Should Bloggers Be Afforded The Same Rights Granted To Journalists?

from the lawsuits-galore... dept

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.

Filed Under: bloggers, journalists, lawsuits, sources

Anonymous Newspaper Commenters Protected By Same Law That Protects Reporters' Sources

from the all-works-out-the-same dept

While other countries often don't respect the right to be anonymous, the US has shown a strong willingness to protect anonymity rights. And, here's another such case, but for a somewhat different reason. Gigalaw points us to the news that a court has ruled that the Billings Gazette newspaper doesn't need to reveal anonymous commenters, relying on the same state (not federal) law that protects reporters in the state from having to reveal sources. The law specifically says that news organizations are protected from being forced to disclose "any information obtained or prepared" by the news organization -- and the identify of anonymous commenters apparently qualifies.

Filed Under: anonymity, billings gazette, commenters, newspapers, sources

Appeals Court Tells Homeland Security That Wikipedia Alone Isn't Sufficient Evidence For Refusing Asylum To A Refugee

from the DHS-didn't-realize-this? dept

While I tend to think that Wikipedia is a good thing overall, that's because I know it's not a source that should be relied on by itself for important decisions -- such as whether or not to grant political asylum to an individual. It can be useful as a starting point, if that information can be corroborated elsewhere. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security felt otherwise in using Wikipedia to deny a request for asylum for a woman. An Appeals Court has now overturned that decision, noting the problems with using Wikipedia as a sole source of info, but the whole scenario should make you wonder. Did DHS really not have the ability to check the legitimacy of the woman's documents without resorting to Wikipedia? What sort of resources are provided to immigration officials that they're making judgments based on a Wikipedia page?

Filed Under: asylum, immigration, sources, wikipedia

People Are Promiscuous In Their News Sources

from the good-for-them dept

One of the defenses that people often put up for newspapers' dislike towards Google News is that newspapers don't want "drop in" visitors. Instead, they want people who specifically read The Local Paper Times, or whatever, rather than randomdude23 who shows up from across the internet to read one story. So they want people who are going to go straight to their site, stick around and read many different pages. After all, this is exactly how newspapers used to work. Most people would subscribe to one, possibly two, local newspapers and then read a good portion of it (potentially, cover to cover). Unfortunately, however, that's not quite how people consume news these days. A new study shows that people are rather promiscuous in their news consumption. They constantly divide their attention among many different news brands. This shouldn't be surprising, considering how many news options people have these days, though it should also ease the worries of those that believe people get all their news from one source and therefore need to be "protected" from bias at that source. This "news promiscuity" is also a reason why news providers should go out of their way to cater to the needs of their readers, as it likely means that they're constantly reshuffling their "news portfolio." Therefore, doing things like making your content tougher to access -- as the NY Times just did with the Freakonomics RSS feed -- is only an invitation to lose readers to a more friendly source that knows it needs to keep its readers' attention.

Filed Under: newspapers, sources