On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:49:59 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

It seems that Freedom of the Press applies only to those who the Government
considers suitable to own and operate the press.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-...014039441.html



That's not the First Amendment, Jim. That's shield laws, which are of
questionable constitutionality to begin with. I say that as someone
who has made his living as a conventional journalist for roughly half
of my career.

I've never fully bought the reasoning that gives journalists such
extraordinary protection against claims of libel and defamation. If
you libel someone, it's libel, no matter who you are.

The laws are designed to protect the mechanism of journalism by which
we can publish rumor and unsubstantiated claims against public
figures, without having to give up our sources. You can find
individual cases to make either side of the issue. But, as the court
implied, at the very least it hinges on an assumption of professional
ethics on the part of most journalists. If every blogger is considered
a journalist, that thin veil of justification is ripped to shreds.

I'm with the court on this one. The plaintiff still has to prove
libel. The decision just keeps the blogger from hiding behind an
assumption of journalistic ethics -- an iffy assumption to begin with.

--
Ed Huntress