| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| NJ court: No shield law for message board posters |
| 2011-06-07 |
| From the News Agency That Shall Not Be Named: The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #6 Basically, it says that message board posters aren't journalists. Fair enough, since a track record could or could not be established (which is why it's a good idea to write original news articles once in a while to establish credibility). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-06-07 21:30 |
| #5 By definition then, IMO MSM-Net professional journalists = major News Organz must now remove themselves from posting Artics on the Net since + return to so-called "Dinosaur" PAPER/PRINTED MEDIA since their Artics are now as subjective + surreal + non-credible, etc. as those written or posted by non-professional Bloggers on online message boards??? Ditto rationale for ANTI-TERROR US DNI + OTHER INTEL vee PATRIOT ACT. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-06-07 21:07 |
| #4 So we are not all equal under the law. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-06-07 19:51 |
| #3 The gist I got was that this was for forum posts. If I posted stuff on Rantburg about some steamy and possibly explosive stuff here and a reporter used it, that reporter is not allowed to keep me as an anonymous poster (or my IP)private in an investigation. Bloggers sometimes are different as they can act like a news organization by the definition of the law (see Pajamasmedia.com or Powerline.com). |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-06-07 16:47 |
| #2 that whole thing is out of control |
| Posted by: newc 2011-06-07 15:56 |
| #1 New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law. It is difficult to get the gist of the implications from this brief article. I wonder what New Jersey's definition of news media is? Is the NYTs considered news media. What if their stories are extremely biased and occasionally made up? What about what Andrew Breitbart does? Or the National Enquirer? These last two sources often have the lowdown on the true story when no else reports it, e.g. the Edwards scandal. Would New Jersey's definition of news media would pass muster at SCOTUS? Bloggers very often get it right when no one else does. Is truth important in reporting or some arbitrary definition of news media? It would seem that at some point NJ would have to expand its definition of legitimate news media. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-06-07 15:46 |