Such is the conclusion one could draw from a recent Oregon ruling implying that “bloggers are not journalists.”
Why “journalists” are allowed to display their biases in the public sphere and bloggers are not is a bit of a mystery, and perhaps one we are not supposed to delve too far into.
But being the naughty little sheeple we are, we will do so nonetheless.
An excerpt from the article:
A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not a journalist when she posted online that an Oregon lawyer acted criminally during a bankruptcy case, a decision with implications for bloggers around the country.
Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.
U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.
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.”
Perhaps the judge forgot this law:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s not vague at all, now is it? But like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, they keep erasing laws from the wall and replacing them with new ones.
Finally, what we will have:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
Just as with political correctness, the presumption of guilt is always made of the conservative or those who threaten vested interests. The law is biased in favor of the left, just as with the mainstream media.