Ya didn't have to delete the expletive, it fit with the articule, the judge, after reading the bloggers articule I would agree with you... Cederq Kevin Cederquist
So now a 'judge' has the power to determine how big or how little a media source is based on some arbitrary number? How big is big enough and how little is too small to be afforded 'legitimate media status'? Seems like he ought to apply that standard to ALL media sources or not at all. Anybody wanna bet that the NYT or WAPO might be on shaky ground based on his ruling?
The Montana blogger was going up against a crooked Lawyer (is there any other kind?) and some clown of a Judge, neither of which were born boolit proof. Just my own opinion.
My reading of it is that this will not stand up to appeal -- assuming the blogger has or can find the money for an appeal. Lawyers have a saying "Bad facts make bad law". I'm guessing a bit of this may be going on here. A bad fact situation leaves the judge looking for something equitable to do, and creates a twisty little precedent as a side-effect. But I can't see this surviving an appeal -- if all I have to do to be a "journalist" is print it to paper and mail it, OK, I can do that. Require a degree in journalism? Ah... no... did Mark Twain have one? The judge's comments don't seem like anything that could survive a competent appeal. The blogger should see if the EFF or some other folks would help out on an appeal.
I was outraged by the headlines too, until I saw what the case was actually about.
Evidence shows she didn't have any sources, she simply made up and posted defamatory material, then offered her "services" as an internet reputation specialist, to remove the content.
She tried to claim protection under journalist shield laws, when the truth was she didn't have any sources to shield.
Lies, libel and defamation aren't shielded whether one is a "journalist" or not.
I would have stood and recited this quote to the judge and then turned my back on him.
"As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy (1802-1837)
The hell with the black robed radicals and standing up to them is our only course of action.
7 comments:
Mike,
Ya didn't have to delete the expletive, it fit with the articule, the judge, after reading the bloggers articule I would agree with you...
Cederq
Kevin Cederquist
So then, what does it take to become an official government approved "journalist" according to our beloved kings and masters?
So now a 'judge' has the power to determine how big or how little a media source is based on some arbitrary number? How big is big enough and how little is too small to be afforded 'legitimate media status'?
Seems like he ought to apply that standard to ALL media sources or not at all. Anybody wanna bet that the NYT or WAPO might be on shaky ground based on his ruling?
The Montana blogger was going up against a crooked Lawyer (is there any other kind?) and some clown of a Judge, neither of which were born boolit proof. Just my own opinion.
My reading of it is that this will not stand up to appeal -- assuming the blogger has or can find the money for an appeal. Lawyers have a saying "Bad facts make bad law". I'm guessing a bit of this may be going on here. A bad fact situation leaves the judge looking for something equitable to do, and creates a twisty little precedent as a side-effect. But I can't see this surviving an appeal -- if all I have to do to be a "journalist" is print it to paper and mail it, OK, I can do that. Require a degree in journalism? Ah... no... did Mark Twain have one? The judge's comments don't seem like anything that could survive a competent appeal. The blogger should see if the EFF or some other folks would help out on an appeal.
I was outraged by the headlines too, until I saw what the case was actually about.
Evidence shows she didn't have any sources, she simply made up and posted defamatory material, then offered her "services" as an internet reputation specialist, to remove the content.
She tried to claim protection under journalist shield laws, when the truth was she didn't have any sources to shield.
Lies, libel and defamation aren't shielded whether one is a "journalist" or not.
I would have stood and recited this quote to the judge and then turned my back on him.
"As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy (1802-1837)
The hell with the black robed radicals and standing up to them is our only course of action.
Post a Comment