Courts may not allow you to use journalists' protections in law suits.
A blogger sued for her online criticism of a software company on a porn industry message board cannot invoke New Jersey's press shield law, a Monmouth County judge says in a case of first impression in the state.
Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio's June 30 ruling allows the company, Too Much Media, to ask blogger Shellee Hale the sources for comments she posted on Oprano, a Web site that proclaims itself the "Wall Street Journal of porn."
Locascio also made a second novel ruling in the case, Too Much Media LLC v. Hale, MON-L-2736-08, holding the company can pursue damages even without a showing of pecuniary loss, based on postings that accuse it of criminal conduct and business incompetence.
In denying Hale protection as a journalist, Locascio said courts "are now being faced with the task of evaluating a virtually limitless number of people who claim to be 'reporting' on issues, but who are, many times, doing little more than shouting from a digital soap box..."
Though calling New Jersey's shield law one of the nation's broadest, Locascio denied Hale's motion because she failed to make a prima facie case that she was connected with the news media. The law protects persons "engaged on, engaged in, connected with, or employed by news media for the purpose of gathering, procuring, transmitting, compiling, editing or disseminating news for the general public."
Locascio found no evidence Hale ever worked for a newspaper, magazine or media entity. He discounted as a "sham affidavit, entitled to no credence" her certification saying she had published articles in one newspaper and several trade journals because she did not provide specifics and she lied in a prior certification concerning a jurisdictional motion, when she denied any knowledge of the plaintiff's residence or domicile.
There was "little evidence (other than her own self-serving statement)" that she "actually intended to disseminate anything newsworthy to the public." Also, Hale's failure to contact Too Much Media to get its side of the story "certainly does not suggest the kind of journalistic objectivity and credibility that courts have found to qualify for the protections of the Shield Law," wrote Locascio.
He analogized Hale's postings to the written public comments that often appear below articles published on Web sites of newspapers and magazines, noting such comments require no fact-checking or editorial review and there is "so little accountability" that it is nearly impossible to determine the identity of the poster...
Locascio also held that as a nonjournalist, Hale would not enjoy another protection afforded the media in defamation cases: the requirement that a plaintiff prove actual malice, rather than mere negligence, as a basis for liability.
In addition, he denied Hale's motion to dismiss based on the alleged absence of pecuniary damages, saying Too Much Media and its principals could recover for harm to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation and mental anguish.
Basically, the judge is throwing this blogger to the sharks, based on her lack of credentials and outrageous conduct online. This isn't to say that other bloggers might not enjoy protection under the law, but one must show a certain degree of journalistic integrity (don't laugh!) to be covered. This sounds about right to me. It's not fair that any Tom, Dick or Sally can say what they please about individuals and companies without fear of reprisal. There has to be some standard for these things, after all.
|