If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Your blog still sucks, but no more than any real journalist's   (slate.com) divider line 46
    More: Interesting, Eugene Volokh, First Amendment, Ninth Circuit, journalists, Judge Andrew Hurwitz, consumer protection  
•       •       •

4697 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2014 at 9:35 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-19 09:37:57 AM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-19 09:40:45 AM  
So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg
 
2014-01-19 09:42:48 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg


It is, after all, the Internet. Everything we type is false.

/except that
//or that
///but not that
 
2014-01-19 09:45:09 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg


No. That's not at all what this says. But thanks for derping.
 
2014-01-19 09:46:44 AM  
The First Amendment just doesn't apply to journalists, priests, and lobbyists. . .Ric Romero reports.
 
2014-01-19 09:47:17 AM  

mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg

No. That's not at all what this says. But thanks for derping.


The blogger said something libelous but it was ok because free press or something.

I'm a simple man of the land. Not a legal scholar
 
2014-01-19 09:54:53 AM  
Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are against this ruling. They tried to suggest only a select group of 'state-designated' journalist have 1st Amendment rights.
 
2014-01-19 09:56:49 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are against this ruling. They tried to suggest only a select group of 'state-designated' journalist have 1st Amendment rights.


Citation needed.
 
2014-01-19 09:57:03 AM  
Blogging: when you have jerked off till your junk is raw, but still feel the need to be on your computer.
 
2014-01-19 09:57:55 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg

No. That's not at all what this says. But thanks for derping.

The blogger said something libelous but it was ok because free press or something.

I'm a simple man of the land. Not a legal scholar


It was OK because the plaintiff could not prove negligence. Believe me, I understand how it's hard to grasp because I've actually studied it and I constantly have to go back and look it up. Defamation law is a really, really weird thing.

What's worse is I've gone back and read a few things about this case and it looks to me like someone dropped the ball on the plaintiff's side. The blogger in question is alleged to be a serial extortionist of people online. She posts defamatory nonsense, registers a bunch of domains echoing her claims, then goes to the victim and offers her services as a "reputation management service".

So, I'm fuzzy on why she's not in jail.
 
2014-01-19 09:59:36 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: I'm a simple man of the land.


www.bolgernow.com

/It wasn't necessarily libelous... That was the point... If a "real" journalist said it, they'd have to prove negligence...
//This is just saying we're all real journalists now and deserve the same protections they get...
 
2014-01-19 10:04:23 AM  
Good.  Go read now (LIE)
 
2014-01-19 10:06:22 AM  

mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg

No. That's not at all what this says. But thanks for derping.

The blogger said something libelous but it was ok because free press or something.

I'm a simple man of the land. Not a legal scholar

It was OK because the plaintiff could not prove negligence. Believe me, I understand how it's hard to grasp because I've actually studied it and I constantly have to go back and look it up. Defamation law is a really, really weird thing.

What's worse is I've gone back and read a few things about this case and it looks to me like someone dropped the ball on the plaintiff's side. The blogger in question is alleged to be a serial extortionist of people online. She posts defamatory nonsense, registers a bunch of domains echoing her claims, then goes to the victim and offers her services as a "reputation management service".

So, I'm fuzzy on why she's not in jail.


She was charged with defamation, not extortion.  And the court just ruled they have to do the whole thing again and this time tell the jury, "no negligence means no defamation".
 
2014-01-19 10:10:01 AM  

pueblonative: mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg

No. That's not at all what this says. But thanks for derping.

The blogger said something libelous but it was ok because free press or something.

I'm a simple man of the land. Not a legal scholar

It was OK because the plaintiff could not prove negligence. Believe me, I understand how it's hard to grasp because I've actually studied it and I constantly have to go back and look it up. Defamation law is a really, really weird thing.

What's worse is I've gone back and read a few things about this case and it looks to me like someone dropped the ball on the plaintiff's side. The blogger in question is alleged to be a serial extortionist of people online. She posts defamatory nonsense, registers a bunch of domains echoing her claims, then goes to the victim and offers her services as a "reputation management service".

So, I'm fuzzy on why she's not in jail.

She was charged with defamation, not extortion.  And the court just ruled they have to do the whole thing again and this time tell the jury, "no negligence means no defamation".


Yes, I'm fuzzy how she has not been charged with extortion. She's allegedly done this sort of thing repeatedly.
 
2014-01-19 10:13:48 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are against this ruling. They tried to suggest only a select group of 'state-designated' journalist have 1st Amendment rights.


Seriously? All the Republicans that clamored for Greenwald's arrest because he was "just a blogger" and not a Real Journalist (tm), and your list is all Democrats? You're farking delusional if you think authoritarian asshats live on one side of the aisle.
 
2014-01-19 10:22:26 AM  

47 is the new 42: Nemo's Brother: Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are against this ruling. They tried to suggest only a select group of 'state-designated' journalist have 1st Amendment rights.

Citation needed.


Boom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjZo-U21mU

I have seen reports with Hilldawg and Pelosi in agreement but am not going to fully Google your own research. This is a start though. Deny if you dare.

The real reason Hillary named a Youtube video as the cause of Benghazi is because of her support to limit anti-Muslim speech in American, based on a bill in the UN.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphe my -20111210
 
2014-01-19 10:24:49 AM  
Oh ya subby?
 
2014-01-19 10:25:23 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Nemo's Brother: Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are against this ruling. They tried to suggest only a select group of 'state-designated' journalist have 1st Amendment rights.

Seriously? All the Republicans that clamored for Greenwald's arrest because he was "just a blogger" and not a Real Journalist (tm), and your list is all Democrats? You're farking delusional if you think authoritarian asshats live on one side of the aisle.


1) I am not a Republican
2) I am against Greenwald's arrest
3) On Fark, more Democrats supported the NSA than Republicans. That is until this week's Obama speech. Now The Dems on Fark will have to re-evaluate their stance
4) To my knowledge, no Republicans are trying to make any anti-Islam speech illegal, nor are they trying to remove the 1 Amendment for non sanctioned journalist.  If I am wrong about this, I will condemn any and all of them too.
5) Why are you not up in arms against Feinstein and Hillary? Why are you not up in arms over Obama's abuse of power?  Hypocrite much?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjZo-U21mU

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphe my -20111210
 
2014-01-19 10:27:45 AM  
How did this go from a misunderstanding of US law to a LIBS LIBS LIBS fark independent fest
 
2014-01-19 10:28:22 AM  
mat catastrophe:

Yes, I'm fuzzy how she has not been charged with extortion. She's allegedly done this sort of thing repeatedly.


Sounds like at best they couldn't make the charges stick.  And IANAL (thought I play one in kinky sex tapes), but from what I remember from college journalism law, all defamation charges require at least negligence and malice if the target is a public official or person so that makes me wonder why the court didn't just say that at the start.
 
2014-01-19 10:31:18 AM  

Nemo's Brother: 5) Why are you not up in arms over Obama's abuse of power? Hypocrite much?


What are you talking about? I've stated multiple times on here that I think Obama has committed massive abuses of power, and how unfortunate I think it is that all the Derpistan people have made legitimate criticism of him difficult because people who criticize him fairly get lumped in with the crazies.

I just think it's strange that you chose to call out only Democrats.
 
2014-01-19 10:41:08 AM  

mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: mat catastrophe: Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg

No. That's not at all what this says. But thanks for derping.

The blogger said something libelous but it was ok because free press or something.

I'm a simple man of the land. Not a legal scholar

It was OK because the plaintiff could not prove negligence. Believe me, I understand how it's hard to grasp because I've actually studied it and I constantly have to go back and look it up. Defamation law is a really, really weird thing.

What's worse is I've gone back and read a few things about this case and it looks to me like someone dropped the ball on the plaintiff's side. The blogger in question is alleged to be a serial extortionist of people online. She posts defamatory nonsense, registers a bunch of domains echoing her claims, then goes to the victim and offers her services as a "reputation management service".

So, I'm fuzzy on why she's not in jail.


Did you look in a mirror and play with your hair while typing that?
 
2014-01-19 11:02:07 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Nemo's Brother: 5) Why are you not up in arms over Obama's abuse of power? Hypocrite much?

What are you talking about? I've stated multiple times on here that I think Obama has committed massive abuses of power, and how unfortunate I think it is that all the Derpistan people have made legitimate criticism of him difficult because people who criticize him fairly get lumped in with the crazies.

I just think it's strange that you chose to call out only Democrats.


well since are so concerned, call out the officials he missed. Otherwise stop trolling Nemo
 
2014-01-19 11:33:57 AM  

Nemo's Brother: 1) I am not a Republican


No, you just only criticize Democrats and defend Republicans.

Nemo's Brother: 3) On Fark, more Democrats supported the NSA than Republicans. That is until this week's Obama speech. Now The Dems on Fark will have to re-evaluate their stance


lolwut

Nemo's Brother: 4) To my knowledge, no Republicans are trying to make any anti-Islam speech illegal, nor are they trying to remove the 1 Amendment for non sanctioned journalist.  If I am wrong about this, I will condemn any and all of them too.


No, they just want to do things like ban Sharia law and stop mosques from being built.

Nemo's Brother: 5) Why are you not up in arms against Feinstein and Hillary? Why are you not up in arms over Obama's abuse of power?  Hypocrite much?


The other day there was a thread about Feinstein, with pretty much everyone agreeing that she's crazy and needs to go. A lot of liberals on Fark aren't too thrilled with Hilary(corpocrat gets tossed around a lot). But of course, neither of those fits your narrative, so you have to ignore them


ReaverZ: Otherwise stop trolling Nemo


"STOP TROLLING THE TROLL!"
 
2014-01-19 11:36:49 AM  

ReaverZ: well since are so concerned, call out the officials he missed. Otherwise stop trolling Nemo


Rep. Peter King would be a great place to start.
 
2014-01-19 11:56:51 AM  
I'm not suggesting he should do it, but I am saying that our world would be a much better place if Nemo's Brother killed himself.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-01-19 11:57:52 AM  
pueblonative

According to Volokh's blog (linked from the article) the "malice" standard is only for punitive damages, or more generally for other than compensatory damages.

Suppose I say "Obama forged his birth certificate." If he doesn't get that assistant professor job at University of Hawaii he can point to actual, quantifiable economic harm and needs only to prove negligence on my part. If his feelings are hurt and people make fun of him, he has to prove malice.
 
2014-01-19 12:11:34 PM  
Of course we ALL have 1st Amendment rights. What this is saying is that even bloggers can get sued for intentionally talking shiat about someone with the purpose of hurting their reputation or whatever. I really don't think this is a new thing.
 
2014-01-19 12:18:57 PM  

ZAZ: pueblonative

According to Volokh's blog (linked from the article) the "malice" standard is only for punitive damages, or more generally for other than compensatory damages.

Suppose I say "Obama forged his birth certificate." If he doesn't get that assistant professor job at University of Hawaii he can point to actual, quantifiable economic harm and needs only to prove negligence on my part. If his feelings are hurt and people make fun of him, he has to prove malice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_v_Sullivan

Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

The First Amendment permits states to formulate their own standards of libel for defamatory statements made about private figures, as long as liability is not imposed without fault. Seventh Circuit reversed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Publishing_Co._v._Butts

Libel damages may be recoverable (in this instance against a news organization) if the injured party is a non-public official; but claimants must demonstrate a reckless lack of professional standards on the part of the organization in examining allegations for reasonable credibility.
 
2014-01-19 12:31:35 PM  

pueblonative: The First Amendment just doesn't apply only to journalists, priests, and lobbyists. . .Ric Romero reports.

 
2014-01-19 12:35:24 PM  
 
2014-01-19 12:44:00 PM  
Bloggers now are on par with the high standards of cable news in the eyes of the law.
 
2014-01-19 01:00:14 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg


Fox has been doing it for decades.
 
2014-01-19 01:01:41 PM  
Not in Alabama they don't.    Greetings from Shelby County as in Shelby County v Holder...   Alabama sucks..     http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/bloggers-incarceration-raises - first-amendment-questions.html?referrer=
 
2014-01-19 01:03:40 PM  
Hmmm..   Didn't realize it was a mobile link..

/you'll get over it
 
2014-01-19 01:12:47 PM  
Bloggers going to get extra access to the Pres?
 
2014-01-19 01:27:32 PM  

Nemo's Brother: 47 is the new 42: Nemo's Brother: Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are against this ruling. They tried to suggest only a select group of 'state-designated' journalist have 1st Amendment rights.

Citation needed.

Boom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjZo-U21mU

I have seen reports with Hilldawg and Pelosi in agreement but am not going to fully Google your own research. This is a start though. Deny if you dare.

The real reason Hillary named a Youtube video as the cause of Benghazi is because of her support to limit anti-Muslim speech in American, based on a bill in the UN.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphe my -20111210


Okay. I'll give you credit on Hillary and Feinstein. However not on Pelosi until you provide a cite for that.

But it's obvious you're a Fark Independent (TM)
 
2014-01-19 02:08:45 PM  
Wait... are people taking blogs seriously?
 
2014-01-19 02:52:23 PM  

Another Government Employee: Good.  Go read now (LIE)


Where does the Long Island Expressway figure into this?
 
2014-01-19 02:53:08 PM  
Shouldn't real journalist's be in quotes here?
 
2014-01-19 03:21:39 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up legally now?

Yourenothelping.jpg


DOKTOR_ZHIVAGO IN FAVOR OF MAKING SHIAT UP

Doktor_Zhivago revealed today that they were possibly in favor of making shiat up on the site Fark.com today, stating "if you're a blogger you can just make shiat up".  Doktor_Zhivago would not comment on this developing story, we'll provide you with more information as it comes to the surface.  Rest assured, readers, there is more to this horrific story and we'll be the first to uncover the truth.
 
2014-01-19 03:43:33 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Another Government Employee: Good.  Go read now (LIE)

Where does the Long Island Expressway figure into this?


Well, like most blogs, the LIE is a giant pile of suck.


/LIE - world's largest parking lot
 
2014-01-19 05:10:40 PM  

Sho_Nuff: Not in Alabama they don't.    Greetings from Shelby County as in Shelby County v Holder...   Alabama sucks..     http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/bloggers-incarceration-raises - first-amendment-questions.html?referrer=


That blogger told the judge to his face that the court had no authority over him. His being a blogger takes a backseat to him being a sovereign citizen jackwagon.
 
2014-01-19 07:50:25 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: ReaverZ: well since are so concerned, call out the officials he missed. Otherwise stop trolling Nemo

Rep. Peter King would be a great place to start.


Name three.
 
2014-01-19 11:00:20 PM  

RINO: Sho_Nuff: Not in Alabama they don't.    Greetings from Shelby County as in Shelby County v Holder...   Alabama sucks..     http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/bloggers-incarceration-raises - first-amendment-questions.html?referrer=

That blogger told the judge to his face that the court had no authority over him. His being a blogger takes a backseat to him being a sovereign citizen jackwagon.


I don't read his blog and don't care about him as a person..  That being said, he's the only person on the cpj list in this country..

http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/2013.php
 
2014-01-19 11:02:03 PM  
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report