One of the more intriguing views of the recent California case extending the protection of that state’s shield law to bloggers is suggested by Michael’s recent article on the case. After noting that the purpose of such protections is to shield the public’s right to know and protect society’s interest in keeping power honest, Michael observes that the Court is “effectively stating that we can all play a role in keeping our leaders accountable”.
This role was one of the themes we touched on at mesh, and something we hope to delve into more in the future – that the democratization of publishing could exert a democratizing influence as well. And it’s worth noting that in this age of media agglomeration, increasing financial pressures on news-gathering organizations, news-tainment and an apparently declining interest of the Fourth Estate in vigorously fulfilling this responsibility, an active citizenry may ultimately prove to be more important than we now suppose.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I fear the technology is way out in front of the law on this one. Canadian defamation laws place the onus squarely on the bloggers to defend their speech – something most bloggers can ill afford -, and deny them qualified privilege in the public interest save in extraordinary circumstances.