California court: Bloggers get same protections as journalists
There's no federal shield law for journalists who want to protect their sources - but many states DO have shield laws.
But what about bloggers? Under those state laws, do bloggers have the right to withhold their sources, just like journalists?
In California, the answer is yes. From the SF Chronicle:
In their ruling, the judges said the online news sites should be treated as newspapers, television and radio broadcasts are. O'Grady and the other bloggers, they contended, were acting as traditional reporters and editors do: developing sources, collecting information and publishing it, albeit on the Web."The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what the petitioners did here," the judges said in the ruling. ...
In the end, the judges made little distinction between online journalists and traditional journalists.
"Does Walter Cronkite stop being a journalist if he blogs for the Huffington Post (an online news site)?" Opsahl said. "What makes a journalist a journalist is not the format. If you're engaged in journalism, you're a journalist. You have to look beyond the medium selected."
See the full 69-page decision (PDF).
Kari Chisholm | May 27, 2006 | Comments (1) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
This is a huge decision, and I would expect will have an influence even in other states. It is certainly reflective of the sea change that is happening with what I think is a blurring of journalism and blogging in general.
The decision is certified for publication, which means that unless the California Supreme Court takes the case up, it is the law in California.
I just posted an article about it on the California Progress Report http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/05/court_rules_blo.html that goes through the decision. (I am an attorney as well). This decision will have ramifications beyond just the "shield law" and is fascinating to read.
Posted by: Frank D. Russo | May 30, 2006 5:50:04 AM
