On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:39:06 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:24*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:12*pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

Just because one does not need any journalistic qualifications to call
himself a "journalist" does not provide immunity to libel suits.

I do not think that being affiliated with one of the media, being paid
for articles written , and calling himself a journalist, provides any
immunity from libel suits. Don't *newpapers get sued for libel?


In the more general case does one need to be recognized as a
"journalist" to exercise the Freedom of the Press?

Under the law? It depends on which freedoms you're talking about. The
general freedom to publish is open to everyone. Regarding shielding
reporters from having to reveal sources, that varies by state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_..._United_States

It doesn't apply to self-proclaimed "journalists" who are not
recognized by the laws and the courts.

Regarding libel, public figures generally have to prove actual malice
to sue a reporter. This is a really fuzzy area and it may also apply
to bloggers; I haven't kept up with the cases. Otherwise, reporters
are liable to libel suits if they defame someone and it can be proven
that the reporter intended malice toward the public figure. If the
subject is not a public figure, the reporter is generally subject to
the same libel standards as anyone else.

The question of who is a journalist is in legal turmoi because of the
Internet. Judges generally are calling it pretty well, about the same
as the general public would call it. Arcane or tedious definitions
need not apply. One may prove his point in terms of dictionary
definitions, but lose the case in court. Common understandings are
more important than academic or extreme definitions in this area. The
terms used in law are always, preferably, those that are generally
understood by the public.

--
Ed Huntress