Should Online Newspaper's Comments Be Protected By Journalism Shield Laws?
from the are-they-sources? dept
Having just discussed whether or not journalism shield laws should apply to random bloggers, it's worth noting an interesting case going on in Indiana, where the key question is whether or not such a law applies to comments on a newspaper website. The paper, the Indianapolis Star, is arguing that Indiana's shield law protects anonymous commenters in the same way that it protects sources. After all, anonymous commenters can be sources. Of course, it may come down to the specific language in Indiana's shield law. A more interesting question is should such laws protect anonymous commenters? I'd argue that the First Amendment should, generally speaking, protect most anonymity, so I'm not sure a specific shield law provides much more that's useful beyond that. However, if you were definitely applying such shield laws to comments, perhaps it should just be limited to cases or individuals who actually are acting as sources (i.e., providing news) in the comments.
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: comments, indiana, journalism, newspapers, shield laws
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Equal Treatment
Just because someone works for a "recognized news source" should not give someone any extra protection under the law than some random blogger conveying information across the inter tubes.
No one should ever be compelled by law to give up a source of information. Either facts matter or they don't.
The law needs to catch up with technology and it needs to favor liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress will allow the military to wage cyberwar, now it is not just imagination it will become real.
www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/internet-war-2/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ehh, I agree with most things on this site but who gets appointed to suss that bit out?
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Defines News
We should have strong privacy laws that allow electronic publications and users to define what privacy protections exist and how data may be shared in most circumstances.
Unfortunately, until we repeal the abortion of liberty that is the patriot act, it will remain a pipe dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The paper, the Indianapolis Star, is arguing that Indiana's shield law protects anonymous commenters in the same way that it protects sources. After all, anonymous commenters can be sources. Of course, it may come down to the specific language in Indiana's shield law.
You think? Of course the specific language of the shield law is determinative of the law's scope. That's obvious. Duh. Too bad you aren't adding any actual analysis (that's apparently too much to ask).
If you want to see what they are actually arguing, you can read their actual arguments: https://www.eff.org/files/miller_appellant_brief.pdf
Your EFF friends filed an amicus brief (I can't believe you didn't link/embed it!): https://www.eff.org/files/miller_amicus.pdf
I tried to find the appellee's brief (unlike you, I like to hear both sides of the argument), but I didn't have any luck.
A more interesting question is should such laws protect anonymous commenters? I'd argue that the First Amendment should, generally speaking, protect most anonymity, so I'm not sure a specific shield law provides much more that's useful beyond that. However, if you were definitely applying such shield laws to comments, perhaps it should just be limited to cases or individuals who actually are acting as sources (i.e., providing news) in the comments.
So your argument is that shield laws shouldn't cover every single comment. Well, duh. That point hardly seems worth mentioning since it's so obvious.
I appreciate you posting the "story" because I was unaware of this case (I'm enjoying the briefs with my morning coffee), but it's a shame you yourself don't try a little real journalism. It's no wonder you have 40,000+ blog posts if this is the amount of effort you put into a post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, there was some content in the post.
troll rating 5/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a semi-anonymous commenter, I expect that my comments are protected speech and a court order be required to release my IP address. I don't expect that shield laws extend to my comments. If I was looking for that I would send my comments directly to Mike and hope he quoted me. (Good luck, I know)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I daresay many anonymous posts do not lie within the historical basis for why such laws were enacted in the first instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]