Ore. judge rules blogger is not journalist

This a tough one... While bloggers should be free to speak out, they should also be liable for inaccuracies just as the rest of the media should be. I love our freedom of speech, but that does not mean anyone can say whatever they wish without any consequences.

I am sure that's what the constitution framers intended, only news corporations should have free speech. (sarcasm)

This isn't a very useful story without more facts. I'd be interested to know how serious a blogger this person is. Everyone and their brother can blog on a personal blog. I wouldn't expect the shield laws to apply. But some bloggers derive serious revenue from blogging. If the blogging is "serious", I would expect the laws to apply.

Left out of the story was the criteria by which Mr. Marco Herdanez made his ruling. I'm sure the tortured logic would have made for some grimly humorous reading. Unless, of course, Mr. Herdanez decided "Because I say so!" was all the logic he needed? o_O

The "shield laws" are for journalist who are reporting in "Authorized Personnel Only" areas to supposedly make sure that information is not hidden from the public. Most of what they do is "Suspension of disbelief " marketing and propaganda so they suck at reporting real facts. Bloggers are more important than reporters because they have a personal stake in what they are saying and journalist (like other pornographers) only do it for the money.

Again, Thomas Paine was a blogger! THE JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW THE LAW: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This 1st amendment right was not meant to protect "Journalist". When this was written the people were sending out "Blogs" via pamphlets. PEOPLE don't need the EF-ing" Oregon's shield law" because it is covered by the constitution. She has a right to state her oppinion. Cut all Federal Funding to Montana. They have just shown proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we have wasted our money on their education system and they that they need to be defunded. Fire that Judge!

Did anybody notice, $2.5 million?

Artisimo 2000.
EVEN FREE speech DOES have limitations, which is why we have laws against slander and defamation.
To paraphrase in another context: Benjamin Franklin said, regarding freedom "Your right to swing your cane ends at the tip of my nose." SHE exceeded that limitation!

Free speech is under attack. What's next?

and Thomas Paine wouldn't have been a journalist either.

I agree with the judge. Too often people write half truths and lies take hurt others and businesses. They need to be held responsible for what they write.

So the lawyer Judge sides with the lawyer plaintiff. No discimination here.

The greatest thing about this comment section is I can make an anonymous comment to get my pent up aggressions out or feel better about myself by putting someone down.
I can be funny or clever or self-righteous and I get some instant ego gratification from it.
I can express all of my thoughts that I would never say aloud or to someone in person.
This is the best by-product of technology ever.

This is a clear violation of freedom of speech and of the press. this will be overturned. this sets such a bad precedent that any thing you say even on your face book to your friends about what you think would be considered for this kinda lawsuit. When is any one or company Employed or used by a federal,state,county or municipality not public record and therefore in the public eye? Not to mention every bankruptcy filling is a public record and of public interest by nature. If the justice department and the federal judiciary is not looking at this ruling something is wrong.

And the rich get richer!

Oregon. The Community Police State.