Posted on 06/07/2011 8:09:45 AM PDT by Rational Thought
TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists.
The court ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not apply to such message boards.
The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That’s BS. The Constitution doesn’t say “freedom of the mainstream press.”
Well, courts and judges lie all the time, and so do cops, so, obviously they want to control the media.
OK.
These courts have no standing, period. This is a mob.
So...do I have to incorporate as a newspaper to enjoy the same rights as the fishwrappers and encre pisseurs at the NYT and WaPo?
No problem - now this should be stripped away from Old Media journalists as well.
Shield laws are little more than a way of legalizing the leaking of classified information to the general public.
So where in the First Amendment did it say that we have less free speech than a jerbalist???
What the hell goes on in New Jersey?
FUNJ beaucrats, FU government!!! FU liberals!!! FU Gen Y!!!
A lot of misguided people seem to think that the First Amendment reads a lot of things that it doesn’t. A weel thought out post, thanks.
Make that “well.”
there is no doubt that this is a violation of 14th Amendment equal protection.
Absolutely.In reality the Associated Press and its membership are presuming to be "more equal" than the rest of us.
The first amendment doesn’t shield sources.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has gay orgies with barnyard animals...
LOL. Yeah, good luck trying to make THAT ruling hold up to First Amendment scrutiny. Even the liberal justices on SCOTUS aren’t likely to buy that non-sensical crap.
Hell, this is one RARE issue on which members of DU, Free Republic, and the most boring “Moderates” can agree—there is no Constitutional reason to nullify such rights.
The New Jersey Boobs who came up with this wholly ignorant opinion (this wasn’t the Supreme Court of NJ, was it?) can shove it. Hard. And Deep.
The State has to control what the people hear. No state can stand true free speech (and that included the early days of the Republic).
The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.
For decades the leftists have been claiming that the 2nd Amendment gave “the militia” (meaning the state-run military) the to keep and bear arms, not “the people,” to which the counterargument was: “Then that means the 1st Amendment gives only the state freedom of the press, etc.”
Well, they’ve finally figured out a way to ensure that the Bill of Rights pertains only to “the State.”
I can’t believe the sale of pitchforks has not skyrocketed in the past couple of years. It truly is a testament to either the inherent peacefulness and tolerance of the American people or to the unparalleled success of brainwashing in the school system.
The NJ Supreme Court is liberal, however this has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press or all the things being mentioned here. Let’s say I go on a message board, or even Free Republic, and tell the world you had an affair with Weiner. You sue me for libel and I raise NJ’s shield law stating I don’t have to show you my stinkin evidence. I get away with libel.
While the decision requires analysis, I initially support it. Message boards are not even online newspapers or anything like it. I am guessing the decision applies to message boards, not blogs or other news type sites. Also I believe this is based on a NJ Statutory shield law.
Challenge
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.