Media ignores precedent-setting decision for online news

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:23:20 -0600
From: "Alberto M. Giordano" <narconews [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: CS Monitor: "Media ignores precedent-setting decision for online news"

from the December 20, 2001 edition
Christian Science Monitor

< http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1220/p13s1-stin.html >

Court extends print and media protections online

By Tom Regan

In a court decision that was largely overlooked by the mainstream media, a
New York Supreme Court judge has issued a ruling in a libel case that
extends the same speech protections to online journalists that their print,
radio, and TV colleagues have enjoyed since the famous Sullivan v. New York
Times decision of 1964.

More important, it means that states, politicians and powerful corporate
entities will have a much harder time taking online journalists to court in
the United States for statements that may have been made in the United
States, or even in other countries.

The decision also offers the protection of the First Amendment of the US
Constitution to any journalistic website in the world that might find itself
sued for libel in a US court.

The case in question concerned the National Bank of Mexico against
Narconews.com, a Mexican website that covers the drug wars in Latin America.
The "Bank," also known as Banamex and now a part of Citigroup, sued a
Mexican newspaper editor and Narconews.com for publishing stories that
alleged its then-president was linked to narcotics trafficking.

The bank sued in New York because it claimed newspaper editor Mario Menendez
and website editor Al Giordano made libelous statements at public forums in
New York. It also claimed that eight articles on the Narconews.com site were
libelous, and since narconews.com was registered with a Post Office box in
New York (although it is based in Mexico), it could sue the website.

If Banamex had succeeded in its libel claim, it would have meant that any
individual, organization, or state could sue in the US an online journalist
in any part of the world for stories published on a website, even if that
website was not in the US. It would have created an enormous chill because,
as some experts have argued, it would have deterred journalists from
reporting online about important issues in their countries.

When rendering her decision, New York Supreme Court Judge Paula Omansky,
cited the "heightened protection of the First Amendment" of the Sullivan v.
New York Times decision that established the press freedoms known so well
today. This was the first time any court had extended those protections to
the Web.But the decision also had ramifications for US online journalists.
In her decision, the judge wrote, "Since principles of defamation law may be
applied to the Internet ... this court determines that Narco News, its
website, and the writers who post information, are entitled to all the First
Amendment protections accorded a newspaper-magazine or journalist in
defamation suits ...." This means that anyone suing online journalists would
have to prove they knowingly lied or were deliberately malicious - the same
standards that are used with traditional media.

Basically, it offers the same protections enjoyed by newspapers like the New
York Times and The Christian Science Monitor to all online journalists, no
matter how small their websites, if they can show that they were reporting
on a matter of public concern, and did so without malice.

And as First Amendment scholar Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum said in
an interview with the Boston Phoenix, what is most encouraging is that the
judge's ruling "recognized that the Constitution does not specify who may -
or may not - be a journalist. ... Because the First Amendment prohibits the
definition of a journalist, just about anybody with a website, it seems to
me, can define themselves as a journalist entitled to the protection of
Times v. Sullivan. And that, to me, is a good thing," Mr. McMasters said in
the interview with Mr. Kennedy.

Banamex says it is still considering whether it will appeal the decision to
a higher state court.

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt [at] coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************