On Friday, Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the unanimous court that, especially in the age of the Internet, the distinction between traditional journalist and other speakers doesn’t matter in this case (opinion here).
“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,” Hurwitz wrote.
2 thoughts on “Appeals court rules blogger, press should have same protections”
Comments are closed.
Problem is, there don’t seem to be any restrictions on calumny and slander.
Thanks Zach.
We can’t allow government to determine who is a member of the press. That’s the express lane to Pravda.
The restrictions on calumny and slander come from a vigorous free market and a well-educated public. If Dems and progressives would hold Sykes, Belling, ….. accountable for their calumny and slander by boycotting their advertisers, they’d shape up. I don’t mean to imply that’s easy, it’s not. It is, however, the right path.