[UPDATE: Apparently, Sheila Regan is attending and reporting on the trial for TC Daily Planet, this link for Monday's summary. Although not live-blogging, it is the only direct coverage I have seen. It is likely less error-prone than live-blogging. Hat tip to Regan and Daily Planet.]
New links, or new to me today:
MPR - Laura Yuen reporting.
MPR again - Bob Collins opining.
Both bylined March 8.
------------------------------
Mid-story, Yuen wrote:
Jane Kirtley, a media law professor at the university, says she was surprised to see the case advance this far. (Kirtley says while many of these cases are brought forward, they're often thrown out without ever going to trial.)
"It's also fair to say that the the sort of give-and-take atmosphere of the blogosphere raised a greater tolerance for the kind of free-for-all commentary that we see so much on the Internet," Kirtley said. [...]
Legal experts say the case against John Hoff will be tough to prove. Now that the judge has ruled that Jerry Moore is essentially a public figure, Moore himself bears the burden of proving Hoff acted maliciously. That means he must show Hoff knew his allegations were false, or had reckless disregard for the truth.
Hoff says his defense is the truth, and he stands by his blogging.
[...] Jerry Moore's attorney did not return a phone call seeking comment for this story. In the suit, she argues that John Hoff is not protected by the First Amendment because he does not objectively report the news or have journalistic standards.
That argument perplexes some experts on free speech.
"I think that probably doesn't have a chance," said journalism professor Victoria Ekstrand of Bowling Green State University, who added the First Amendment protects bloggers as much as traditional journalists.
[...] A wide range of similar cases around the country is seeking to clarify free speech issues in a digital landscape. A Louisiana politician sued a newspaper for remarks made by online commenters. And earlier this week, musician Courtney Love settled out of court for Twitter rants against a clothing designer.
Still, Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University who wrote a book on the Internet and the First Amendment, says [...] "If we're going to start seeing more of these suits brought against bloggers, we're almost naturally are going to see a timidity from bloggers because they don't want to pay the costs of having to defend the suits, [...]."
Blogger John Hoff, however, is not paying for legal representation. News of his defamation suit garnered the attention of a Harvard University group working to protect the rights of online media.
That group found an attorney to defend Hoff pro bono [...]
[italics emphasis added] From first learning of the suit, I have been puzzled by Clark's contention that Johnny Northside is not "press."
Who cares, is my reaction.
Press allowances, per the New York Times v Sullivan case hinge in part on the exigency of reporting, getting the story out timely in balance against how much caution is needed to nail down every fact.
Ask yourself, would you want your favorite blog, or your favorite news outlet, to consistently give you last week's news?
Blogging is no different that way, when immediate news is posted vs. opinion and analysis without a compelling "today" timeframe.
The exigent pressure of time applies in both instances: Mainstream media, Johnny Northside.
------------------------
I mentioned that "no journalistic standards" thing to my brother-in-law.
His terse answer was, "Unlike?"
Good point. I suppose attorney Clark means unlike Bill O'Rielly, Glen Beck, Sean Hanity, Rachel Maddow, or Kieth Olbermann, by lacking "press" standards.
Unlike Bill Buckley as a journalist? Journalist Buckley had his own shenanigans as a defamation plaintiff, e.g., here, whether you'd have thought him "fascist" or not.
Is Moore contending Johnny Northside should be featuring some kind of Olbermann-like worse person of the day posting, (worse and first and second runner-ups), and that had Hoff named Terry Moore worse person, things would be fine?
Is that the "press" distinction intended?
BOTTOM LINE: I cannot understand what Moore's lawyer means exactly, not "press," and how it should make any difference.
-----------------------------
One difference from MSM - Hoff lacks the deep pocket to reach into, unlike WCCO locally, for example, and Hoff also likely declines to purchase defamation insurance. The chilling effect of this kind of litigation is real for folks situated that way. Having to rely upon pro bono representation. Other than that, no deep pocket ---- again, so what?
Clark appears to be making a distinction without a difference.
Could she sue me for that opinion?
Hope not. Don't want no process server at my door. I aint no Tabloid.
-----------------------------
I wonder what expert Moore intends to offer in court to say what universal press "standards" are, in any context. Times of London, New York Review of Books, Popular Mechanics, Tabloids, Fox, E! Online, TMZ, MTV, or otherwise.
Give me a break. Where are you going to find anyone with that sort of one-size-fits-all-other-sizes-don't-fit opinion to say what Johnny Northside does is not real "press?" With well-regarded unimpeachable credentials showing expertise?
I admit I might be surprised, but without an expert, or someone who can say what the general standard of care is within the local blogging community based on learning, research, expertise and experience, and to then say as a professional opinion that Hoff over-stepped the line somehow in a cogently explainable way, absent that done credibly, what's Jill Clark going to do but deliver hand-waving argument in front of the jury, crying towel in hand, "Jerry lost his only income?"
If I were judge, and that kind of "not press" thing were baldly asserted, without expert testimony and/or legal authority saying it made a whit of difference to split hairs that way, I would not let it be argued to the jury nor would I put such stuff into any jury instruction.
Not being the judge, it will be interesting to wait and see what is decided, that way.
--------------------------------
Collins' NPR item is less directly on point than Yuen's. He considers, aside from litigation, how the media polices itself. Also, he indicates that any perpetual how-blogs-differ-from-mainstream-media discourse gets stale very quickly.
As to whether blogs are more adventursome than MSM, Collins mentions Jay Near, in Minnesota, in the 'twenties.
In self-policing terms, Collins in an earlier post considered the Minnesota News Council, a self-policing body Mike Hatch might have opinions about.
Yet Hatch and Strib (and other media) never got into litigation against one another, dispite remaining online evidence of dispute, e.g., here, here, and here. And blog reporting then included timely note-and-quote coverage of MSM's effort, indicating interrelationships that overlap and cannot be easily disentangled or distinguished.
Add to that having Lloydletta's Nooz, Crabgrass, Johnny Northside, and Brodkorb's MDE (now in surrogate hands, but still Brodkorb's in spirit if not in fact), each with its own focus, ambiance, and personality; and it becomes hard to say "blogging" is this and that, while MSM is something else.
There is a spectrum, not polar opposites easily seen as one or the other, (beyond format - using Blogger or Wordpress), and publishing individually or in a small unpaid group vs. being a commercial for-profit thing with greater resources and salaried staff to write and edit.