USA Law

Blog

Blog in the United States

Blog

A description about Blog is available here: Short for weblog, a blog is an online journal. Candidates use blogs to tell visitors to their websites about their activities. Others use blogs to follow the development of campaign issues or events. Political blogs are created by “bloggers,” individuals who post commentary and news from their own perspective. Political blogs, like blogs in general, reflect a broad spectrum of opinion.

Proof of Instant Message, Blog, or Chat as Evidence

This section discusses generally the subject of Proof of Instant Message, Blog, or Chat as Evidence, how to determine the facts essential to Proof of Instant Message, Blog, or Chat as Evidence, and, to some extent, how to prove it in litigation and defense. Related topics are also addressed.

First Amendment Libel Law

In the case “Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox” (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014), the Ninth Circuit said: “The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.”

Whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. rules, which are that

  • libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern must prove that the defendant was negligent about the falsity of the statement, and
  • libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern and seeking presumed or punitive damages (as opposed to identifiable compensatory damages) must prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was false.

In another case, the Dun & Bradstreet lead opinion begins by saying:

“In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., we held that the First Amendment restricted the damages that a private individual could obtain from a publisher for a libel that involved a matter of public concern. More specifically, we held that in these circumstances the First Amendment prohibited awards of presumed and punitive damages for false and defamatory statements unless the plaintiff shows “actual malice,” that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.”

Posted

in

, ,

by

Robert

Tags:

, ,

Comments

8 responses to “Blog”

  1. International Avatar
    International

    Arthur Kirkland

    “all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment.”

    That is one way of looking at it. Another is ‘all who speak to the public, whether or not they are lousy people, are equally protected by the First Amendment.’ The distinction between the expression underlying this dispute and legitimate journalism is substantial, and the distance between this speaker and a decent person seems vast, to the point at which labeling this person scum would likely be unfair to congealed algae. But low-quality people have rights, too.

    Reply
  2. International Avatar
    International

    So basically you are saying that all of the “news” organizations who, for the last 5-7 years or so, have flagrantly lied to the people are not substantial? The era of print and television media is dying and the fact that they fail to see the cause of such death will hasten their demise.

    Reply
  3. International Avatar
    International

    Jeff John Roberts

    A bit late to this but something occurred to me: if the First Amendment should not privilege journalists over other types of speakers, what about the variety of state laws that protect media figures but others. I’m thinking in particular of shield and privilege laws that apply to media members. If the 9th Circuit’s reasoning is correct (and I think it is) that the law protects the act not the person, it is hard to maintain the press/non-press distinction in other areas of the law. Thoughts?

    Reply
  4. International Avatar
    International

    Fred Bernstein

    The court decided the case correctly. But I find the “matter of public concern” reasoning weak. Doesn’t there have to be at least some truth to a statement before it qualifies? Otherwise, I could accuse a important person of criminal behavior, entirely falsely, and then claim the “matter of public concern” defense.

    Reply
  5. International Avatar
    International

    I think the amateur-professional distinction is idiotic in the first place because the media’s role is reporting on current events and commentary on those same events. Whether one is paid or not should have formal bearing; if acting as part of the media you are a part of the media.

    Reply
  6. International Avatar
    International

    alanhenderson

    When did the concept of professional media – that is, news publications regarded by government and intelligentsia as exalted voices of current events – first emerge? Before or after passage of the Bill of Rights? To the best of my knowledge, the American press was dominated mostly if not entirely by dissidents.

    Reply
  7. International Avatar
    International

    It arose slowly as the mass media developed because of the organization required to print and delivery a large number of copies. It was extended by radio and TV because of the cost to set up and staff a station. During this period it was very expensive for anyone to produce content for the masses thus the rise or “professional” journalists.

    Before the rise of the mass media, most newspapers were only a few pages long and could be produced by a few people. Even then printing was a highly skilled art.

    Today with the rise of blogging sites and cheap websites anyone who already owns a computer can produce content that is available to anyone with Internet access in the world. There is no technical reason that this post and comment thread could not be read anywhere in the world. The post and comment require primarily time and effort.

    Reply
  8. International Avatar
    International

    If there is no legally quantifiable difference between amateur and professional journalist, shouldn’t the First Amendment also protect a whistleblowers ‘right to disclose’, as long as that information documents corruption?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *