SOCIAL MEDIA, DEFAMATION AND THE NEW JERSEY REPORTERS’ SHIELD LAW – PART II
PRIVILEGES OF CONFIDENTIALITY HAVE LONG BEEN A PART OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. Under the right conditions, specially-designated individuals are allowed to keep confidential certain kinds of communications made to them, and to refuse to disclose them to a court, government agency or other authority. Traditionally, privileged communications included those between husband and wife, priest and penitent, attorney and client, doctor and patient. These privileges are not absolute – each is subject to limitations about the nature, timing and purpose of the communications – but the concept has survived in common law for centuries.
During the past few decades, many states have adopted a limited privilege allowing news reporters and outlets to keep secret the identity of confidential sources cited in their articles. The public policy rationale is that society benefits from investigative journalism which uncovers corruption, lawbreaking or scandal on the part of public officials, which might not be possible without confidential informants. The “Deep Throat” of the Nixon-era Watergate affair is a prominent example. On the other hand, law enforcement agencies often press for compelled disclosure of the identity of “leakers” on the grounds that the public benefits from the investigation of possible crimes.
NEW JERSEY’S REPORTER’S SHIELD LAW gives journalists the privilege of protecting the confidentiality of their sources and their newsgathering activities, subject to various restrictions and requirements. In the internet age, the definitions of “journalist” and “newsgathering” seem less clearcut. Discussions of important public issues take place online. Every year, more people get their news and information from online sources rather than traditional news outlets. Bloggers and social media users post information, sometimes from unidentified sources, revealing apparent corruption, lawbreaking or scandal. The courts are now wrestling with the issue of to what extent such internet communicators are entitled to the protections of the Reporter’s Shield Law.
In a recent case, an individual posted numerous messages on a public internet message board alleging that a business was engaged in criminal activities. The business sued the individual for defamation and demanded to take her deposition to discover the identity of her sources of information. The plaintiff claimed the protection of the Reporter’s Shield Law. Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that the Shield Law did not apply because the posting of messages on the internet in this case was not sufficiently similar to traditional news media activities as defined in the Shield Law. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, but added that under the right circumstances, a blogger could qualify for Shield Law protection. This, of course, means that there will be more cases brought in the future- stay tuned.
This entry was posted in MMJ Commentary. Bookmark the
permalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback:
Trackback URL.
Social Media Part 2 – Bloggers & the NJ Reporter Shield Law
SOCIAL MEDIA, DEFAMATION AND THE NEW JERSEY REPORTERS’ SHIELD LAW – PART II
PRIVILEGES OF CONFIDENTIALITY HAVE LONG BEEN A PART OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. Under the right conditions, specially-designated individuals are allowed to keep confidential certain kinds of communications made to them, and to refuse to disclose them to a court, government agency or other authority. Traditionally, privileged communications included those between husband and wife, priest and penitent, attorney and client, doctor and patient. These privileges are not absolute – each is subject to limitations about the nature, timing and purpose of the communications – but the concept has survived in common law for centuries.
During the past few decades, many states have adopted a limited privilege allowing news reporters and outlets to keep secret the identity of confidential sources cited in their articles. The public policy rationale is that society benefits from investigative journalism which uncovers corruption, lawbreaking or scandal on the part of public officials, which might not be possible without confidential informants. The “Deep Throat” of the Nixon-era Watergate affair is a prominent example. On the other hand, law enforcement agencies often press for compelled disclosure of the identity of “leakers” on the grounds that the public benefits from the investigation of possible crimes.
NEW JERSEY’S REPORTER’S SHIELD LAW gives journalists the privilege of protecting the confidentiality of their sources and their newsgathering activities, subject to various restrictions and requirements. In the internet age, the definitions of “journalist” and “newsgathering” seem less clearcut. Discussions of important public issues take place online. Every year, more people get their news and information from online sources rather than traditional news outlets. Bloggers and social media users post information, sometimes from unidentified sources, revealing apparent corruption, lawbreaking or scandal. The courts are now wrestling with the issue of to what extent such internet communicators are entitled to the protections of the Reporter’s Shield Law.
In a recent case, an individual posted numerous messages on a public internet message board alleging that a business was engaged in criminal activities. The business sued the individual for defamation and demanded to take her deposition to discover the identity of her sources of information. The plaintiff claimed the protection of the Reporter’s Shield Law. Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that the Shield Law did not apply because the posting of messages on the internet in this case was not sufficiently similar to traditional news media activities as defined in the Shield Law. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, but added that under the right circumstances, a blogger could qualify for Shield Law protection. This, of course, means that there will be more cases brought in the future- stay tuned.