When Truth Survives Free Speech

Sure, if the thing to be judged has a limited number of inputs and factors and outcomes...which is something that does not apply to the content of the Web, of course.

But in other cases where the answer is basically, "yes" or "no"...if an algorithm chooses the right answer, doesn't that count as truth? Take for example, the Apgar score, which consists of giving a newborn a score of 0 to 2 for five categories: complexion, pulse rate, reflex, muscle tone, and breathing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score

A baby that scores 8 is considered to be doing well. A baby with just 5 merits additional examination.

This simple numerical score is credited with revolutionizing obstetric medicine and is still used today, even though it was first published in 1953. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/09/061009fa_fact?cu...

I guess it's debatable whether this counts as an "algorithm"...but it involves the mechanical evaluation of a "score", with set guidelines for when such score is dangerously low. The fact that the scoring is done through human judgment is peripheral to the matter...it's not hard to imagine a machine being able to perform the same test (perhaps more accurately) were it cost-practical to build such a machine.

One more interesting note: The Apgar score was not developed by an expert. It was developed by a female doctor who had never delivered a baby (nor had a baby) herself, but felt that doctors were giving up too quickly on sick babies.

Very very incorrect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law , which have the force of law but are neither statutory nor regulatory law (which I assume is what you mean by “a text of law”; arguably case law, since it is in the form of written decisions, actually is “a text of law” anyway).

This may sound a bit radical, but I'm not even sure I want the government stepping in and doing anything about libel. It's already true that you can't trust everything you read, and this includes articles from "official" journalism institutions. It does hurt to have your reputation damaged, though. That's a tradeoff that is a bit disconcerting, but may be worth it in order to have a more strict, black-and-white definition of what the government can and cannot censor. The more things that the government is legally able to censor, the more subjective freedom of speech becomes, and the more it gets in danger.

> #1 and #2 say that you need a piece of paper to be a journalist.

no, they say that if you have a piece of paper, you could be a journalist. if you have no paper, but meet other criteria, you could be a journalist.

> #3 through 5 says that you need to have "standards" to be a journalist

yup

> Again there is no one to bell the cat

judges bell cats. that's the whole point of the judicial system. i'm going to show you how a reasonable judge (hey, reasonable person) would apply this standard:

> If your rush expose has numerous misspellings, do you lose your status?

nope. that's nowhere in the standard.

> How closely must you check your facts?

depends on the facts. something controversial? probably pretty closely. something obvious? probably not all that close. the important thing is that this is something that you as an organization do. cox didn't do any at all. great, doesn't meet this standard.

> How much conflict of interest must you disclose? "Disclosure: the author loves Apple products."

that's not a conflict of interest.

> Similarly for keeping notes and being up front with your sources.

seriously? you're okay with people who don't keep notes and lie to their sources "journalists"? the issue is not whether you didn't keep notes that one time. cox never did. she's not a journalist.

> #7 says that unless you provide fair views or equal time

nope. it just says you have to contact the opposing party for their perspective. you don't have to devote half your article to them. you'll notice that fox news has democrats on for their pundits to yell at. of course, cox never contacted the plaintiff for his opinion.

> what is journalism? It's broadcasting an eyewitness account, or original ideas derived from an eyewitness account, to the public

no. that's tweeting. if you think people anybody who writes anything about the real world special protections not afforded to the rest of the population, you're insane. the issue at hand is whether or not certain people get special protections (particularly from subpoenas). look, if you tweet about a murder that you heard about from someone, the DA can subpoena you for your source and your testimony. if you tweet about it, that doesn't make you a journalist immune from divulging your sources.

> Freedom of the press means freedom to publish and be read without censorship.

yup. there's no first amendment issue here! cox made defamatory statements; those are not neither covered under shield laws nor the first amendment!

> doesn't mean that we need to somehow narrow the field of journalism to exclude the unwashed masses

publishing and journalism are not the same! we provide journalists with special protections because they provide us (the public) with something valuable (journalism). we pass laws giving them special treatment (we're not allowed to subpoena their sources), and as such, we should definitely expect certain standards from them. i don't think the bar for journalism should be super high, but that doesn't not make everyone a journalist.

> We might need to specify the definition of "journalistic activity" if we need to carve out special protections.

that's the whole point. shield laws apply only to journalists. that's the question at hand.