A judge in the state of Oregon has ruled that bloggers are not entitled to the same legal protections given to journalists under US law, based on bloggers’ general lack of journalistic education or affiliation with news agencies publishing stories via traditional mediums (television, radio, newspapers, or magazines). The ruling is a result of a defamation case brought against an “Investigative Blogger” by Obsidian Finance Group; the blogger in question claimed that she had begun publishing information on Obsidian after receiving a confidential tip, and that she was protected from revealing her source by laws that allow journalists to shield their sources from detection. Oregon courts disagreed.
The blogger was sentenced to a 2.5 million dollar damage payment to Obsidian for the overarching dispute of the case: Obsidian had sued the blogger for defamation. Even had the judge ruled that she did qualify as a journalist, withholding her source and failing to prove the validity of her claims would likely have resulted in the same eventual ruling.
While US laws regarding defamation are still apparently subject to dispute, Thailand treats defamation very seriously. Defamation in Thailand can be prosecuted as both a criminal and civil defense, and is defined in part as “imputing anything to another person to a third party likely to impair that person’s reputation or to expose such a person to hatred or contempt.”
As alternative news services and blogs begin to usurp the role of traditional media, the law will need to evolve accordingly.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Interesting.
In a 1938 decision Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” (Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)) I’ll bet the judge in this case was not even aware of this decision.
Considering this, Facebook, Google Plus, Blogs and so on are Press and I would think authors should be considered journalists.