The Georgia General Assembly can remove that gray area by passing legislation that extends First Amendment protections to blogs and bloggers.
McBerry, as you may know, was accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor under the age of 18 several years ago. McBerry denies the allegations and threatened lawsuits against any media outlet who repeated the claims.
Many of Georgia's political bloggers, myself included, openly mocked the threat of legal action from McBerry. There are others, though, who are nervous about the possibility of defending their work in court.
Sara, an attorney who runs the site "Going Through The Motions," attempted to assuage those concerns by outlining in four points why Ray McBerry would A.) not file a lawsuit in court; and B.) lose his case if he did file suit.
The legal precedent cited by Sara in her post was New York Times v. Sullivan; which determines, according to her analysis, "that in order for a newspaper to have libeled a public figure, it must have shown actual malice--meaning either the newspaper knew a published statement was untrue or showed a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity."
Still, Sara said, "There is little law out there on the question of whether blogs enjoy the same first amendment protections as 'traditional press' like newspapers in defamation cases."
It is largely presumed that blogs and bloggers are protected under the First Amendment. However, blogs regularly fall into the gray area; and this is one of those times. The Georgia General Assembly can remove that gray area by passing legislation that extends First Amendment protections to blogs and bloggers.
Bloggers, I believe, should enjoy the same First Amendment protections afforded to the traditional press under New York Times v. Sullivan.
Blogs and bloggers play a unique role in disseminating information to the masses. Blogs help foster democracy by regularly holding elected officials and candidates for public office accountable. The threats of lawsuits for publishing that information; for holding public figures accountable would be, I believe, a deterrent to people launching and maintaining blogs in the future.
There is a opportunity here for Georgia lawmakers to show their support for new media by declaring definitively that blogs are as deserving of First Amendment protections as the traditional press. Let's end the ambiguity so that bloggers will have some sort of shield from unfounded charges of libel and slander designed to silence vital discussion and debate in our state.
Andre, You raise a good point in regards to First Amendment protection for bloggers, but where the gray area comes in is in trying to separate online media sources which attempt to engage in factual reporting and those which try to spur interest and make a splash by writing over the top opinion pieces which are not based on good factual research.
ReplyDeleteIt is something bloggers constantly accuse their big brothers in mainstream media of doing on a daily basis. There are clear examples of when the First Amendment protections apply and times it does not, i.e., yelling fire in a crowded theater. Lawmakers and judicial folks are left with trying to decipher the writers intent. Mind reading is not a very credible science for determining intent.
As always it is up to the consumer of the news to make that determination. I would just hope that the consumer is savvy enough to determine which sources of information contain factual, well documented information and which ones stray off into the more common editorializing and opinion genre.
As always I would caution readers to make sure that anything they read or hear answers the basic questions of who, what, where, when, and how with an occasional why thrown in from verifiable sources.
McBerry has a problem simply because there is a document trail and reporting the facts of the case is not libel.