Thursday, July 02, 2009
A private person with unexplained motives
My shrink ran 90 minutes late today. For an appointment rarely lasting more than ten minutes. I bring a paperback. I don't expect to read ten chapters & watch a half hour of news. It's in a crappy part of the city - not the crappiest, that's a few more blocks. At least it wasn't the blast furnace heat we usually have in early July. On the way back I like to make a few stops downtown, a place I generally avoid. I was feeling cranky by the time I saw him, the stores would be closing, there were dark storm clouds approaching. I'm sure he understood why I gave monosyllabic answers to his standard inquiries. Sometimes we have a little chat. Not today. I don't bother complaining, it's a mental health clinic, everybody complains whether or not their gripes are rational, the staff is expected only to listen patiently.
Warning, Fellow Bloggers:
Warning, Fellow Bloggers:
A judge in Freehold ruled today that a Washington State blogger who posted comments about the pornography industry is not covered by shield laws that protect newspaper reporters and can be sued for defamation.
Acknowledging that he was wading into largely uncharted legal waters, Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio said Shellee Hale's message board postings last year about a Freehold-based computer software company were nothing more than the rants of "private person with unexplained motives for her postings" and cannot be given the same protections as information compiled though the process of news gathering.
***
The decision maintains the distinction between internet bloggers and journalists affiliated with news organizations, said Thomas Cafferty, counsel to the New Jersey Press Association.
Bloggers have always been subjected to defamation claims in New Jersey, Cafferty said, but this case shows they cannot use the Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources.
Labels: about writing, Elizabeth NJ, mental health
Comments:
<< Home
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
It appears from the article you linked to that she was busted for her posts on a public message board, ("in her postings on forums frequented by people in the adult entertainment industry") and not for what she wrote on her blog. I have also been warned about what I post on message boards in that they are not protected speech, per se. What we write on our blogs, however, could possibly stand up to scrutiny.
Last summer I posted an "expose" of a charitable organization that heavily advertises on radio here, using only info from their websites, which they didn't bother explaining in their ads (they helped only Jewish kids). I received a long e mail from them. I quickly concluded my blog was way too puny for what I wanted to do, so deleted the post.
Define "puny." I don't consider what I write on my blog to be breaking anything these days, now that there are the major blogs with their multiple paid writers. But I do write what I feel like, four letter words and all. I don't put my opinions up anymore in public chat rooms or on public message boards. It's just not worth the hassle. However, unlike you, no one has ever written me an email to complain about what I have said about them, although, with the ability to see IP addresses, I do notice that people in various government areas have viewed my blog. That alone gives me the creeps!
Those are creepy IP addresses. They might mean that people on gov puters are either dicking around online instead of working, or they are working. The latter possibility is really creepy.
Post a Comment
<< Home
