---- Blogger Not Covered By Journalists' Legal Protection: Fined $2.5 Million
Demaestro - 12:19 am on Dec 8, 2011 (gmt 0)
Yes, but what should the standard be? Explain, please.
I am not about to write laws outlining what is and isn't allowed within the realm of journalism, those law exist and are on the books.
I am saying it aught to be a higher standard than is used at the Enquirer, what ever that is I don't know.
FWIW, the folks who award the Pulitzer prizes have historically considered the Enquirer not to be eligible.
Great bit of trivia there, but the courts of America do consider them a news agency and their reporters to be protected as jounalists, and since it is a court who ruled this women isn't a journalist then it is the court whom I will be discussing here.
If the current standard allows a journalist to report what a source told them without some basic fact checking then that is the standard by which this women should be judged. If people disagree with that standard then they need to have that law changed but if courts are going to allow publications like the Enquirer to do this without punishment then they should allow this women to do it without punishment.
If courts are going to start punishing people then they should start punishing companies for the exact same thing.
This is a clear case of a company having more rights than an individual. How can it be that simply having an association with a company makes your actions legal?
The court outright said if she was associated with a company she would have been protected, but since she has no association with a company then her actions are illegal.
I find it hard to swallow that what transpired has no bearing when determining her guilt. She could have done the exact same thing but worked for the Enquirer and the ruling goes in her favour. Take out that association and her actions sudden become actionable.
Company backing = innocent No company backing = guilty
It is stupid that what determines guilt or innocence is a company, company or no company her actions are the same either way, why does the presence of a company absolve her of her actions?
"Well if you worked for a company we would let you off the hook for what you did, but since you are a just a person trying to do the independent thing we are going to bend you over."