When Truth Survives Free Speech
nytimes.com
When Truth Survives Free Speech
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#2Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation.
The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't work for big traditional organizations like the NYT. Now the NYT, the employer of the author of this article, is, like many traditional media organizations, financially threatened by independent bloggers who have been gaining massive traction and readership over the last decade that draws away from traditional large media. The publisher and supporters of giant consolidated media are threatened by loss of consolidated points of media control which special interests can leverage. Completely independent journalists, including many bloggers, have been threatening the status quo for some time. Overreaching court rulings that only those working for corporate agencies are "legitimate" certainly serve the interests of those in power.
Whether the independent journalist/blogger in question was guilty of defamation didn't require such a finding about their status as a journalist so the decision is certainly overreaching.
On the issue of the Oregon Shield Law, the judge certainly misrepresented it since by stating (exact quote from ORS 44.510) "'Medium of communication' has its ordinary meaning and includes, but is not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.", it says INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, in its definition of "Mediums of Communication". The definition of "medium of communication" is critical because in ORS 44.520 the law reads "No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a legislative, executive or judicial officer or body, or any other authority having power to compel testimony or the production of evidence, to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise..." Not just employed by, but connected with or engaged in any medium of communication to the public. Any reasonable reading of this law will include independent journalists and bloggers.
Full text of Oregon Shield law: http://www.orenews.com/web/legal/shieldslaw.php
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#3Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
If the NY Times has the right facts I'm wondering if the judge was trying to give Mr. Padrick some justice. Anyone know what Oregon's shield law has to say about magazines that are defamatory?
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#4Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
how are shield laws relevant? shield laws protect journalists sources from subpoenas; they don't give blanket protection against defamation
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#5Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
how are shield laws relevant? shield laws protect journalists sources from subpoenas; they don't give blanket protection against defamation
That's the point, I think: the judge shouldn't have decided the question of whether the shield law applied to bloggers, because it wouldn't have provided a shield in this case anyway.
edit: Though come to think of it, maybe the judge though that was the easier question (wrongly, imo), and so looked at it in the other direction: since we can decide that bloggers aren't journalists, we don't need to unnecessarily decide the question of what behavior the Oregon Shield Law shields.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#6Carr ends with:
>> Then again, I’ve got some institutional muscle when it comes to how I’m perceived on the Web. All Mr. Padrick had was his good reputation. Too bad there’s no algorithm to measure truth.
I know he's a writer and needs to end with a real zinger, but it's a cheap shot against algorithms and their role in helping us make correct assessments.
1. There are algorithms which can gauge truth and accuracy. There's few modern psychological theories so consistently proven than how algorithms can outperform experts in making judgements.
2. Despite a blanket dismissal of algorithms in general, Carr is of course taking issue with companies like Google. Ignoring that truth-judgement over a body of data as diverse as the web is going to be a very, very tricky problem for computers and humans... is the Google search engine's only directive to find "truth"? Ideally, the top search results contain the truth, but Google makes a philosophical judgment that other factors (such as link popularity and location) need to be considered when retrieving the most relevant results...because relevance is easier and safer to judge than truth.
In the same vein, the New York Times would like to say that the advertisements they run all contain truth. But truthiness is not the main criteria they use when deciding which ads to run: advertisements are printed because companies/interest groups/candidates put their money behind it.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#7Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
This is probably the most telling bit of information:
The provisions of ORS 44.520 (1) do not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information. [1973 c.22 ss.4,5; 1979 c.820 s.2]
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#8I dont know...
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#9Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
how are shield laws relevant? shield laws protect journalists sources from subpoenas; they don't give blanket protection against defamation
"Oregon law provides special legal protections against defamation lawsuits to journalists associated with traditional media outlets. Such publications are immune from defamation suits unless the defamed individual first requests a retraction. Journalists at recognized media outlets are also protected from revealing confidential sources. Cox argued that she was eligible for protection under both provisions and asked the judge to set aside the verdict."
From http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-blogge...
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#10I think the more interesting part of this is why Google has allowed this woman to manipulate the SERP's in order to bash this guy for so long. They usually have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to burying sites like hers for using keyword stuffing and other questionable SEO techniques.
Likewise, I'm surprised Mr. Padrick never contacted Google to have these pages removed either.
Had either Google or Mr. Padrick done their due diligence, I hardly think this case would have gotten as far as it did.