Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.
Most journalists adhere to the standards and norms expressed in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
What about bloggers?
` . . . we can see no sustainable basis to distinguish petitioners [the online journalists] from the reporters, editors, and publishers who provide news to the public through traditional print and broadcast media' —A California court in response to Apple Corp. suit launched against online news sites
John Doe 1 v. Cahill, Chief Justice Myron Steele (Delaware Supreme Court) described the Internet as a "unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before" and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
Steele noted in the opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and "generally set the record straight," and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
(Did you see that line I bolded right up there?)
There are many more decisions and opinions out there, but most support these two cases, often with the opinion that the Internet gives regular people the ability to state opinions and pass information that mainstream media does not. One of the main points of dissension seems to be on comments to an article.
Does the blog host have a responsibility to moderate commenters and screen out possibly false or libelous statements? Or does it become a third party issue, with the commenter bearing the brunt of his or her statements? Personally, I feel it is a combination of the two.
As a blog host I feel I have a responsibility to decide what lines my commenters may cross. If I felt someone had crossed that line, I would remove the comment, for both my protection and theirs. Happily, I have never felt the need to do that, and I hope I never will. I will caution commenters though, do not take your right to comment for granted. This is my forum. You are here because I allow you to be.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. . . . . Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but the uprightness of the decision."
A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.
Most journalists adhere to the standards and norms expressed in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
What about bloggers?
` . . . we can see no sustainable basis to distinguish petitioners [the online journalists] from the reporters, editors, and publishers who provide news to the public through traditional print and broadcast media' —A California court in response to Apple Corp. suit launched against online news sites
John Doe 1 v. Cahill, Chief Justice Myron Steele (Delaware Supreme Court) described the Internet as a "unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before" and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
Steele noted in the opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and "generally set the record straight," and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
(Did you see that line I bolded right up there?)
There are many more decisions and opinions out there, but most support these two cases, often with the opinion that the Internet gives regular people the ability to state opinions and pass information that mainstream media does not. One of the main points of dissension seems to be on comments to an article.
Does the blog host have a responsibility to moderate commenters and screen out possibly false or libelous statements? Or does it become a third party issue, with the commenter bearing the brunt of his or her statements? Personally, I feel it is a combination of the two.
As a blog host I feel I have a responsibility to decide what lines my commenters may cross. If I felt someone had crossed that line, I would remove the comment, for both my protection and theirs. Happily, I have never felt the need to do that, and I hope I never will. I will caution commenters though, do not take your right to comment for granted. This is my forum. You are here because I allow you to be.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. . . . . Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but the uprightness of the decision."
posted by a-fire-fly at 12:00 PM
<< Home