|
||||||
|
Fight Over Blog Comments Hits High Court
By Josh Rogers on Thursday, November 5, 2009.
Case could decide if bloggers have the same first amendment rights as traditional journalists and determine if media websites can protect the identities of those who post comments anonymously.
At issue are postings on the website called Mortgage lender Implode-O-meter. That’s a Las Vegas blog that tracks the mortgage lending industry. Last year, the blog reported the Plaistow-based Mortgage Specialists had been sanctioned by the state banking department, and posted a confidential document the company had sent to regulators. In response to that posting, someone calling themselves brianbattersby then posted that Mortgage Specialists President Mike Gill was under a tax lien, and had bought his way out of a fraud committed in 2002. The lawyer for Mortgage Specialists says neither claim is true. Mortgage Specialists asked the blog’s editor to remove the confidential document, which he did, and asked for him to identify brianbattersby, which he didn’t. A Superior Court Judge ordered the website to permanently remove the posts and reveal brianbattersby’s identity -- a ruling the website’s attorney, Jeremy Eggleton, told the justices was wrong-headed, in the extreme.
“The trial courts order violates basic principles the 1st amendment, of the US constitution and essentially tramples on the rights both of implode explode both to speak, and to publish and to speak, as well as on the rights of the public to receive information and speak anonymously.”
The attorney for the Mortgage company, Alex Walker, argued that his client deserves the right to identify brianbattersby, that the impode/explode website is in no way journalism, and doesn’t deserve the protections afforded the press by court precedent.
“All of the information they get is received by them, they don’t go out and gather news. The mission on their website is indicates that they are all about transparency education and accountability -- that they add a little bit of editorial work to keep the site coherent. But they are not a news gathering outfit."
But several of the justices seemed leery of drawing such a bright line. Here’s Justice Gary Hicks:
"But the information is newsworthy; people want to know about trends in the mortgage industry, and secondary markets, credit-default swaps."
And here’s Justice James Duggan:
"So they print rumors, right? So does the national enquirer, and that’s a newspaper."
"It’s a newspaper."
"Not that I read it (laughs)."
Laughter aside, the court’s decision in this case is a serious one – at least according to first amendment groups. Public citizen and the Reporters committee for the freedom of the press both say if the lower court ruling stands, it would make it too easy to squelch anonymous speech though lawsuits.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Twittercomments
All comments are moderated before appearing on the site. Comments must adhere to the NHPR.org comment guidelines and terms of use.
I find this a bit ironic where it involves ML-Implode. They cry about their 1st ammendment rights being trampled yet, anyone that posts anything that they don't like, they delete and ban the poster. I love it.
Kuuner,
What you're suggesting is that the ML-implode staff agrees with the opinions of the other 10K forum members who *haven't* had all their posts deleted and *haven't* been banned.
As a matter of fact, there are only 10 forum members with >150 posts to their usernames who *have* been banned. Not surprisingly, "Kuuner" is one of those 10.
Anyone who has moderated an internet forum will tell you that it is difficult, if not impossible, to always be fair. At best, mods try to keep the peace and keep forum litter (flame wars, trolls, etc.) at bay and keep the forums a respectable place for discourse. Inevitably, tough decisions have to be made and some members get kicked off. Looks like that happened to you.
But does that mean we override the opinions of all our forum members? Does that mean we ban all those with whom we disagree? Hardly -- and the above numbers speak for themselves. If anything, we've probably been too lenient on offenders -- people who engage in name-calling and other sorts of disrespectful behavior that we explicitly don't allow.
So anyway, I'll finish with saying that we're not perfect at being forum mods, but we do our best to be fair and equitable. Having only banned a small number of forum members out of the multiple thousands is a testament to our restraint. I know I personally don't agree with the opinions of a great number of our forum members. But I respectfully disagree and or agree to disagree.
That kind of tolerance for different viewpoints is what it takes to run a forum, and we take that seriously.
Kuuner was banned after pointing out ML's "Selective" editing and deletion of posts that correctly pointed out the falacies of ML's preaching vs. their practices. The truth hurts sometimes. ML will delete any post that points out truthful statements about any of their paid advertisers WITHOUT considering the validity of the information posted. They will also delete any post that doesn't "Conform" (They actually used that term when chastising me on a post) to their motives or beliefs.
Oh, and ironically, Justin is the one who banned me after using expletives in an email to me letting me know that I was banned. I find that sophmoric to reduce yourself to having to use expletives to try to illustrate your point.
It figures Justin would respond to defend his practice.
Yes, It's not free speech when posting opinions on a private site however, you shouldn't hide behind the delete button when you've been called out for a blatently one sided view of things if you site is worth anything.
Kuuner,
You might want to check your facts here.
I just checked the date when you were banned and last visited the site -- either August 10 or 11. Given either of these days (or even the 12th) I was in the hospital either coaching labor or stuck in a hospital room with my one-day-old firstborn. That I took time away from this milestone event in my life and emailed you some expletive-laced banning is unlikely. That I'd do so and then completely forget about it is even more unlikely. That I have no record of any communication with you in my email inbox -- I think you've got your facts wrong.
Beyond that, because it's sophomoric (not to mention that I don't see it as an effective way to communicate), I try to keep my electronic correspondence above board and calm. My comment above is an example of this. Your responses here, on the other hand, come off as shrill by comparison.
I don't know who banned you nor do I know who emailed you some curse-laden email. If it truly was me who did this, please forward me the email I sent you (send to justinowings at gmail dot com). Actually, if you can scrounge up the email, I'd encourage you to forward it to me regardless as I'd like to read what was said to you (and see who said it).
Assuming you check your facts and discover that you are, indeed, misremembering key details and in effect slandering my good name, I'd appreciate a public retraction here (and apology) for your comments about me.
While I may not like it that some sites censor content according to what it agrees with, that is a right of a site host, as opposed to rights of free speech. Two totally different issues. That said, I've seen Implode moderately control its message board content to ban some discussion I personally would not have deleted or banned if it were my call, but it was not my call it was theirs as owner of their site. A person's right to free speech never has meant they could say anything they wanted to nor has it meant that what they say has to be left online if a site host wants to remove it.
This case is about an industry that was criticized online, and much of the time that is protected free speech. Cases have already decided that a site host is not responsible for the postings of 3rd party users. I believe this is correct from a moral standpoint and am glad that so far the courts have mostly upheld free speech. Whether sites like Implode are "journalsim" is another issue in this case that I hope ends up in favor of Implode. If the mainstream media did a good job of reporting these views this case might never have happened. But, the media generally cowtows to the corporate advertisers and owners, and glosses over or outright ignores important facts. So little of the housing bubble was accurately reported it's shameful. People want to blame Americans for being stupid to buy into over priced houses with risky loans, for example, but there was virtually nothing warnting them that it was bad, where MOST consumers could see it. Even now, the facts of the housing bubble and bust are MAINLY FOUND ON BLOGS and ALTERNATIVE NEWS sites. It is, therefore, journalism, in the truest sense--reporting of views and facts that allow consumers to hear all sides and be fully informed. The net is full of pro-industry stuff, too, for them to weigh against the blog info like IMplode's. This is the nature and purpose of journalism, not the filtered and advertorial pablum on the network TV news. It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that blogs are allowed to continue to operate, post others' views, and be protected while doing so. If they aren't, NONE of us, not even those online and adept at research, will be able to make informed choices.
It seems the argument boils down to: "Is a blog journalism or not?" Therefore, is a blogger a journalist? Are bloggers held to the same standards, formal or informal, that traditional journalists would be? Is there a 'bright line' between a journalist and anyone who writes something that others might see? The answer to these questions would provide insight to the others.