Bloggers Now Protected By the First Amendment from We Blog Better

Bloggers Now Protected By the First Amendment

Posted: 03 Feb 2014 09:00 PM PST

A federal court of appeals recently ruled that the same First Amendment protections offered to the mainstream news now applies to web media and the blogosphere. However, this new ruling doesn't necessarily refer to criminal legal issues, but the ruling applies to civil cases.

The ruling was in regards to a case from 1973: Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc. This case set a precedent: The plaintiff must prove negligence if a slander charge is going to stick. The kicker was the fact that this no longer only protects The New York Times, but now the courts have officially stuck up for Joe the Blogger. That line between the journalist and the blogger has blurred even further.

The Way Things Were

Bloggers are a breed of their own. Not only do they refuse to run with the rest of the pack and work for an established news source, but they still maintain the conviction to bullhorn the Internet, concerning their beliefs and views.The blogger is often a lone-wolf type, a rogue of sorts. Loners rarely have attorneys or large offices of staff backing and protecting them. In addition, bloggers tend to have some of the more controversial views, opinions that follow paths less traveled.

Does a controversial opinion make someone wrong? If a blogger has an extreme view, does that make a person less protected by the US Constitution? Also, just because someone might lack the funding to effectively setup a legal defense, should this person suffer even in a civil suit?

These questions have been tackled time and time again recently, as blogger after blogger have been taken to court for defamation and slander – even though the blogger may have been right all along. For instance, one case involving a blogger named Crystal L. Cox railed against Obsidian Finance Group LLC, shedding light on a Ponzi scheme, corruption, money laundering and fraud. Who won the case?

According to the Star Tribune:

"The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme […] A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million."

What was the issue? Cox was a blogger. She wasn't technically a 'trained journalist', or whatever that's supposed to mean.

Essentially, the courts were saying legal protection depended upon whom the defendant worked for, what kind of media the defendant used, and not whether the defendant was correct or competent. The above case was not a situation of someone yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater by any means.

Say, for instance, a concerned citizen from 12 Keys Rehab investigated a dirty politician who was scandalously using drug money to fund a campaign. Under the old rules, the 12 Keys blog could have been thrashed in court for defamation – allowing the truly corrupt to walk free. It's like protecting a biased lapdog journalist, because he used media written on stone tablets, but not protecting free speech written on scrolls by a 'less qualified' writer with a PhD – shouldn't the First Amendment apply to both, since both are considered free speech?

Because of the recent ruling, finally, the law makes more sense.

The First Amendment Fights Another Day

Unfortunately, it had to come to another court decision. In an era where even the most basic Constitutional freedoms are up for 'interpretation', this was certainly a close one.

Nevertheless, now even bloggers are going to receive the same legal protection as their well-established mainstream media counterparts. Why it took all the way to January of 2014 for this decision to be made is curious – but it is certainly a welcome verdict. The courts are beginning to recognize major news outlets are being strangled by the future of media: the blogosphere.

The law is a standard that should be held against everyone. Especially in regards to the most basic issues, such as the First Amendment, this standard should protect everyone without favor or prejudice. Resources, titles, education or legal representation should have no bearing on this most basic human right of free speech.

To recognize Friday's ruling as a victory would be much like praising a child for staying off a busy street. The child should never have been there in the first place! If anything, this child barely dodged a bus headed his way. The same goes for the First Amendment: sure, it's nice that the law will apply to journalists and bloggers alike – but shouldn't this have been the case all along?

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nomadicentrepreneur/2512999341/

The post Bloggers Now Protected By the First Amendment appeared first on Weblogbetter.