whose disclosure violates the journalist's own rights."

We've been seeing a lot of these types of cases lately. It would be good to get some more definitive rulings that establish both the rights of those who blog, as well as those who comment anonymously.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bloggers, journalists, lawsuits, sources

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Max Kayden, 9 Mar 2009 @ 9:57pm

maybe
Depends on the definition of "blogger". I have no problem including the guys who do their own research/investigation, but most bloggers only make a backlink and a paragraph or two. Many will include some rhetoric or opinion that's almost always uninformed. These backlinkers are just pundits, not journalists, and there's no "pundit" privilege.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enough Already, 10 Mar 2009 @ 3:43am

A Journalist can be a blogger, but a blogger can not be a journalist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen Pate, 10 Mar 2009 @ 4:50am

Bloggers, journalists and free speech
Most of the protections are free speech. In Canada we updated the rules and put "freedom of expression" alongside "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" The "other media" has been used to include social media. I was able to get a press pass for the legislature based on my experience, 1,400 articles printed and reference to "other media" despite my open attacks on the government of the day. No one wants to look like they don't support a free press, other than the press themselves.

There are no distinctions in either Canada or the US that provide pejorative lesser rights to "bloggers". Free speech is what it is for all citizens. That being said, the law always has boundaries and libel is not covered. Bill Clinton wasted a ton of energy chasing the Drodge report which was a blog. Anyone can have their sources demanded. It takes lawyers and court time to prosecute and defend those claims. Except when you are running afoul of state secrets, most claims on your sources would be civil matters for the litigants to fight out themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pinch, 10 Mar 2009 @ 4:52am

Re:
And exactly why is that? Newspapers will be dead in the next few years, many will disappear this year. Newspapers dumped fact-checkers years ago. Network and local media outlets are seeing huge declines in viewers and listeners. So who exactly will be reporting news? And please cite a source as to what qualifies as a journalist. Is a degree from some bastion of liberalism the only qualification?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pinch, 10 Mar 2009 @ 4:52am

Re:
And exactly why is that? Newspapers will be dead in the next few years, many will disappear this year. Newspapers dumped fact-checkers years ago. Network and local media outlets are seeing huge declines in viewers and listeners. So who exactly will be reporting news? And please cite a source as to what qualifies as a journalist. Is a degree from some bastion of liberalism the only qualification?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xiera, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:02am

Re:
From a strictly logical point of view, that makes no sense whatsoever. In the first phrase, you say that members of the set "journalist" may also be members of the set "blogger", which obviously infers intersection. In the second phrase, you imply that there is no intersection.

I think what you meant to say is: "A journalist may be a blogger, but it does not follow that all bloggers are journalists.", which is true.

The second phrase by itself, as Pinch noted, is inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:07am

Depends on what we mean by 'rights'.

I don't thing it's anyone's 'right' to demand "...production of the blogger's communications with his sources, IP numbers of all who posted on his web site or even READ the web site", whether it be a "journalist", a "blogger", or a "pornographer".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:34am

Re: maybe
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jonnyq, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:34am

Re: Re: maybe
(that was me)

You're wrong, by the way, but I see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pete Austin, 10 Mar 2009 @ 10:06am

Very Bad Journalists
Bloggers should be afforded the same rights as very bad journalists. If the latter are entitled to protect their sources, then so should bloggers. But if these rights only apply to the best journalists, then tough luck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rev.dak, 10 Mar 2009 @ 11:22am

Should Journalists have MORE RIGHTS than Bloggers? Anyone and everyone can be a blogger. You just have to write something down in a public place. Nothing has changed, only the medium. It's another case where "professionals" are threatened because there is nothing actually special about what they do, except that they _currently_ get paid to do what they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rpcutts, 11 Mar 2009 @ 4:09am

I don't see how anyone can have an opinion until someone comes up with a concrete definition of what makes a journalist a journalist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JTiger, 11 Mar 2009 @ 2:50pm

What is a journalist and why is it different than a blogger
A journalist is someone that delivers news - generally for the public good - in an independent, accurate, truthful and objective manner. If you want to complicate that, then you would ask, "What is news?" To which a journalist would reply, something that happened that people want to or would want to know about.

A blogger is, well, anyone that has an internet connection and wants to write about something or bring attention to something by linking to it. What do their posts consist of? More often than not, it is something that interests them, not necessarily the public good - that can mesh sometimes though.

So, I would describe the difference between a blogger and journalist not only in their content but in their intent. A blog post is a reflection of what the blogger finds interesting. A piece of journalism is a reflection of what the journalist feels is information that will benefit the public good.

To me, the tricky part is when the two interests overlap. Take Jim Foti's Roadguy blog, for example. He finds traffic stuff and happenings interesting but the content of his blog also benefits the public good. The kicker here, of course, is that Jim Foti is Minneapolis Star-Tribune journalist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]