Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

While we're still fighting for a federal press shield law in the US (various states have them, but it's not universal), the Supreme Court in Canada has ruled that a journalist could be compelled to give up his or her sources if the court thinks it's worthwhile. The court did say that it really does depend on the circumstances, but if a court decides that it's of greater public interest to reveal the source, then the court can require it. Of course, there could be some serious unintended consequences that come with such a ruling -- including making sources and whistleblowers less willing to come forward, knowing that the journalists they speak to may not be able to protect their anonymity. I don't know how the Canadian political setup works, but couldn't this issue be solved with Canada passing a shield law? Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing...

Filed Under: canada, press, shield law

More Bloggers Suing For Gov't Press Passes

from the this-may-not-end-well... dept

We recently wrote about how a lawsuit filed by three alternative publication reporters against NYC for denying them press passes to NY Police press conferences ended in a settlement with NY setting up new rules for getting press credentials. There was a fair amount of back and forth in the comments, with some still believing the lawsuit was sound, even though we had trouble with the idea that the lawsuit had any merit at all. However, it looks like that result may have inspired others as well. A blogger in Maryland is now suing the state for denying him a press pass. The article is long and detailed -- and it does sound (yet again) like the government should have issued the guy a press pass, but does that make the lawsuit sound?

Let's take an extreme example. I write for an "alternative publication," but if I requested a press pass from the White House, I would totally expect to get turned down. There is limited room in such press conferences, and the White House has every right to determine who gets that access. Same with the NYC police and the Maryland General Assembly. I agree that perhaps these gov't organizations should have a clear process and clear standards for who gets let in, but I can't see how it's a free speech violation to deny press credentials under these circumstances. They're not saying these people aren't press, or that they can't publish whatever they want. They're just saying they don't get to enter the building as press.

Filed Under: bloggers, press

NYC (Finally) Creates System For Giving Press Passes To Online Journalists

from the but-separate-from-the-lawsuit dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about some online/alternative journalists who sued the NYC Police Department because of a refusal to give those journalists press passes. As we noted at the time, it was difficult to see the legal justification for the lawsuit. Just because you are a reporter (alternative, online or traditional) it doesn't mean that the city has to grant you press access. This upset some folks in the comments who thought I was supporting the idea that "bloggers aren't journalists" or that this was somehow a free speech issue. It was not. The reporters were absolutely free to report on whatever they wanted and say whatever they wanted, but that did not mean that anyone had to grant them access. Hell, I even thought that the NYC police were wrong in not granting these journalists access -- but that didn't mean it was illegal.

Soon after that lawsuit was filed, the police backed down anyway and granted those journalists access, making the lawsuit somewhat meaningless, though it continued. Separately, however, a lawsuit in California proved the point that being a journalist does not give you the right to unfettered access, such as at crime scenes.

So, when one of the journalists involved in the original lawsuit, David Wallis, sent in a submission this week declaring Masnick was wrong!!!!, I thought I'd check it out -- since everything had indicated that I was not wrong. However, it appears that Wallis also seems confused about the difference between what the NYC Police should do and what they're legally required to do. The reason for the email is that NYC has smartly put in place rules and procedures for credentialing online journalists as part of the agreement to settle the lawsuit.

I think this is an absolute good thing -- and a smart move. If anything, I'm sort of surprised that such a policy didn't already exist. But, unlike Wallis' claim, this does not change my stance on the original lawsuit. While it may have pressured NYC into putting in place a policy, that doesn't mean there was any legal leg to stand on in the lawsuit. As I said, I always thought that the police should have given credentials to these journalists -- and should have had a policy in place for giving credentials to journalists who meet certain criteria, even if they're not employed by the traditional media. But that does not mean that the police have to give access to anyone who declares themselves a journalist. So I'm happy for Wallis and the other journalists that NY has changed its policy and made it more reasonable in response to the lawsuit, but that doesn't change the likelihood that the original lawsuit was not going anywhere on a legal basis.

Filed Under: access, free speech, nyc, press

What's Al Gore Got To Hide From The Mobile Industry Trade Press?

from the inquiring-minds dept

The US mobile industry is gearing up for its big yearly trade show in Las Vegas in a few weeks, and Al Gore will be delivering one of the keynote addresses. Nothing too unusual there -- except that Gore wanted the press banned from attending his speech, as he's tried to do before. Call us crazy, but usually when you're speaking to advance a cause (as we thought Gore was doing with his environmental activism), press coverage is a good thing. Unless, of course, perhaps your attempts to ban press coverage are really just attempts to try and protect the big speaking fees you collect. Perhaps, though, all the attention in the mobile-industry trade press has caused an about-face. The page on the CTIA web site about keynote addresses used to contain the admonition that "VP Gore's keynote address is closed to the press", as the Google Cache version shows. But that line's been dropped from the currently live version. Maybe Gore and his people figuring out that an audience at a cell-phone trade show will probably be full of people with, you know, cell phones, who will send out Twitter messages and moblog posts and all kinds of other info from the speech? Even if the press is banned, the press will be there, and details of his speech will get out. Somehow it seems the more likely reason is the CTIA and Gore just don't want to look like censors.

Filed Under: al gore, ctia, press

Transparency Not Just About Access To The Press

from the much-more-to-it-than-that dept

There has been a series of complaints from the White House press pool since President Obama was sworn in last week, about the fact that he's apparently not living up to his promises of transparency -- specifically in that he hasn't been giving those mainstream press members access to certain things. However, as Ethan Kaplan notes, transparency and access to the media are not the same thing -- and if the administration is putting up all of the information on the web where anyone can get it, rather than just handing stuff to the media, isn't that a lot more transparent? This is a good point, and it will certainly be worth watching how things change over time. Transparency is important, but transparency can be done in many ways, and routing around the media is certainly one of those ways -- no matter how angry it may make the press.

Filed Under: obama, press, transparency

Patent Lawsuit Silly Season: TechCrunch Sued For Patent Infringement After Critical Blog Post

from the this-will-end-badly dept

There are different levels of ridiculousness when it comes to patent lawsuits, with the lowest of the low being patent lawsuits based more on spite than on any legitimate claim. For a while, it seemed like Ray Niro's use of the infamous JPG patent, to sue a bunch companies he just didn't like, was perhaps alone in that category. But, it appears that we now have a new entrant. Apparently, some company (who we won't even name, since there's a good chance it's doing this just to get press attention) sued a more well-known competitor for patent infringement, over a location-based services patent. Looking over the patent itself it's difficult to see how it was approved. People were talking about location-based profile matching a decade ago, let alone five years ago when this patent was filed.

TechCrunch wrote a post mocking the lawsuit as a weak attempt to get press coverage (it worked!), while noting that TechCrunch itself was partnered with the sued company to provide a "co-branded community." This apparently caused the patent holder to amend the lawsuit and include TechCrunch as a defendant. Apparently, there were no threats or notification (though, the guy claims he tried to call TechCrunch). This will likely get tossed out incredibly quickly, as any judge will recognize that TechCrunch is just licensing its brand, not supplying the technology (and also hopefully question the validity of the patent itself). Already, though, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington is planning to countersue, so this could get fun.

The patent holder claims that adding TechCrunch to the lawsuit had nothing to do with the original post, but that's rather difficult to believe. There's also this somewhat amusing quote from the patent holder:

"TechCrunch can say whatever they want, and I applaud them. But no one has the right to infringe on a patent that I worked very, very hard for many years to bring about -- not just on paper but in reality."

Yes, and thanks to a broken patent system, you now get to dump a totally frivolous lawsuit on a site that clearly did not infringe on your highly questionable patent. Just like Thomas Jefferson intended.

Filed Under: location-based services, patents, press, revenge
Companies: earthcomber, loopt, techcrunch

Shouldn't Al Gore Know That Everyone Is A Journalist These Days?

from the ban-everyone! dept

Al Gore, who, last we checked had founded a "citizen journalism"-based TV channel and internet site, has apparently told the RSA conference that one of the terms of his keynote speech at the event is that no press are allowed (and no photographs or audio or video recording either). That may have made sense years ago, but in this day and age, where everyone is a "reporter" and everyone has an outlet, it seems rather ridiculous to even think that you can ban "press," let alone make it a clause in a speaking agreement. Last year, the same event drew 17,000 people. You have to figure that a decent number of them have blogs, social networking pages, Twitter accounts and whatnot -- and a very high percentage probably have mobile phones with cameras on them as well (and, of course, it doesn't hurt that CNET appears to be offering to give people a free fleece for taping the event). Sorry, Mr. Vice President, even if you ban them, the press will be attending your talk.

Filed Under: al gore, bans, citizen journalism, press, speeches

UK Press To Create Guidelines About Using Social Networking Info In News Stories

from the public-info-is-public dept

You may have noticed lately that whenever a story breaks about a young person doing something bad (say, shooting up a school or losing a bank billions of dollars), one of the first things the press does is rush to MySpace, Facebook or other social networks to see what they can learn about the person in question. Apparently, that's ticking off some of the people whose profile info is being used. Thus, a media industry watchdog in the UK is trying to come up with guidelines for the use of such info. This seems a little odd, of course. The info you put on your public profile is just that: public. So getting upset that it's being used in the press seems a bit questionable. Instead of setting guidelines for the media, why not just remind people that public info is public?

Filed Under: guidelines, press, social networks