ya know why? cuz press is owned by power baby!! Bloggers arent-

Judges corrupt powerful judges- this one goes on the court whores page

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&thepage=2

Blogger Sued For Defamation Can’t Invoke Shield Law, Says N.J. Judge

 

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."

Hale, of Washington state, has a private investigator’s license and a degree in respiratory therapy but not one in journalism. She operates two Web sites, camandago.com and coachshellee.com, on which she offers her services as a "life coach," fitness adviser and freelance investigative journalist, and also keeps a blog, shelleehale.net/blog.

The comments that led to the suit concerned a Too Much Media software product known as NATS, which helps businesses that link to each other keep track of click-generated commissions. Some software users are apparently porn sites, and Hale came across NATS while looking into criminal activity in the adult entertainment industry.

In early 2008, media reports noted a security breach that allowed hackers to break into the NATS database and access lists of subscribers to adult Web sites.

Hale weighed in on the subject, accusing Too Much Media of engaging in fraud and "illegal and unethical use of technology," violating New Jersey’s Identity Theft Protection Act and profiting from stolen e-mail addresses. She also said the company’s principals "may threaten your life if you report any of the specifics."

She claims her comments were meant to inform the public about alleged misuse of technology, and about frauds and scams in the online porn industry and to facilitate debate on the issues.

The company sued Hale for defamation and was planning to ask about her sources at deposition, when she moved for a protective order based on the shield law, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21.

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.

"To extend the newsperson’s privilege to such posters would mean anyone with an e-mail address, with no connection to any legitimate news publication, could post anything on the Internet and hide behind the Shield Law’s protection," which was not what the Legislature intended when it passed the statute, the judge said.

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.

Too Much Media’s attorney, Joel Kreizman of Evans Osborne & Kreizman in Ocean, N.J., says the Internet is just a means of communication and should not change the substantive law of defamation. "There’s a lot of the Wild West out there, but that doesn’t make it right."

Hale’s lawyer, Jeffrey Pollock of Fox Rothschild in Princeton, N.J., was traveling and could not be reached for comment but Kreizman says Pollock has indicated he will appeal.

New Jersey Press Association general counsel Thomas Cafferty, of Scarinci Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst, N.J., says evolving technology has made it more difficult to draw the line between who is and is not a journalist but he has "no great difficulty" with where Locascio drew that line. If the shield law applies to all bloggers, the criteria are so watered down that it applies to everyone, in his view.

Jonathan Hart, a lawyer for the Online News Association, says "The important thing to keep in mind about Judge Locascio’s opinion is that it does not say that bloggers aren’t entitled to the protections of New Jersey’s shield law. It says only that this defendant on the peculiar facts before the court wasn’t entitled to invoke the protections of the shield law." Hart is with Dow Lohnes in Washington, D.C.

Locascio has submitted his opinion for publication.

Technorati Tags: cant,Blogger,Defamation,Shield,Judge,Bloggers,Judges,article,criticism,industry,message,Jersey,Monmouth,Superior,Court,Louis,Locascio,June,Shellee,Hale,comments,Oprano,Wall,Street,Journal,incompetence,protection,journalist,courts,task,times,soap,Washington,investigator,degree,therapy,journalism,services,life,adviser,product,NATS,Some,entertainment,reports,database,subject,fraud,technology,Theft,specifics,deposition,Though,nation,news,persons,purpose,newspaper,magazine,affidavit,credence,certification,knowledge,plaintiff,residence,domicile,self,statement,Also,failure,newspapers,fact,editorial,poster,connection,publication,Internet,Legislature,statute,cases,requirement,malice,negligence,basis,addition,absence,reputation,humiliation,anguish,attorney,Joel,Kreizman,Evans,Osborne,Ocean,communication,Wild,West,lawyer,Jeffrey,Pollock,Rothschild,Princeton,Association,Thomas,Scarinci,Hollenbeck,Lyndhurst,Jonathan,Hart,Online,opinion,Lohnes,users,scams,articles,journals,protections,magazines,posters,criteria,software,porn,postings,blog