A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not "a journalist" when she posted nasty comments about a lawyer in a bankruptcy case:
Although media experts said Wednesday that the ruling would have little effect on the definition of journalism, it casts a shadow on those who work in nontraditional media since it highlights the lack of case law that could protect them and the fact that current state shield laws for journalists are not covering recent developments in online media.
"My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information."
The judge ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon's shield law from having to produce sources, saying even though Cox defines herself as media, she was not affiliated with any mainstream outlet. He added that the shield law does not apply to civil actions for defamation.
I've always been against shield laws, one reason being that people already distrust "the media," and claiming special constitutional protection no one else gets is not going to endear us to the public. But the more important reason is that letting the government define who is and who is not a journalist (as must be done to have a shield law) defies the constitutional mandate that government not interfere with freedom of the press. The First Amendment is a right of citizens, not some defined and specially protected group.
Comments
In these days of the Internet, "journalist" is like "pornography:" I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. BTW, do you object to the subsidized U.S. Mail rates for newspapers? The Founders clearly favored special treatment for the press, as Jefferson made clear in his comment about newspapers without a government.