Beware, anonymous posters:
The Indianapolis Star has asked the Indiana Court of Appeals to decide, possibly for the first time, whether the state's journalism Shield Law and state and U.S. constitutions protect media outlets from being forced to disclose the identities of anonymous posters to their websites.
The request comes in an appeal, filed Monday, of a Marion County judge's order requiring The Star to turn over identifying details on an anonymous poster to IndyStar.com.
"The order decides an issue of law heretofore not addressed by an Indiana appellate court," The Star said in a motion to delay Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid's order while the appeal is pending.
The appeal comes in a defamation lawsuit by former Junior Achievement of Central Indiana Executive Director Jeffrey Miller and his wife, Cynthia.
The Millers want to uncover the author of an anonymous post in April 2010 that they allege was defamatory to Jeffrey Miller.
The Star contends that the state's Shield Law, which protects media outlets from being forced to reveal sources of information they gather, applies in the case, as do constitutional rights to free speech.
I'm no fan of shield laws, and I'm not sure the right of free speech includes making libelous claims anonymously. I have mixed feelings about the benefits of anonymous postings. They can keep a debate lively and brisk, but they also encourage bad manners and a certain looseness with the truth.
Comments
I realize you, as a journalist, know the difference, but many outside the business don't: There is no such thing in the U.S. as "libel law."
Libel and slander are purely civil matters.
As for shield laws, I used to favor them, as it is difficult for reporters to do their jobs without them. But nowadays, thanks (?) to the Internet, anyone can claim to be a journalist, and therefore anyone can refuse to testify.
Just as modern art made everyone an "artist" and modern music made everyone a "musician," the internet has made everyone a "journalist." We are worse for it, I think.
Another reason not to champion shield laws is that we make claims to a privilege the ordinary person can't. We may of late all be journalists, but we've always all been citizens, with equal rights and obligations.
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Plain and simple language, don't you think?
If someone has $85 for a filing fee to take on someone they believe should not be protected/has been libelous, let them go for it. Otherwise, whatever the voices out there, "press" or otherwise, protect and nurture them as if your life depended on it.
We also make "claims" ordinary persons can't because the constitution specifically mentions "press" as a vocation/job/industry to get primo protection. Can't think of any other "job" that gets singled out that way for protecction. Pretty clear to me.
AJ
There seems (to me) something patently unfair about a "shield" law or provision for journalists or anyone for that matter.
"But nowadays, thanks (?) to the Internet, anyone can claim to be a journalist, and therefore anyone can refuse to testify."
Do you collect information and publish it? You're a journalist.
That's been true before the internet was ever invented. The internet just made the publishing part easier.
Leo: "We may of late all be journalists, but we
Shield laws really don't make any sense, anyway.
If a newsman *witnesses* something, it's not a matter of protecting a source; they are themselves the source.
If someone *tells* a newsman something, it shouldn't be admissible evidence under the hearsay rule.
Andrew, you need to take another look at the first amendment. There were no news periodicals in existance in 1789 when the Constitution was adopted or in 1791 when the first amendment was ratified. The first amendment protects the right to *publish* whatever you want to publish, and it applies to everyone. It doesn't give anyone the right to gather news.
U r wrong. Google newspapers in 1789. I found 60.