1) No one has been able to argue to my satisfaction that the sites in question are journalists. If you're going to claim you're a journalist, you need to meet basic guidelines of professionalism. It isn't about if you slap a 'Vol 1, Num 1' on the top, any idiot can do that. The lack of definition means that anybody, anywhere, can publish whatever they want on the web to their blog, and call themselves a 'journalist'. That doesn't even pass the common sense test. The clause you quote explicitly states that employees of 'newspapers, magazines and other periodical publications' are shielded. A periodical publication is... ? I post to my blog semi-regularly. The entries are dated. Does that make me a journalist? Cool! Ed sucks goats! I have proof! And I don't have to give you my sources! ;) Insane? Yes. Now, could I get away with that if I were handing out a piece of paper on the street corner? Under CA law, you'd still be able to sue me for defamation. The same laws should apply offline and on.
The CA Shield Law is vaguely written. Poorly written laws regularly get interpreted differently by different judges. I'm glad to see some basic common sense getting used here.
2) Many people are trying to assert that this will have nation-wide effects. It is a CA ruling in a CA state court, as you point out. It may very well be that this ruling is against the spirit of the Shield Law, but it is within interpretation of the language. If the CA legislature decides it needs tightening up to satisfy this situation, then they're welcome to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: The law and why people are ticked...
Date: 2005-03-15 06:45 pm (UTC)1) No one has been able to argue to my satisfaction that the sites in question are journalists. If you're going to claim you're a journalist, you need to meet basic guidelines of professionalism. It isn't about if you slap a 'Vol 1, Num 1' on the top, any idiot can do that. The lack of definition means that anybody, anywhere, can publish whatever they want on the web to their blog, and call themselves a 'journalist'. That doesn't even pass the common sense test. The clause you quote explicitly states that employees of 'newspapers, magazines and other periodical publications' are shielded. A periodical publication is... ? I post to my blog semi-regularly. The entries are dated. Does that make me a journalist? Cool! Ed sucks goats! I have proof! And I don't have to give you my sources! ;) Insane? Yes. Now, could I get away with that if I were handing out a piece of paper on the street corner? Under CA law, you'd still be able to sue me for defamation. The same laws should apply offline and on.
The CA Shield Law is vaguely written. Poorly written laws regularly get interpreted differently by different judges. I'm glad to see some basic common sense getting used here.
2) Many people are trying to assert that this will have nation-wide effects. It is a CA ruling in a CA state court, as you point out. It may very well be that this ruling is against the spirit of the Shield Law, but it is within interpretation of the language. If the CA legislature decides it needs tightening up to satisfy this situation, then they're welcome to.