Replies

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the judge has now ruled that Hale is not protected by shield laws because she has "no connection to any legitimate news publication." This is troubling for a variety of reasons. First, it leaves open entirely to interpretation what exactly is a "legitimate news publication." The judge seems to think it only applies to old school media, saying: "Even though our courts have liberally construed the shield law, it clearly was not intended to apply to any person communicating to another person." Sure, but that doesn't mean that an individual who posts something in the pursuit of reporting isn't media as well. It looks like Hale will appeal this decision, and hopefully other courts will recognize that you don't have to work for a big media organization to be a reporter any more.

The author maistakenly believes that the judge has no clue in this case. He apparently doesn't understand that the judge is concerned about real and significant legal issues. The key issue comes straight from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

The First Amendment does not mean that laws against slander or libel are unconstitutional: "freedom of speech" was not intended as an unbounded right; nor was "the press" exempted from constraints against libel or slander.

However, the First Amendment does identify "the press" as being explicitly protected in some sense. The obvious legal question is the extent to which people or organizations can claim to be "the press."

Your neighborhood gossip is a purveyor of "news," but it's not likely that anybody would seriously consider her to be part of "the press" in any legal sense of the term.

By the same token, an organization whose stated purpose and efforts are bent toward the dissemination of information (e.g., National Review Online) is clearly covered as part of "the press."

The legal issue here is whether this particular blogger falls into the "gossip" category, or is "a legitimate news source." There is a line somewhere, and this case has brought the issue forward. It's a serious and significant point.

The distinction between slander and libel is also crucial to this point. "Slander" is something that a gossip might commit. "Libel" is something that "the press" commits. The lawyer is suing on the basis that this blogger is a gossip.

“However, the First Amendment does identify ‘the press’ as being explicitly protected in some sense. The obvious legal question is the extent to which people or organizations can claim to be ‘the press.’

“Your neighborhood gossip is a purveyor of ‘news,’ but it's not likely that anybody would seriously consider her to be part of ‘the press’ in any legal sense of the term.”

You are defining “the press” as an institution, e.g. the Newspaper/magazine industry — or the news media. I don't believe the First Amendment is addressed to any such class specifically.

A Gospel tract society, a church, synagogue, mosque, or any religious persons, for example(s) can purchase a “press” and produce and distribute literature propagating what it believes to be the truth, and Congress can not make a law abridging that right, because that is included in the concept of “the press.” The First

Amendment is not at all specifically dealing with “news” sources.

Any individual can purchase a Risograph or a Xerox machine, interface his computer, and run off thousands of copies of literature in an effort to be elected to the city council, and Congress can make no law to abridge that right, because that is also included in the concept “the press.”

Anyone can start-up a local publishing business to, say, reprint out-of-print books that are now in the public domain, on any subject anyone might be interested in. Congress can make no law to abridge that right, because that also is included in the concept of “the press.”

I can write, publish, and distribute Creationist, anti-Darwinian, anti-Humanist Christian school and home school curriculum, and Congress cannot make a law to abridge my right to do so, because that is also included in the concept of “the press.”

To limit the concept of “the press” to news sources is absolutely absurd.