Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Legal status of bloggers debated / Journalists' shield claimed in response to Apple's lawsuit

It's a tough call...for every Ted Roche, who provides links to valuable information, there's a Madge or a ______ ( put your own name in here)....who is simply providing their own ....

Stop - even Ted provides his own commentary on his posts...if I go to a journalism school, does that make me any better?

I don't think so - yes, journalists should be more vigilant but many times, columnists are considered to be the same as journalists- are they really? If columnists are allowed to be protected, then so should bloggers.

Because what is a blog? - it is a column by someone who gives a damn.

Legal status of bloggers debated / Journalists' shield claimed in response to Apple's lawsuit

2 comments:

Ted Roche said...

I'm not sure what the law i in Canada, but the U.S. system is a mess (surprised?). The U.S. Consititutions;'s Bill of Rights provides for "freedom of the press" in Amendment 1:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

The tradition that journalists have a right to protect their sources to whom they have given a promise of confidentiality is not a Constitutional Right, but it is one that is granted by state "shield laws" in some but not all states. While the confidentiality provisions of client-attorney or doctor-patient privileges can be tested by the standard that the attorney or doctor is licensed to practice their professsion, there is no professsional licensing of journalists and so I think the question of where to draw the line is more difficult.

More on my blog... http://radio.weblogs.com/0117767

Andrew MacNeill said...

Likely a mess in most places - I think clouding the waters is the thought that a device was stolen to get the news. Theft is wrong (even for journalists!) - if this is true, then they certainly shouldn't be protected.

Have you posted more on your blog? I only found the Dan Gilmor stuff.